Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters:
A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts
A Companion Document to the Watershed-Specific Pathogen TMDL Reports
Prepared for:
USEPA New England Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, MA 02114-2023
wj.r.-riwrm
Prepared by:
2 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 TMDL Program Requirements 1-2
1.2 Pathogens and Indicator Bacteria 1-2
1.3 Causes of Pathogen Impairment 1-3
1.3.1 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Urban and Suburban Areas 1-3
1.3.2 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Agricultural Areas and Other Areas Where
Animals are Confined 1-3
1.3.3 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Recreational Waters 1-4
1.4 Microbial Source Tracking 1-4
2.0 APPROACH TO TMDL IMPLEMENTATION 2-1
3.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN AREAS 3-1
3.1 Stormwater 3-1
3.1.1 General Resources - for Urban and Suburban Stormwater Mitigation 3-7
3.1.2 Pathogen Source Reductions 3-8
3.1.3 Structural Stormwater Mitigation Measures 3-12
3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance 3-12
3.1.5 Financing Urban Stormwater Management 3-12
3.2 Septic Systems 3-15
3.2.1 Mitigation Measures - Septic Systems 3-15
3.2.2 Financing of Septic System Upgrades and Replacement 3-18
3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows 3-19
3.3.1 Mitigation Measures- Combined Sewer Overflows 3-19
4.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND USE 4-1
4.1 Mitigation Measures - Field Application of Manure 4-1
4.2 Mitigation Measures-Grazing Management 4-2
4.3 Mitigation Measures-Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and Barnyards 4-3
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc i July, 2005
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
4.4 Massachusetts and Federal Agriculture Resources: Program Overviews, Technical
Assistance, and Funding 4-5
5.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SWIMMING BEACHES, BOATS, AND MARINAS 5-1
5.1 Mitigation Measures - Swimming Beaches and Fresh, Estuarine, and Marine Waters 5-2
5.2 Mitigation Measures - Pathogens from Boats 5-4
5.2.1 Establishing No Discharge Areas 5-4
5.2.2 Ensuring Clean and Adequate Pumpout Facilities and Shore-Side Restrooms are
Available 5-6
5.2.3 Outreach and Education 5-7
5.2.4 Reducing the Impact of Gray Water Discharges 5-7
5.3 Resources- Pathogens from Boats 5-8
5.4 Mitigation Measures - Pathogens from Marinas 5-9
5.5 Mitigation Measure - Improve Marina Flushing 5-11
5.6 Financing 5-12
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
Appendix A Additional Watershed Funding, Outreach Tools, and Strategies
Appendix B Municipalities in Massachusetts Regulated by the Phase II NPDES
Stormwater Permit Program
Appendix C Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Protocol
Guidance for Consideration-November 2004
Appendix D Structural Stormwater Mitigation Practices
Appendix E Towns and Cities Participating in the Comprehensive Community Septic
Management Program
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
July, 2005
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Enabling Factors for Supporting Pathogen Mitigation 2-3
Table 2-2 Examples of Financing Sources for Mitigating Pathogen Pollution 2-3
Table 3-1 Management Practices, Mitigation Provided, and Land Use Applicability Matrix 3-2
Table 3-2 Do's and Don'ts of Private Septic System Management 3-17
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc III July, 2005
-------
List of Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practice
CPU Colony Forming Unit
CPR Coastal Pollutant Remediation grant program
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
CWA: Federal Clean Water Act
CZM Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
DMF Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
HUC Hydrological Unit Code
IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
LIDS Low Impact Development Strategies
MA DEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
MDAR Massachusetts Department of Agriculture Resources
MEP Maximum Extent Practicable
MHFA Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority
MPN Most Probably Number
MSD Marine Sanitation Device
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NDA No Discharge Area
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
July, 2005
-------
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (typically in reference to a state and
federal discharge permit to surface water)
NPS Non Point Source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
UV Ultraviolet
WQM Water Quality Management
WQS Water Quality Standards
WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plant
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc Z July, 2005
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This manual provides guidance for mitigating water pollution caused by pathogens. Certain bacteria,
such as coliforms, E-coli, and enterococcus are indicators of pathogenic contamination from sewage
and/or the feces of warm-blooded animals. As such, the state water quality standards establish
minimum bacteria criteria to protect public health from pathogens. Although not all bacteria are
pathogenic the words "pathogens" and "bacteria" are used interchangeably in this document.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for bacteria have been established for each watershed in
Massachusetts. This document provides a wide range of implementation techniques that may be
applied to reduce bacterial pollution and achieve WQS in surface waters. Stakeholders should use
this document to identify bacterial sources and to take appropriate actions to reduce their effects.
The intended audience for this document includes the following stakeholders: municipal personnel,
watershed groups, and private citizens responsible for, or interested in, mitigating bacterial pollution to
surface waters. Municipal personnel include departments of public works, water and sewer
commissions, conservation commissions, boards of health, harbormasters, and others.
In this document, pathogen sources and appropriate mitigation measures are organized based on the
land use type they are associated with. Urban, suburban, and agricultural land uses are considered in
this document. In addition, mitigation measures are discussed to address bacterial pollution from
swimmers, boats, and marinas. Potential bacteria pollution sources include:
In urban and suburban areas - stormwater runoff, leaking sewer pipes, failing septic
systems, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and pet waste;
In agricultural areas - field application of manure, grazing livestock, animal feeding
operations; and areas where animals are confined (e.g., paddocks); and
In recreational waters - sewage and gray water from boats and marina facilities, swimmers,
wildlife, and pet waste.
For each source, a set of mitigation measures is described. For each mitigation measure, several
factors are discussed including appropriate settings and expected effectiveness at reducing pathogen
loading.
This introductory section provides an overview of TMDL program requirements, an introduction to
pathogens and indicator bacteria, and a discussion of the causes of pathogen impairment. Section 2
provides a description of the recommended approach to implementing bacterial TMDLs. Sections 3, 4,
and 5 provide descriptions of mitigation measures designed to reduce pathogen/bacteria loads to
achieve WQS. Some information and text in this document was taken directly from The
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 1-1 July, 2005
-------
Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual (MA DEP 2004). This manual is
scheduled to be available at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP)
website (http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm) in the near future - although the exact
location where this document will appear on the website is undetermined as of the date of this
document.
1.1 TMDL Program Requirements
The Clean Water Act (CWA) (Section 303(d)) requires States to monitor waters, to identify waters not
meeting State water quality standards (WQS), and to develop TMDLs to bring those waters back into
compliance with WQS. A TMDL is the sum of loads (point and non-point sources) of a pollutant that a
waterbody can receive and still meet WQS.
TMDL implementation is the focus of this guidance manual. A TMDL implementation plan is
necessary to reduce pollutant loading and ultimately achieve WQS. Once TMDLs are established and
approved by EPA, Section 303(e) of the CWA and Water Quality Planning and Management
Regulations (40 CFR 130.6 and 130.7) require incorporation of TMDLs into the State's current Water
Quality Management (WQM) plan and their application to direct monitoring and implementation
activities. This guidance manual is designed to support development of TMDL implementation plans to
accompany each Pathogen TMDL.
1.2 Pathogens and Indicator Bacteria
The Massachusetts Pathogen TMDLs are designed to reduce the release of disease-causing
organisms, known as pathogens, into surface waters and thus reduce public health risk. Waterborne
pathogens enter surface waters from a variety of sources including sewage and the feces of warm-
blooded wildlife. Even small numbers of microorganisms from sewage wastes can cause diseases,
such as hepatitis, in people who consume or come in contact with the water. Pathogens can also
contaminate shellfish and make them unsuitable for human consumption. A secondary benefit to
reducing human and animal waste discharges to waterways is a reduction in materials that cause
oxygen depletion and associated degradation of water quality.
Waterborne pathogens include a broad range of bacteria and viruses that are difficult to identify and
isolate. Thus, certain bacteria are used as indicator organisms. Indicator bacteria are easier to identify
in the environment and are associated with other pathogens known to be harmful to human health.
Bacteria used as indicator bacteria include fecal coliform, enterococci, and fecal streptococci. High
densities of indicator bacteria indicate the likely presence of pathogenic organisms. The
Massachusetts Watershed Pathogen TMDLs have been developed based on measurements of
indicator bacteria.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 1-2 July, 2005
-------
1.3 Causes of Pathogen Impairment
Causes of pathogen impairment include a myriad of human activities closely associated with
developed land uses (including agricultural, urban, and suburban land use). In this document, sources
of pathogens and management measures are organized based on land use. This section summarizes
typical causes of pathogen impairment for urban, suburban, agricultural, and recreational water use.
1.3.1 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Urban and Suburban Areas
Stormwater is an important source of bacteria in urban and suburban areas. Urbanized and suburban
land use increases the amount of impervious surface relative to undeveloped areas. The result is
increased rates and volumes of runoff. This runoff washes bacteria from a wide range of sources into
surface waters through stormwater systems or as overland flow directly into surface waters. Pet waste
and wildlife can be significant sources of bacteria in urban and suburban areas. Illicit discharges to
stormwater systems may also contribute to high bacteria concentrations in stormwater.
Combined sewers, which collect stormwater and sanitary sewage in one interconnected system, can
also be a significant source of pathogens to receiving waters. During wet weather, CSO discharge
events and decreased wastewater treatment plant effectiveness can result in significant discharges of
pathogens. CSOs occur when high volumes of stormwater overload the system resulting in the
discharge of untreated sewage.
Failing private septic systems can be another significant source of pathogen impairment in urban and
suburban areas. When properly installed, operated, and maintained, septic systems effectively reduce
pathogen concentrations in sewage. However, age, overloading, or poor maintenance can result in
failure of septic systems and the release of pathogens and other pollutants (USEPA 2002).
Section 3 describes mitigation measures, including recommended Best Management Practices
(BMPs), to reduce pathogen loads to achieve WQS in urban and suburban areas.
1.3.2 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Agricultural Areas and Other Areas Where
Animals are Confined
Agricultural land uses in Massachusetts include: dairy farming, the penning or raising of livestock
(including hogs, fowl, horses, llamas, alpacas and other animals), crop farming, and use of land for
pastures and paddocks. Agricultural land use can contribute to bacterial impairment of surface waters.
Land uses with the potential to contribute to pathogen pollution include:
Field applications of manure and/or manure storage,
Livestock grazing, and
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 1-3 July, 2005
-------
Animal feeding operations, barnyards and paddocks.
In agricultural areas, bacteria can reach adjacent streams through a variety of pathways. One typical
pathway is via runoff whereby bacteria wash off land surfaces into adjacent streams. Section 4
describes mitigation measures, including recommended BMPs, designed to reduce the contribution of
pathogens from agriculture.
1.3.3 Causes of Pathogen Impairment in Recreational Waters
Recreational waters may receive inputs of bacteria from a variety of land-based sources addressed
above. In addition, there are a number of sources of bacteria that are specific to recreational
environments. These sources include swimmers, wildlife, pets, sewage and gray water from boats, and
marina facilities.
Swimmers themselves may contribute to bacterial impairment at swimming areas. When swimmers
enter the water, residual fecal matter and urine may be washed from the body and contaminate the
water with pathogens. Control of bacterial contamination at recreational beaches is particularly
important since large numbers of people are regularly in contact with the water at beaches.
Discharges of sewage and gray water (includes wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundry facilities)
from boats are also potential sources of pathogens to marine and freshwaters. Boats are most likely to
contribute to pathogen impairment in situations where large numbers congregate in enclosed
environments with low tidal flushing. Section 5 describes mitigation measures designed to reduce
pathogen loads from these sources.
1.4 Microbial Source Tracking
A key challenge to implementing pathogen TMDLs is identifying the sources of pathogens. Identifying
which sources of pathogens are most important in a watershed assists in choosing appropriate
mitigation strategies. Sources of pathogens include humans, wildlife, pets, and livestock. One
promising technique for identifying which sources are contributing to impairment is microbial source
tracking. Each source of pathogens produces unique, identifiable genetic material. Microbial or
bacterial source tracking uses this genetic material to identify sources of contamination. More
information on microbial or bacterial source tracking is available at:
EPA New England Regional Laboratory Website. Available at: http://www.epa.qov/ne/lab
Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Bacterial Source Tracking. USEPA 2002. EPA 832-F-
02-010. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/bacsortk.pdf
Microbial Source Tracking Guide Document. USEPA 2005. EPA 600-R-05-064. Available
at: http://www.sfbaviv.org/pdfs/EPAMicrobialSourceTrackingGuideDocument June2005.pdf
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 1-4 July, 2005
-------
2.0 APPROACH TO TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
The Massachusetts Pathogen TMDLs that have been developed include a compilation of ambient
bacteria data and information on potential pathogen sources. The next step in the process is
developing a TMDL implementation strategy to reduce pathogen loads to achieve acceptable water
quality. This section provides a recommended TMDL implementation strategy. The strategy applies
an adaptive management approach to reducing pathogens. The process is iterative. Data are
gathered on an ongoing basis; specific sources are identified and eliminated, if possible; and control
measures including BMPs, are implemented, assessed, and modified, as needed.
The TMDL implementation strategy should be part of a comprehensive watershed-specific
management program. Recommended steps for developing and applying TMDL implementation plans
for each watershed are as follows:
1. Review the watershed's Pathogen TMDL report and data;
2. Review, when available, the following information sources:
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) Water Quality
Assessment Report for the watershed in question, available on the MA DEP website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm:
The DMF Sanitary Surveys, available on the DMF website:
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandproiects/shelsani.htm:
Local Department of Public Works or Highway files for locations of stormwater discharge
pipes;
Land-use information to identify potential agricultural sources including vegetable farms,
dairy farms, pasturelands, as well as areas where horses and/or other animals are kept;
Local Board of Health records to determine septic system failures;
Local beach bacteria monitoring data;
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Buzzards Bay or
Massachussetts Bays if appropriate. Available at:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/massbays/ccmp.htm and
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/ccmptoc.htm
Information from local watershed associations;
Local reports on high concentrations of waterfowl; and
Local reports on pet waste issues.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 2-1 July, 2005
-------
3. Conduct a detailed source identification and characterization program:
Use local knowledge (e.g., from local Departments of Public Works, Boards of Health, and
watershed groups) and draw on other ongoing programs (e.g., National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
stormwater discharge inventories and illicit discharge detection programs);
Conduct on-the-ground reconnaissance to identify potential sources;
Review infrastructure maps (e.g., storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and CSO maps) to identify
potential sources; and
Review other available information (e.g., septic tank locations, ages, and reports of failures)
to identify potential sources.
4. Prioritize pathogen sources for mitigation. High priority should be assigned to the sources that
can be most cost effectively addressed;
5. Use this Implementation Guidance Manual to support identification of specific management
techniques to mitigate or remove each source or type of source;
6. Develop detailed site-specific designs and programs for each management practice;
7. Identify funding options to remediate the highest priority pathogen sources;
8. Implement management practices to mitigate pathogen sources;
9. Monitor changes in receiving waters as management practices are implemented (including pre-
implementation monitoring) and re-evaluate pathogen sources; and
10. Revisit and/or repeat Steps 3 through 9, as needed until WQS are achieved.
In most watersheds, pathogen sources are many and diffuse. As a result, appropriate management
practices must be selected, designed, and implemented at numerous locations to mitigate adverse
impacts and control pathogen impairment. The most appropriate suite of management practices will
vary depending on land use and pathogen source.
In many cases, the most effective approach to mitigating pathogen pollution is through methods such
as outreach and education and the enactment of bylaws and ordinances. These methods can be
relatively cost effective and promoting pollution prevention and good housekeeping. Examples of
outreach and education methods and ordinances and bylaws are provided in Table 2-1. Specific
information on addressing pathogen sources using these approaches is provided in Sections 3.1.5,
3.2.2, and 4.7.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 2-2 July, 2005
-------
Table 2-1 Enabling Factors for Supporting Pathogen Mitigation
Approach
Examples
Outreach and Education
Brochures and fact sheets
Public service announcements
Watershed associations
Signs
Mailings
School activities
Websites
Storm drain stenciling
Watershed and beach cleanups
Sponsored speaking engagements
Trainings
Commercials
Bylaws and Ordinances
Create stormwater utilities
Require clean up of pet waste
Prohibit wildlife feeding or other activities that encourage wildlife
congregation
Designate no discharge areas (NDAs) for sewage from boats
One potential challenge to addressing pathogen pollution is locating funds. Examples of some funding
sources that may be applicable to reducing pathogen pollution are given in Table 2-2. In addition,
resources (including websites and documents) are provided with more information about specific
funding opportunities.
Table 2-2 Examples of Financing Sources for Mitigating Pathogen Pollution (more information and
resources are provided in sections 3.1.5, 3.2.2, 4.4, and 5.6)
Source of Funding
Federal
State
Local
Examples
Section 319 program
Conservation Security Program
Conservation Reserve Program
Wetlands Reserve Program
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
Grassland Reserve Program
Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program
Wildlife habitat reserve program
Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program
Resource Conservation and Development Program
National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation
State Revolving Loan Fund
Coastal Pollutant Remediation Grant Program
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program
Homeowner septic loan program
Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program
Title 5 Tax Credit
Massachusetts Clean Marina Initiative
Stormwater Utilities
Property Taxes
Private Foundations
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
2-3
July, 2005
-------
Management practices described in the following sections are designed to address a wide range of
impacts associated different types of land use. When these practices are implemented, major
improvements in watershed health, well beyond reductions in pathogen loading, can be realized.
Thus, development and application of the TMDL implementation plan will have far reaching benefits to
the watershed. Each of the following sections provides information on mitigation measures, funding
opportunities and resources for additional information.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 2-4 July, 2005
-------
3.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN AND SUBURBAN AREAS
The following sections provide a compilation of management practices for reducing pathogen loads in
urban and suburban areas. Urban and suburban land use is used herein to refer to residential
(including urban and suburban areas), commercial, and industrial areas. Although they have different
characteristics, these land uses are grouped together because they typically have similar sources of
pathogens and associated mitigation measures. Mitigation measures are organized by the source of
pathogens they address:
Stormwater-related (Section 3.1)
Pet waste (Section 3.1.2.3)
Wildlife (Section 3.1.2.5)
Septic systems (Section 3.2)
CSOs (Section 3.3)
For each source type, management practices for mitigating impacts are briefly described and sources
for more detailed information (including websites and documents) are provided.
Table 3-1 is a summary of mitigation measures for the pathogen sources discussed in this document,
their applicability for various land uses, and their impact on hydrology and water quality. The ratings
for applicability and mitigation provided in the table are subjective. This matrix is intended to assist
resource managers in evaluating the suitability of each management practice to a given situation.
3.1 Stormwater
The 1998 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress identified urban runoff as one of the
leading sources of water quality impairment in surface waters. Of the 11 pollution categories listed in
the report, urban runoff/storm sewers was ranked as the sixth leading source of impairment in rivers,
fourth in lakes, and second in estuaries (USEPA, 2000b). Stormwater is likely to be particularly
significant in Massachusetts because the state is almost 40% urbanized, making it the fourth most
urbanized state in the country (FHA 1998).
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-1 July, 2005
-------
Urbanization and development drastically change the hydrology of our watersheds by increasing the
amount of surface runoff. Urbanization begins with the removal of trees, vegetation, and topsoil.
These natural features play an important role in allowing rainfall to slowly infiltrate and provide
continuous recharge to streams, wetlands and aquifers. Replacing these features with impervious
surface (highways, roads, parking areas, sidewalks, roofs, shopping centers, and malls) increases the
amount of rainfall that runs off a given area. This runoff is usually collected on roadsides, directed into
catch basins, and discharged into the nearest stream, pond, or wetland. Conventional drainage
systems prevent water from flowing into the ground and filtering through the soil before ending up in
surface or ground waters. This reduces the amount of groundwater recharge and base flow to rivers.
Runoff washes bacteria from a myriad of sources into stormwater systems and eventually into surface
waters. Typical values for fecal coliform concentrations in urban runoff are 15,000 to 20,000 fecal
coliform colonies per 100 ml (Center for Watershed Protection 2003). Stormwater runoff from urban
areas may also carry a variety of other pollutants, including sediment, organic matter, nutrients, metals,
fertilizers, and pesticides. In addition, the increased rate of runoff causes higher flow rates in streams,
increased erosion (often leading to stream stabilization issues), and increased flood rates. The large
volumes of stormwater and the high concentrations of bacteria in urban runoff often make stormwater
the most significant contributor of bacteria to water bodies in urban and suburban watersheds.
Stormwater runoff can be categorized in two forms: point source discharges and non-point source
discharges (includes sheet flow or direct runoff). Many point source stormwater discharges to waters
of the United States and the Commomwealth are regulated under the NPDES Phase I and Phase II
permitting programs. Boston and Worcester are the only communities in Massachusetts subject to
Phase I requirements. Communities in Massachusetts subject to Phase II requirements are listed in
Appendix B. Municipalities that operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) subject to
phase II stormwater requirements must develop and implement a stormwater management plan
(SWMP) which must employ, and set measurable goals for six minimum control measures. Each of
these six minimum control measures is described briefly below and in fact sheets available at:
http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm7program id=6. Individual municipalities not
regulated under the Phase I or II may implement the same six control measures for minimizing
stormwater contamination.
1. Public education and outreach
Stormwater educational materials may be provided by states, tribes, EPA, environmental,
public interest, or trade organizations. The public education program should inform individuals
and households about the steps they can take to reduce stormwater pollution, such as
ensuring proper septic system maintenance, pet waste control, and maintaining and/or
enhancing riparian vegetation. EPA recommends that the education program inform individuals
and groups how to become involved in local stream and beach restoration activities. In
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-3 July, 2005
-------
addition, the program should promote activities that are coordinated by youth service and
conservation corps or other citizen groups.
EPA recommends that the public education program be tailored, using a mix of locally
appropriate strategies, to target specific audiences and communities. Examples of strategies
include distributing brochures or fact sheets, sponsoring speaking engagements before
community groups, providing public service announcements, implementing educational
programs targeted at school age children, and conducting community-based projects such as
storm drain stenciling and watershed and beach cleanups. In addition, EPA recommends that
some of the materials or outreach programs be directed toward targeted groups of commercial,
industrial, and institutional entities likely to have significant stormwater impacts.
2. Public participation/involvement
EPA recommends that the public be included in developing, implementing, and reviewing
stormwater management programs, and that the public participation process be designed to
reach out and engage all economic and ethnic groups. Opportunities for members of the public
to participate in program development and implementation include serving as citizen
representatives on a local stormwater management panel, attending public hearings, working
as citizen volunteers to educate other individuals about the program, assisting in program
coordination with other pre-existing programs, or participating in volunteer monitoring efforts.
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Municipalities are required to develop illicit discharge detection and elimination plans. EPA
recommends that the plan include procedures for:
locating priority areas likely to have illicit discharges;
tracing the source of an illicit discharge;
removing the source of the discharge; and
evaluating and assessing the program.
EPA recommends visually screening outfalls during dry weather and conducting field tests of
selected pollutants as part of the procedures for locating priority areas. Illicit discharge
education actions may include storm drain stenciling; programs to promote, publicize, and
facilitate public reporting of illicit connections or discharges; and distribution of outreach
materials.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-4 July, 2005
-------
4. Construction site runoff control
Communities are encouraged to provide appropriate educational and training measures for
construction site operators. They may choose to require stormwater pollution prevention plans
for construction sites within their jurisdiction that discharge into their system.
5. Post construction runoff control
A number of BMPs may be incorporated into site design to minimize water quality impacts
associated with development. These post construction runoff controls may include low impact
design strategies and infiltration and detention structures (see Section 3.1.3 and Appendix D).
EPA recommends that the BMPs chosen be appropriate for the local community, minimize
water quality impacts, and attempt to maintain pre-development runoff conditions. When
choosing appropriate BMPs, EPA encourages entities engaged in construction activities to
participate in locally-based watershed planning efforts which attempt to involve a diverse group
of stakeholders including interested citizens.
6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping
Operation and maintenance should be an integral component of all stormwater management
programs. This component is intended to improve the efficiency of stormwater management
programs. Properly developed and implemented operation and maintenance programs reduce
the risk of water quality problems. EPA recommends that, at a minimum, communities consider
the following in developing their programs:
Maintenance activities, maintenance schedules, and long-term inspection procedures for
structural and nonstructural stormwater controls;
Controls for reducing or eliminating the discharge of pollutants from streets, roads,
highways, municipal parking lots, maintenance and storage yards, and fleet or
maintenance shops with outdoor storage areas;
Procedures for properly disposing of waste removed from the separate storm sewers and
areas listed above (such as dredge spoil, accumulated sediments, and other debris); and
Local by-laws and/or ordinances to address pathogen sources such as pet waste.
Stormwater discharges are not subject to numeric NPDES permit limits. Instead, maximum extent
practicable (MEP) is the statutory standard that establishes the level of pollutant reductions that
regulated municipalities must achieve. The MEP standard is a narrative effluent limitation that is
satisfied through implementation of SWMPs and achievement of measurable goals.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-5 July, 2005
-------
Non-point source (NPS) discharges are generally characterized as sheet flow runoff and are not
categorically regulated under the NPDES program. NPS discharges can be difficult to manage, but,
some of the same principles for mitigating point source impacts may be applicable.
Stormwater management programs are evolving and expanding in order to implement the Stormwater
Phase II requirements and address the adverse environmental effects of Stormwater. Municipalities
can no longer only address flood through the control of post-development Stormwater peak discharge
rates. Stormwater programs must now include erosion and sediment control measures during the
construction phase and minimize the discharge of pollutants after construction is completed by using
Stormwater treatment practices. Many of these efforts require the development and passage of new
regulations and ordinances at the municipal level. Stormwater programs must also include public
education efforts and focus more on the long-term maintenance of Stormwater systems. This additional
effort requires new financial resources or creative use of existing funds.
Reducing Stormwater contributions to pathogen impairment is difficult. Most mitigation measures for
Stormwater are not designed specifically to reduce bacteria concentrations. Instead, BMPs are
typically designed to remove sediment and other pollutants. Bacteria in Stormwater runoff are,
however, often attached to particulate matter. Therefore, treatment systems that remove sediment
may also provide reductions in bacteria concentrations.
Stormwater treatment methods may be either offline or online systems. Offline systems are designed
to only receive a prescribed volume of runoff (e.g., the first 0.5 inches); the remainder of the flow
bypasses the system. These systems have the advantage of treating all runoff from smaller rainfall
events and the initial flush of runoff from larger storms, which is generally more polluted, without the
capacity requirements for treating all of the runoff. Online systems generally receive all of the flow
from a given area. When flow volume exceeds the design capacity of systems their effectiveness at
removing pollutants is reduced.
Given the high concentrations of bacteria often found in Stormwater and the lack of targeted mitigation
measures, perhaps the most effective means of reducing Stormwater contributions to pathogen
impairment is to reduce the volume of runoff by increasing infiltration to groundwater. This approach
results in a reduction in flushing of bacteria from contaminated surfaces. Bacteria are removed from
water that infiltrates to groundwater by filtration through the soil matrix.
Minimizing the potential for runoff to come in contact with pathogens is another important means of
reducing stormwater's contribution to pathogen impairment. Septic systems, illicit discharges, pets,
and wildlife are all potentially important sources of pathogens to Stormwater. Information on addressing
these sources is in Section 3.1.2.
Once Stormwater BMPs have been constructed, operation and maintenance measures become
important to ensure that they remain effective. Stormwater can contain large loads of sediments and
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-6 July, 2005
-------
other debris that can rapidly reduce the effectiveness of many BMPs (USEPA 1999c). Therefore,
development of an operation and maintenance program that includes regular inspection, replacement,
and repair of stormwater BMPs is vital (see Section 3.1.4).
Brief descriptions of potentially applicable stormwater mitigation measures are provided below (see
also Table 3-1). The information provided here is intended only to provide an introduction to commonly
used stormwater treatment systems and approaches. The reader should refer to other sources to
assess applicability to a given setting, and for design guidelines (see Section 3.1.1.).
3.1.1 General Resources - for Urban and Suburban Stormwater Mitigation
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas -
Draft. 2002. EPA842-B-02-003. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
Stormwater Management Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Manual. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Management. 1997. Available at:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/stormwtr/stormpub.htm
Fact Sheets for the six minimum control measures for storm sewers regulated under Phase
I or Phase II. Available at:
http://cfpub1 .epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swfinal.cfm?program id=6
A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices. 1992. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC
Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
1987. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC
2004 Stormwater Quality Manual. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
2004. Available at: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/stormwater/strmwtrman.htm
Stormwater Treatment BMP New Technology Report. California Department of
Transportation. 2004. SW-04-069-.04.02 Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/ pdfs/new technologv/CTSW-
RT-04-069.pdf
Moonlight Beach Urban Runoff Treatment facility: Using Ultraviolet Disinfection to Reduce
Bacteria Counts. Rasmus, J. and K. Weldon. 2003. StormWater, May/June 2003. Available
at http://www.forester.net/sw 0305 moonlight.html
Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems.
Livingston, Shaver, Skupien, and Horner. August 1997. Watershed Management Institute.
Call: (850)926-5310.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-7 July, 2005
-------
Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources - Stormwater Control Operation and
Maintenance. USEPA Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/stormwater.htm
Stormwater O & M Fact Sheet Preventive Maintenance. USEPA 1999. 832-F-99-004.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/prevmain.pdf
The MassHighway Stormwater Handbook. Massachusetts Highway Department. 2004.
Available at: http://166.90.180.162/mhd/downloads/proiDev/swbook.pdf
University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center: Dedicated to the protection of water
resources through effective Stormwater management. Available at:
http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev/index.htm#
EPA's Stormwater website: http://www.epa.gov/region1/topics/water/stormwater.html
The Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual. Expected Availability:
Fall 2005 on the MA DEP Nonpoint Source Program Website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm The exact location of where the manual
will appear on the MA DEP website was not available at the time of publication of this
document.
3.1.2 Pathogen Source Reductions
There are a number of methods that reduce sources of pathogen to Stormwater. These include
eliminating illicit discharges to Stormwater systems and minimizing incorporation of pet and wildlife
waste into runoff. In contrast to many of the other mitigation options, pathogen source reductions are
targeted at the source of the problem rather than intercepting and treating contaminated water en route
to the water body. Focusing on the pathogen source reduction is often a cost effective way of reducing
pathogens in Stormwater.
3.1.2.1 Illicit Discharges
Removal of illicit discharges to storm sewer systems, particularly of sanitary wastes, is an effective
means of reducing pathogen loading to receiving waters. Illicit discharges include any discharges to
Stormwater systems that are not entirely composed of Stormwater. These include intentional illegal
connections from commercial or residential buildings, failing septic systems, and improper disposal of
sewage from campers and boats. These sources can contribute significantly to the load of pathogens
in Stormwater, particularly during periods of dry flow. Identification and elimination of dry and wet
weather illicit discharges to MS4s is required as part of the NPDES Phase II Stormwater permitting
requirements. Industrial facilities requiring NPDES Stormwater permits are also subject to these
requirements.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-8 July, 2005
-------
Illicit discharges can be addressed through development of a comprehensive illicit discharge detection
and prevention program. Such a program may include comprehensive mapping and inspection of
stormwater systems, locating priority areas, identifying and removing identified sources, and
developing ordinances prohibiting illicit discharges (NEIWPCC 2003). As an example, Appendix C,
Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Protocol Guidance for
Consideration - November 2004, contains recommended program guidance that can be applied
throughout the Commonwealth.
Resources - Illicit Discharges
Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Protocol Guidance for
Consideration - November 2004. Appendix C.
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual - A Handbook for Municipalities. 2003.
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Available at:
http://www.neiwpcc.org/PDF Docs/iddmanual.pdf
Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources - Illicit Discharges. USEPA webpage:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/discharges.htm
3.1.2.2 Pet Waste
In residential areas, pet waste can be a significant contributor of pathogens in stormwater. Each dog is
estimated to produce 200 grams of feces per day, and pet feces can contain up to 23,000,000 fecal
coliform colonies per gram (Center for Watershed Protection 1999). If the waste is not properly
disposed of, these bacteria can wash into storm drains or directly into water bodies and contribute to
pathogen impairment.
Encouraging pet owners to properly collect and dispose of pet waste is the primary means for reducing
the impact of pet waste. Flushing waste down the toilet is the preferred method of disposal.
Alternatively, small amounts of waste may be disposed of by burying or sealing it in a plastic bag and
throwing it in the trash (USEPA 2002). It should never be thrown down a storm drain, a common
occurrence in urban areas. To increase compliance with these guidelines a number of measures are
recommended:
Developing and enforcing local "pooper scooper" ordinances or bylaws requiring pet owners
to correctly dispose of pet waste. These have been enacted in a number of communities in
Massachusetts including Worcester, Newton, and Boston
Conducting public awareness campaigns that can include public service announcements,
signs in areas frequented by pet owners, and mailings
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-9 July, 2005
-------
Developing specific "pet waste stations" that include waste receptacles, collection bags,
scoops, and shovels
Ensuring areas, such as public beaches, are either off-limits to pets or subject to certain
ordinances to control fecal contamination of swimming areas
Installing specially designed septic systems for pet waste (doggy loos)
Maintaining areas with long grass. Dogs prefer defecating in long grass, and areas with long
grass allow feces to degrade naturally (MA DEP 2004).
Resources - Pet Waste
National Management Measure to Control Non Point Source Pollution from Urban Areas -
Draft. USEPA 2002. EPA 842-B-02-2003. Available from:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
Septic Systems for Dogs? Nonpoint Source News-Notes 63. Pet Waste: Dealing with a
Real Problem in Suburbia. Kemper, J. 2000. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. Available from: http://www.state.ni.us/dep/watershedmgt/pet waste fredk.htm
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center. Schueler, T., Center for Watershed Protection,
Inc. http://www.stormwatercenter.net
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. U.S. EPA, Office of Water 1993. Washington, DC.
National Menu of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Phase II. USEPA. 2002.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/menuofbmps/menu.htm
Welcome to NVRC'S Four Mile Run Program. NVRC 2001. Available at:
http://www.novaregion.org/fourmilerun.htm
Boston's ordinance on dog waste. City of Boston Municipal Codes, Chapter XVI. 16-1.10A
Dog Fouling. Available at: http://www.amlegal.com/boston ma/
Pet Waste and Water Quality. Hill, J.A., and D. Johnson. 1994. University of Wisconsin
Extension Service. http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/GWQ006.PDF
Long Island Sound Study. Pet Waste Poster. EPA. Available at:
http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/pubs/misc/pet.html
Source Water Protection Practices Bulletin: Managing Pet and Wildlife Waste to Prevent
Contamination of Drinking Water. USEPA. 2001. EPA 916-F-01-027. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/protect/pdfs/petwaste.pdf
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-10 July, 2005
-------
The Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual. MA DEP 2004
Expected Availability: Fall 2005 on the MA DEP Nonpoint Source Program Website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm although the exact location where this
document will appear on the MA DEP website has not yet been determined.
3.1.2.3 Wildlife
Fecal matter from wildlife is a significant source of pathogens in some watersheds. This is particularly
true when human activities, including the feeding of wildlife and habitat modification, result in the
congregation of wildlife. Concentrations of geese, gulls, and ducks are of particular concern because
they often deposit their waste directly into surface waters. Therefore, they can be major sources of
pathogens, particularly in lakes and ponds where large resident populations have become established
near beaches (Center for Watershed Protection 1999). As a result, many mitigation measures are
focused on waterfowl.
Reducing the impact of wildlife on pathogen concentrations in water bodies generally requires either
reducing the concentration of wildlife in an area or reducing their proximity to the water body. The
primary means for doing this is to eliminate human inducements for congregation. In addition, in some
instances population control measures may be appropriate.
Reducing Animal Feeding: Educating the public about the potential impacts to water quality from
feeding wildlife can reduce wildlife congregation. Education can take the form of fliers, signs, mailings,
or other methods (see Table 2-1). In addition to education, bylaws may be enacted to prohibit the
feeding of wildlife. An example of a bylaw prohibiting the feeding of waterfowl can be found at the link
provided in the Resources - Wildlife section.
Behavioral Modification: Methods can be used to change the behavior of wildlife to minimize
congregation of wildlife in areas where they contribute to water quality problems. These methods
include techniques for scaring wildlife out of an area, the introduction of physical barriers, or the
modification of the environment to reduce its attractiveness to certain wildlife (Underhill 1999). Scaring
wildlife using trained dogs or loud noises has been effective in some instances. Physical barriers may
include fencing to either exclude wildlife from areas near water bodies or from areas containing food
sources. Finally, changing landscaping may reduce the congregation of wildlife in areas near water.
Population Control: If other measures fail to effectively control the impact of wildlife, population control
measures may be appropriate. These include the introduction or expansion of a hunting season,
culling, relocation, or the prevention of egg hatching (Underhill 1999). Wildlife agencies should be
contacted and consulted to determine legal measures of population control.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-1 1 July, 2005
-------
Resources - Wildlife
An example of a bylaw prohibiting the feeding of wildlife: Prohibiting Feeding of Wildlife.
Town of Bourne Bylaws Section 3.4.3. Available at:
http://www.townofbourne.com/Town%20Qffices/Bylaws/chapter 3.htm
Integrated Management of Urban Canadian Geese. M Underhill. 1999. Conference
Proceedings, Waterfowl Information Network.
Urban Canadian Geese in Missouri. Missouri Conservationist Online. Available at:
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/conmag/2004/02/20.htm
3.1.3 Structural Stormwater Mitigation Measures
In addition to the methods discussed above for addressing pathogen sources, there are various
structural approaches to reducing the impact of stormwater from urban and suburban areas. These
methods include infiltration and retention structures, detention structures, disinfection and chemical
treatment, and low impact design strategies (LIDS). These approaches are discussed in more detail in
Appendix D.
3.1.4 Operation and Maintenance
Once stormwater BMPs have been constructed, operation and maintenance measures are important
to ensure that they remain effective. Stormwater can contain large loads of sediments and other
debris that can rapidly reduce the effectiveness of many BMPs (USEPA 1999c). Therefore,
development of an operation and maintenance program that includes regular inspection, replacement,
and repair of stormwater BMPs is vital. Appendix D contains a description specific operation and
maintenance practices.
3.1.5 Financing Urban Stormwater Management1
Local Financing Opportunities: Many rapidly growing areas of the United States are creating
stormwater utilities as a mechanism to generate revenue to support a stormwater program and to
better regulate, coordinate, and organize stormwater activities under one program. States and local
governments including communities in Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Washington State, and
Washington D.C. have developed successful stormwater utilities. Resources for more information on
stormwater utilities are listed below.
1 This section relies heavily on the Draft Massachusetts Nonpoint Pollution Management Manual (MA DEP 2004).
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-12 July, 2005
-------
The Pioneer Valley Regional Planning Agency in West Springfield, MA has created a how-
to manual on developing stormwater utilities for Massachusetts communities. This work is
based on a project with the City of Chicopee, MA that was developed in response to a
requirement by the USEPA to resolve a CSO problem. Information is available at:
http://www.pvpc.org/docs/landuse/storm util.pdf
The Center for Urban Water Policy and the Environment at Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis (IUPUI) in cooperation with the Watershed Management Institute,
Inc. has created a website that contains numerous documents and provides guidance on
stormwater utilities and other mechanisms to finance stormwater controls
(http://stormwaterfinance.urbancenter.iupui.edu').
In Massachusetts, most cities and towns share the responsibility for implementing stormwater controls
between the elected officials (selectmen, mayor), and many different local boards and departments
(planning boards, conservation commissions, Department of Public Works, Boards of Health, etc.). The
general revenues raised by local property taxes are the primary sources of funds to support
stormwater management at the municipal level in Massachusetts.
Recently, a Massachusetts law was changed to allow local communities to use taxes to raise revenue
for developing and maintaining stormwater systems. As of July 1, 2004, Massachusetts General Laws
were changed allowing: "The aldermen of any city or the sewer commissioners, selectmen or road
commissioners of a town, may from time to time establish just and equitable annual charges for the
use of common sewers and main drains and related stormwater facilities, which shall be paid by every
person who enters his particular sewer therein. The money so received may be applied to the payment
of the cost of maintenance and repairs of such sewers or of any debt contracted for sewer purposes. In
establishing quarterly or annual charges for the use of main drains and related stormwater facilities, the
city, town, or district may either charge a uniform fee for residential properties and a separate uniform
fee for commercial properties or establish an annual charge based upon a uniform unit method; but,
the charge shall be assessed in a fair and equitable manner. The annual charge shall be calculated to
supplement other available funds as may be necessary to plan, construct, operate and maintain
stormwater facilities and to conduct stormwater programs. The city, town or district may grant credits
against the amount of the quarterly or annual charge to those property owners who maintain on-site
functioning retention/detention basins or other filtration structures as approved by the stormwater utility,
conservation commission, or other governmental entity with appropriate authority."
State Revolving Fund and Section 319 Grants: Several communities are using the State Revolving
Loan Fund to provide the basic funding to develop stormwater master plans and to implement
stormwater controls. Under this program, funds are distributed by EPA to MA DEP. The MA DEP then
distributes these funds on an application and priority basis to Massachusetts. Additionally, specific
assessment, design and implementation funding is available annually on a competitive basis from the
Section 319 Program. These funds can be used to address a wide range of urban nonpoint source
pollution problems. However, these funds cannot be used to implement any elements of a community's
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-13 July, 2005
-------
approved Stormwater Phase II permit program. Resources for more information on the Section 319
Program and the State Revolving Loan Fund are listed below.
For more information on the Section 319 funding program and other grant programs
available in Massachusetts to address nonpoint source pollution see:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/mf/othergrt.htm.
For more information on State Revolving Fund funding for stormwater management see:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/mf/mfpubs.htm
The Coastal Pollutant Remediation Grant Program: The Coastal Pollutant Remediation (CPR) grant
program, which is administered by the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM),
allows the Commonwealth to assist communities in their coastal NPS pollution control efforts. The
CPR grant program complements the Commonwealth's Stormwater Management Policy, serving as a
significant source of funding available to communities. The primary goal of CPR is to improve
coastal water quality by reducing or eliminating NPS pollution, specifically transportation-related
sources. Within this goal are four main objectives:
Characterize and treat urban runoff from municipal roadways
Improve coastal resources such as shellfish beds and fish habitat
Demonstrate traditional and innovative BMPs
Educate the public about stormwater runoff problems
Municipalities located in the Greater Massachusetts Coastal Watershed, which encompasses 220
cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts, are eligible for CPR grants. Since 1996, nearly $5 million in
CPR grants have been awarded. Grant funds can be used to design and/or construct roadway-related
pollution remediation systems and boat pumpout facilities. Example projects include filtering runoff
through subsoil leaching galleys, utilizing new technologies for particle separation and filtration, and
implementation of alternative and/or innovative stormwater management BMPs (e.g., Low Impact
Design, see: http://www.mass.gov/envir/lid/default.htm') that reduce contaminants where they are
generated. More information on the CPR is available at the following website:
http://www.mass.gov/czm/cprgp.htm.
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program: The Coastal NPS grant program has been
developed to assist public and non-profit entities in implementing NPS pollution control efforts. Coastal
NPS grant funding can be used for assessing nonpoint sources of pollution, developing non-structural
BMPs, and developing innovative, transferable NPS management tools. The Coastal NPS grant
program funds the following types of projects:
Assessment, identification, and characterization of NPS pollution;
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-14 July, 2005
-------
Targeted assessment of the municipal stormwater drainage system (runoff from municipal
roadways, parking lots and bridges);
Development of transferable tools for NPS control; and
Implementation of innovative and unique demonstration projects that utilize NPS BMPs
(physical/structural control).
More information on the Coastal NPS grant program is available at:
http://www.mass.gov/czm/coastalnpsgrants.htm
The Massachusetts Bays and Buzzards Bay Estuary Programs can provide technical assistance with
grant writing and assist in obtaining funding. Information on these programs can be found at the
following websites:
Mass Bays Estuary Program. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/envir/massbays/
The Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program Website. Available at:
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/
3.2 Septic Systems
Failing private septic systems can be a significant source of pathogens. When properly installed,
operated, and maintained, septic systems effectively reduce pathogen concentrations in sewage.
However, age, overloading, or poor maintenance can result in failure of septic systems and the release
of pathogens and other pollutants (USEPA 2002). To reduce the release of pathogens, practices can
be employed to maximize the life of existing systems, identify failed systems, and replace or remove
failed systems (table 3-2). Alternatively, the installation of public sewers may be appropriate.
3.2.1 Mitigation Measures - Septic Systems
Boards of Health should review the status of septic systems on a periodic basis to determine if there
are any failed systems, especially in areas of pathogen impairment. Boards of Health should also
assist in upgrading and/or replacing these systems or pursuing other alternatives to meet state
standards.
Replacing Failed Septic Systems: Replacing or upgrading failed septic systems is an option for
reducing pathogen contamination from septic systems. In Massachusetts, regulations (310CMR15)
require detailed inspection of private septic systems at the time of property transfer. The regulations
also require upgrades when any one of the following conditions is met:
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-15 July, 2005
-------
There is a backup of sewage into the facility served by the system or any component of the
system as a result of an overloaded and/or clogged soil absorption system or cesspool.
There is a discharge of effluent directly or indirectly to the surface of the ground through
ponding, surface breakout, or damp soils above the disposal area or to a surface water of
the Commonwealth.
The static liquid level in the distribution box is above the level of the outlet invert.
The liquid depth in a cesspool is less than six inches from the inlet pipe invert or the
remaining available volume within a cesspool above the liquid depth is less than % of one
day's design flow.
The septic tank or cesspool requires pumping more than four times a year.
The septic tank is made of metal, unless the owner or operator has provided the System
Inspector with a copy of a Certificate of Compliance indicating that the tank was installed
within the 20-year period prior to the date of the inspection.
The septic tank is cracked or is otherwise structurally unsound; indicating that substantial
infiltration or exfiltration is occurring or is imminent.
A cesspool, privy or any portion of the soil absorption system extends below the high
groundwater elevation.
As a practical matter, however, only sewage backups or discharges to the surface would be obvious
without a detailed system inspection.
Management Practices for Private Septic Systems: Several practices may be employed to maximize
the life and efficiency of private septic systems. Typically these practices must be implemented by
private homeowners, so aggressive public education and outreach is vital. Table 3-2 lists the
Massachusetts DEP's recommended practices for private septic systems.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-16 July, 2005
-------
Table 3-2 Do's and Don'ts of Private Septic System Management
DO...
DON'T...
Do have the on-site system inspected and pumped by
a licensed professional approximately every 3 to 5
years. Failure to pump out the septic tank can cause
system failure. If the tank fills up with an excess of
solids, the wastewater will not have enough time to
settle in the tank. These excess solids will then pass on
to the leach field, where they will clog the drain lines
and soil.
Do not use the toilet or sink as a trash can by
dumping non-biodegradable material (cigarette butts,
diapers, feminine products, etc.) or grease down the
sink or toilet. Non-biodegradable material can clog
the pipes, while grease can thicken and clog the
pipes. Store cooking oils, fats, and grease in a can
for disposal in the garbage.
Do know the location of the on-site system and drain
field, and keep a record of all inspections, pumping,
repairs, contract or engineering work for future
references. Keep a sketch of it handy for service visits.
Do not put paint thinner, polyurethane, anti-freeze,
pesticides, some dyes, disinfectants, water
softeners, and other strong chemicals into the
system. These can cause major upsets in the septic
tank by killing the biological part of the on-site
system and polluting the groundwater. Small
amounts of standard household cleaners, drain
cleansers, detergents, etc. will be diluted in the tank
and should cause no damage to the system.
Do grow grass or small plants (not trees or shrubs)
above the on-site system to hold the drain field in
place. Water conservation through creative
landscaping is a great way to control excess runoff.
Do not use a garbage grinder or disposal, which
feeds into the on-site tank. If there is one, severely
limit its use. Adding food wastes or other solids
reduces the system's capacity and increases the
need to pump the on-site tank. If a grinder is used,
the system must be pumped more often.
Do install water-conserving devices in faucets,
showerheads and toilets to reduce the volume of water
running into the on-site system. Repair dripping faucets
and leaking toilets, run washing machines and
dishwashers only when full, and avoid long showers.
Do not plant trees within 30 feet of the system or
park/drive over any part of the system. Tree roots will
clog pipes, and heavy vehicles may cause the drain
field to collapse.
Do not allow anyone to repair or pump the system
without first checking that they are licensed system
professionals.
Do divert roof drains and surface water from driveways
and hillsides away from the on-site system. Keep sump
pumps and house footing drains away from the on-site
system as well.
Do take leftover hazardous chemicals to an approved
hazardous waste collection center for disposal. Use
bleach, disinfectants, and drain and toilet bowl cleaners
sparingly and in accordance with product labels.
Do not perform excessive laundry loads with a
washing machine. Doing load after load does not
allow the on-site tank time to adequately treat wastes
and overwhelms the entire on-site system with
excess wastewater. This could flood the drain field
without allowing sufficient recovery time. Consult with
an on-site tank professional to determine the gallon
capacity and number of loads per day that can safely
go into the system.
Do use only on-site system additives that have been
allowed for usage in Massachusetts by MA DEP.
Additives that are allowed for use in Massachusetts
have been determined not to produce a harmful effect
to the individual system or its components or to the
environment at large.
Do not use chemical solvents to clean the plumbing
or on-site system. "Miracle" chemicals will kill
microorganisms that consume harmful wastes.
These products can also cause groundwater
contamination
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
3-17
July, 2005
-------
Installation of Public Sewers: Installation of public sanitary sewers can be a practical alternative in
areas with many failing private septic systems, particularly in older and more densely developed
neighborhoods. Capital expenses for these projects are high, particularly if an existing wastewater
treatment plant with sufficient capacity for the new flow is not available. Communities must also weigh
the environmental benefits of removing failed private septic systems against the potential additional
stress on the receiving water by increasing development in areas unsuitable for private septic systems
and reducing baseflow due to lost recharge.
Resources - Septic Systems
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas -
Draft. Chapter 6. New and Existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. USEPA 2002.
EPA842-B-02-003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
Septic Systems. USEPA Webpage: http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/septic/home.cfm
3.2.2 Financing of Septic System Upgrades and Replacement
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has developed three programs to assist homeowners with
wastewater management problems.
1. Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program: This program provides funding for
long-term community, regional, or watershed-based solutions to onsite disposal failure in highly
impacted or sensitive environments. This program will have two options for communities to
choose from to receive subsidized loans to make repairs for homeowners. The betterment
loans will be available at an interest rate of either 2% or 5%, a decision made by the
community.
A community proposes a Comprehensive Community Septic Management Program on either a
community-wide basis, or for a portion of the town. A $10,000 or $15,000 pre-loan assistance
payment is awarded to assist communities in identifying priority areas and establishing a
comprehensive approach. Areas targeted often include sensitive areas (such as shellfish
beds, beaches, or water supplies) or areas with high septic system failure rates. Upon
approval of the plan, loans of $200,000 are available. Communities should propose a
comprehensive inspection program that meets MA DEP's requirements for the Time of
Transfer exclusion contained in Title 5. Communities that join other communities will be eligible
for larger loans. A list of current and past towns and cities participating in this program is set
out in Appendix E. More information is available at:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wwm/localoff/files/cmspimpl.htm
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-18 July, 2005
-------
2. Homeowner Septic Loan Program: This program is designed to meet the demand for funds by
homeowners whose system will not pass Title 5 inspection. This program provides below
market rate loans to homeowners upgrading systems. Loans are administered by banks and
are then purchased by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Authority (MHFA). More
information is available at http://www.masshousing.com/consumers
3. Title 5 Tax Credit: Through this program, taxpayers who repair or replace a failed septic
system may be entitled to a personal income tax credit (the Title 5 credit) (G.L. c. 62, § 6(i)).
The Title 5 credit is equal to the lesser of either 40% of the actual cost paid by the taxpayer to
repair or replace a failed septic system, or $15,000. More information is available at:
http://www.dor.state.ma.us/rul reg/tir/tir99 5.htm
3.3 Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined sewers collect stormwater and sanitary sewage in one interconnected system. During
rainfall events, the capacity of combined sewer systems to treat the combined waste stream may be
exceeded due to the volume of stormwater. When this happens, sewage and stormwater may be
discharged without being treated. This is known as a CSO. Untreated sewage typically contains fecal
coliform concentrations of 104 to 106 MPN/100ml (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Therefore, CSOs can be
very significant sources of pathogens. In addition, high volumes of waste during rainfall events may
decrease the efficiency of the wastewater treatment system and lead to increased bacteria
concentrations in the discharge stream. CSO discharges or any direct discharge of sanitary waste is
illegal unless it is conducted in accordance with a long-term control plan approved by MA DEP. The
following section discusses approaches for mitigating the impact of CSOs (see also Table 3-1).
3.3.1 Mitigation Measures - Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Separation: Sewer separation is the practice of separating the combined, single
pipe system into separate sewers for sanitary and stormwater flows. Separating part or all of
combined systems into distinct storm and sanitary sewer systems may be feasible. In a separate
system, stormwater is conveyed to a stormwater outfall for discharge directly into the receiving water.
This eliminates overflow events and the discharge of untreated sanitary waste. Communities that elect
for partial separation typically use other CSO controls in areas that are not separated.
CSQ Prevention Practices: CSO prevention practices are intended to both reduce the volume of
pollutants entering a combined sewer system and to reduce the frequency of CSOs. The volume and
frequency of CSO events can be reduced by implementing many of the stormwater management
measures discussed in this document that reduce the volume and rates of runoff. In addition,
management measures that reduce pathogen sources to stormwater will reduce the pathogen
concentrations in CSO discharges. The NPDES program requires communities to address CSOs by
implementing nine minimum control measures:
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-19 July, 2005
-------
1. Proper operation and maintenance of the collection system
2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage
3. Review of pretreatment programs to minimize CSO-related impacts
4. Maximum flow to the treatment plant
5. Prohibit dry-weather overflows
6. Control of solid and floatable materials
7. Pollution prevention
8. Public notification
9. Monitoring to characterize CSO improvements and remaining CSO impacts
Resources - Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Overflows. USEPA Webpage. Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm7program id=5
Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Nine Minimum Control Measures. USEPA 1997.
EPA 832-B-95-003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0030.pdf
Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan. USEPA 1995. EPA 832-
B-95-002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0272.pdf
Combined Sewer Overflow Management Fact Sheet, Pollution Prevention. USEPA 1999.
EPA 832-F-99-038. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pollutna.pdf
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 3-20 July, 2005
-------
4.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND USE
Agricultural land use in Massachusetts includes dairy farming, raising livestock and poultry, growing
crops and keeping horses and other animals for pleasure or profit. Activities and facilities associated
with agricultural land use can be sources of pathogen impairment to surface waters. Communities,
farmers, horse owners and others who confine animals are largely responsible for mitigating pathogen
pollution. Activities and facilities with the potential to contribute to pathogen impairment include:
Manure storage and application,
Livestock grazing,
Animal feeding operations and barnyards, and
Paddock and exercise areas for horses and other animals.
A number of techniques may be applied to reduce the contribution of agricultural activities to pathogen
contamination. Many of these methods are intended primarily to reduce sediment loads from
agricultural lands. However, since pathogens are often associated with sediments, these techniques
are likely to also result in a reduction in pathogen loads in runoff. Brief summaries of each of these
techniques are provided below (see also Table 3-1). The techniques are organized into three
categories: field application of manure, animal feeding operations and barnyards, and managing
grazing areas.
4.1 Mitigation Measures - Field Application of Manure
Pathogen runoff associated with the field application of manure can be minimized by managing the
application process and adding vegetated filter strips around fields where manure is applied.
Vegetated filter strips and buffers are areas between the disturbed land and aquatic resources that
allow some infiltration of runoff. Methods for handling the manure prior to application are discussed in
the Section 4.3.
The following management measures can reduce the runoff of bacteria associated with the application
of manure to fields (Rosen 2000).
Apply manure at the beginning of a dry period
Avoid application of wastes from areas that are flow paths during rainfall events
Manage the irrigation of fields to minimize the amount of water running off the field following
application of manure
Directly incorporate manure into the soil
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-1 July, 2005
-------
To further reduce the runoff of pathogens from areas where manure is applied, vegetated areas of land
located between the disturbed land and sensitive resources can be established. These areas include
conservation buffers, filter strips, and herbaceous and forest riparian buffers. These BMPs work by
slowing runoff from fields, thereby increasing infiltration and trapping sediments and associated
contaminants. Their effectiveness at removing pathogens has, however, been questioned. When the
initial concentration of bacteria is high, the removal rate of bacteria is often as high as 95%. However,
a review by Moore et al. (1988; as reported in Rosen 2000) suggests that filter strips may not be
effective at reducing bacteria concentrations below 104 to 105 fecal coliforms per 100 ml regardless of
conditions. Filter strips are best applied in conjunction with other management methods.
Resources - Field Application of Manure
Conservation Standard Practice-Irrigation Water Management. Number 449. United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003.
Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/nhcp.html
Conservation Standard Practice-Filter Strip. Number 393. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/nhcp.html
Buffer Strips: Common Sense Conservation. USDA Natural Resource Conservations
Service. No Date. Website. Available at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/buffers/
Conservation Standard Practice-Riparian Forest Buffer. Number 391. USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service. 2003. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/nhcp.html
Conservation Standard Practice-Riparian Herbaceous Cover. Number 390 USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service. 2003. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/nhcp.html
4.2 Mitigation Measures - Grazing Management
Grazing management methods can reduce the concentration of bacteria in runoff from grazing areas,
the direct deposition of fecal matter into water bodies, and erosion. The following grazing
management practices may be implemented at agricultural sites as part of the overall implementation
strategy to reduce pathogen discharges to receiving waters.
Exclude livestock from surface water bodies and sensitive shoreline and riparian zones
(e.g., using fencing)
Provide bridges or culverts for stream crossings
Provide alternative drinking water locations
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-2 July, 2005
-------
Locate salt, feeding areas, and additional shade away from sensitive areas
Use improved grazing management to reduce erosion and overgrazing
Provide buffer zones that prevent domesticated animal use of areas alongside streams and
other water bodies
Resources - Grazing Management
Conservation Standard Practice-Stream Crossing. Number 578. USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service. 2003. Available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/Standards/nhcp.html
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal
Waters. Chapter 2. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources. Grazing Management.
USEPA. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter2/ch2-2e.html
4.3 Mitigation Measures - Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) and Barnyards
Animal feeding operations, barnyards, paddocks and exercise areas can produce significant volumes
of manure with high fecal bacteria concentrations. To reduce the impacts of these areas and
operations, EPA recommends addressing the following eight issues (USEPA 2003).
"Divert clean water. Siting or management practices should divert clean water (run-on from
uplands, water from roofs) from contact with feedlots and holding pens, animal manure, or
manure storage systems.
Prevent seepage. Buildings, collection systems, conveyance systems, and storage facilities
should be designed and maintained to prevent seepage to ground and surface water.
Provide adequate storage. Liquid manure storage systems should be (a) designed to safely
store the quantity and contents of animal manure and wastewater produced, contaminated
runoff from the facility, and rainfall from the 25-year, 24-hour storm and (b) consistent with
planned utilization or utilization practices and schedule. Dry manure, such as that produced
in certain poultry and beef operations, should be stored in production buildings, storage
facilities, or otherwise covered to prevent precipitation from coming into direct contact with
the manure.
Apply manure in accordance with a nutrient management plan that meets the performance
expectations of the nutrient management measure.
Address lands receiving wastes. Areas receiving manure should be managed in
accordance with the erosion and sediment control, irrigation, and grazing management
measures as applicable, including practices such as crop and grazing management
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-3 July, 2005
-------
practices to minimize movement of nutrient and organic materials applied, and buffers or
other practices to trap, store, and "process" materials that might move during precipitation
events.
Recordkeeping. AFO operators should keep records that indicate the quantity of manure
produced and its utilization or disposal method, including land application.
Mortality management. Dead animals should be managed in a way that does not adversely
affect ground or surface waters.
Consider the full range of environmental constraints and requirements. When siting a new
or expanding facility, consideration should be given to the proximity of the facility to (a)
surface waters; (b) areas of high leaching potential; (c) areas of shallow groundwater; and
(d) sink holes or other sensitive areas. Additional factors to consider include siting to
minimize off-site odor drift and the land base available for utilization of animal manure in
accordance with the nutrient management measure. Manure should be used or disposed of
in ways that reduce the risk of environmental degradation, including air quality and wildlife
impacts, and comply with Federal, State and local law."
In addition to implementing the recommendations above, the impact of livestock operations can be
reduced through the use of constructed wetlands and proper manure storage. Constructed wetlands
are used to treat the liquid waste from raising livestock and poultry. Bacteria and viruses are removed
from the waste by a number of processes within constructed wetlands. Viruses are adsorbed onto soil
and organic particles. Bacteria can be inactivated by ultraviolet light, chemical reactions, or removed
by sedimentation and predation by zooplankton (Rosen 2000). Constructed wetlands remove between
82 to 100% fecal coliforms bacteria under various conditions (Hammer 1999; as reported in Rosen
2000).
Proper storage of manure is critical to reducing the introduction of pathogens into the environment.
Storage of manure prior to application on fields can reduce the concentration of pathogens in the
waste. The reduction of pathogen concentrations in the waste occurs through a number of
mechanisms. First, natural die-off of bacteria occurs over time. Therefore, the longer the waste is
stored prior to land application, the lower the load of pathogens in the waste. In addition, the heat
generated through the decomposition of the waste can generate sufficient temperatures to inactivate
pathogens within the waste. In order to ensure uniform heating of the waste, careful management of
the composting process is necessary (Rosen 2000). Finally, to ensure effectiveness, manure storage
facilities must be properly maintained to ensure that they aren't leaking into either groundwater or
surface water.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-4 July, 2005
-------
Resources -Animal Feeding Operations and Barnyards
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture.
USEPA 2003. Report: EPA 841-B-03-004. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html
Livestock Manure Storage. Software designed to asses the threat to ground and surface
water from manure storage facilities. USEPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/seahome/manure.html
National Engineering Handbook Part 651. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
NRCS. Available At: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm/awmfh.html
Animal Waste Management. NRCS website: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm/
Animal Waste Management Software. A tool for estimating waste production and storage
requirements. Available at: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/awm/awm.html
Manure Management Planner. Software for creating manure management plans. Available
at: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/mmp/
Animal Feeding Operations Virtual Information Center. USEPA website:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/virtualcenter.cfm
4.4 Massachusetts and Federal Agriculture Resources: Program Overviews, Technical
Assistance, and Funding
The Massachusetts Conservation Districts are a subdivision of state government,
established to carry out programs for the conservation and wise management of soil, water,
and related resources. Information on the 14 Massachusetts conservation districts and their
Conservation Partnerships with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is
available at: http://www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/partnerships/conservationpartnership.html
The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) offers a variety of
programs and services "to support, promote and enhance the long-term viability of
Massachusetts agriculture." More information is available at:
http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/programs.htm
University of Massachusetts (UMass) - Cranberry Station provides a variety of information
related to cranberry production in Massachusetts: http://www.umass.edu/cranberry/.
Additional agricultural resources can be found at the UMass (Amherst) Extension website,
http://www.umassextension.org/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-5 July, 2005
-------
The MDAR Groundwater Protection Regulations prevent contamination of public drinking
water supplies through regulating application of pesticides on the Groundwater Protection
List within primary recharge areas. More information is at:
http://www.state.ma.us/dfa/pesticides/water/index.htm
The Massachusetts Non-Point Source Program annually awards Section 319 Non-Point
Source competitive grant funds to projects that are directed at reducing non point-source
pollution and restoring water quality. More information is available at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/files/319sum04.pdf or by contacting Jane Peirce, State
319 Program Coordinator at (508) 767-2792 or Jane.peirce@state.ma.us
Additional resources and technical assistance are available from the CZM Office at:
http://www.mass.gov/czm, Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program at:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/massbays/, and the Buzzards Bay National Estuary program at:
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/.
USDA-NRCS assists landowners with planning for the conservation of soil, water, and
natural resources. Local, state, and federal agencies and policymakers also rely on NRCS
expertise. Cost shares and financial incentives are available in some cases. Most work is
done with local partners. The NRCS is the largest funding source for agricultural
improvements in Massachusetts. To find out about potential funding in Massachusetts, see:
http://www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/. To pursue obtaining funding, contact a local NRCS
coordinator. Contact information is available at::
http://www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/employee directory.html
NRCS provides a wealth of information and BMP fact sheets tailored to Massachusetts
agricultural and conservation practices through the NRCS Electronic Field Office Technical
Guide at: http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/efotg locator.aspx?map=MA
The 2002 USDA Farm Bill (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/) provides a
variety of programs related to conservation. Information can be found at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/products.html. The following programs
can be linked to from the USDA Farm Bill website:
Conservation Security Program (CSP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/egip/
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/GRP/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-6 July, 2005
-------
Conservation of Private Grazing Land Program (CPGL):
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cpgl/
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/whip/
Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP):
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/frpp/
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D):
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/rcd/
CORE4 Conservation Practices. The common sense approach to natural resource
conservation. USDA-NRCS (1999). This manual is intended to help USDA-NRCS personnel
and other conservation and nonpoint source management professionals implement
effective programs using four core conservation practices: conservation tillage, nutrient
management, pest management, and conservation buffers, available at:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ECS/agronomy/core4.pdf
County soil survey maps are available from NRCS at: http://soils.usda.gov
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. U.S. EPA, Office of Water (1993). Developed for use by State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs, Chapter 2 of this document covers erosion control, animal
feeding operation management, grazing practices, and management of nutrients,
pesticides, and irrigation water, available at::
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter2/index.html.
Farm-A-Syst is a partnership between government agencies and private business that
enables landowners to prevent pollution on farms, ranches, and in homes using confidential
environmental assessments, available at: http://www.uwex.edu/farmasyst/
State Environmental Laws Affecting Massachusetts Agriculture: A comprehensive
assessment of regulatory issues related to Massachusetts agriculture has been compiled by
the National Association of State Departments, available at: http://www.nasda-
hg.org/nasda/nasda/Foundation/state/Mass.pdf
The Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual. MA DEP. Expected
availability: Fall 2005 on the MA DEP Nonpoint Source Program Website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm The exact location of where the manual
will appear on the MA DEP website was not available at the time of publication of this
document.
Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Wastewater. Rosen, B. H., 2000. USDA, NRCS,
Watershed Science Institute. Available at:
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WSI/pdffiles/Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds.pdf
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 4-7 July, 2005
-------
5.0 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SWIMMING BEACHES, BOATS,
AND MARINAS
Recreational uses of waters can contribute to pathogens loads. Swimming beaches, marinas, and
areas frequented by boats may be impacted by any of the pathogen sources discussed in the
preceding sections of this document. In addition, there are a number of bacteria sources that are
specific to these areas:
Bacteria from swimmers
Sewage from boats
Graywater from boats
Shore-based marina facilities
This section discusses these pathogen sources and potential mitigation measures and provides
resources for more information (see also Table 3-1). Municipal officials, harbor masters, boards of
health, departments of public works, marina operators, and citizens are largely responsible for
managing these pathogen sources.
Swimming Beaches: Swimmers themselves may contribute to pathogen impairment at swimming
areas. Control of pathogen contamination at recreational beaches is particularly important since large
numbers of people are regularly in contact with the water at beaches. When swimmers enter the
water, residual fecal matter may be washed from the body and contaminate the water with pathogens.
In addition, small children in diapers may contribute to contamination of recreational waters.
Swimmers are likely to be significant pathogen sources when the number of swimmers is high and the
flushing action of waves, tides, or river flow is low. Mitigation measures for pathogens from swimmers
can be found in Section 5.1.
Boats: Boats have the potential to discharge pathogens in sewage from installed toilets and gray
water (includes drainage from sinks, showers, and laundry). Sewage and gray water discharged from
boats can contain pathogens (including bacteria, viruses, and protozoans), nutrients, and chemical
products. These constituents can directly harm aquatic life or degrade water quality.
Sewage: Boats with onboard toilets are required to have Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) to either
store or treat sewage. When MSDs are operated or maintained incorrectly they have the potential to
discharge untreated or inadequately treated sewage. For example, some MSDs are simply tanks
designed to hold sewage until it can be pumped out at a shore-based pumpout facility or discharged
into the water more than 3 miles from shore. Unaware boaters may discharge untreated sewage from
these devices into near shore waters. In addition, when MSDs designed to treat sewage are
improperly maintained or operated they may malfunction and discharge inadequately treated sewage.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-1 July, 2005
-------
Finally, even properly operating MSDs may discharge sewage in concentrations higher than
ambient water quality criteria. Many MSDs discharge "treated" waste with bacteria counts five to
70 times higher than that allowable under state law for shellfishing or swimming waters.
Vessels are most likely to contribute significantly to pathogen impairment in situations where large
numbers congregate in enclosed environments with low flushing. Many marinas and popular
anchorages are located in such environments. In addition, MSDs do not remove nutrients from sewage
and their discharge may contain chemicals that can be toxic to marine and estuary life. Nutrients from
sewage can also lead to reduced oxygen levels and cause excessive growth of marine plants/algae
and the death of marine animals. Information on mitigating sewage discharge from boats is provided
in Section 5.3.
Graywater: Graywater includes wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundry. Graywater can contain
low levels of pathogens, detergents, soap, and food wastes. These components can contribute to
reduced oxygen levels in small bays and coves by enriching algae growth and bacterial breakdown of
wastes, both of which use up oxygen. Information on mitigating the impact of graywater discharge from
boats is provided in Section 5.2.4.
Marinas: In addition to the discharges from boats, there are a number of other potential pathogen
sources in marinas. Pathogens from shore side restrooms, uncontrolled pet waste, and fecal matter
from wildlife attracted to fish cleaning waste can contaminate waters near marinas. Shore side sanitary
facilities should be functioning properly to protect public health and the environment. Waste from pets,
especially dogs, is a major source of complaints from barefoot boaters and, depending on the
frequency that pets are walked in these areas, may substantially affect pathogen levels in nearby
beaches. More information on minimizing the pathogen contribution of pets can be found in
Section 3.1.2.3. Sport fishing is one of the most popular uses of boats. However, waste from filleting
and cleaning fish caught by recreational fisherman can be a major nuisance if not properly handled,
attracting gulls, raccoons, and other animals to areas near marinas. Feces from these animals can
contribute to pathogen pollution. Information on reducing the contribution of pathogens from shore
side restrooms, pets, wildlife, and fish cleaning waste at marinas can be found in Section 5.5.
5.1 Mitigation Measures - Swimming Beaches and Fresh, Estuarine, and Marine Waters
To reduce swimmers' contribution to pathogen impairment, shower facilities should be made available
and bathers should be encouraged to shower prior to swimming. In addition, parents, guardians and
childcare providers should be encouraged to check and change children's diapers when they are dirty.
To encourage adoption of these practices, local health agencies may provide visitor education
programs and present information on sanitary practices using notices posted at beach/park entrances,
flyers given to individuals, and signs asking visitors to use rest rooms and collect and dispose of pet
waste. Furthermore, swimmers should be informed that pathogens remain at elevated levels in
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-2 July, 2005
-------
waterbodies after rainfall events for up to several days and consequently, swimmers may be at risk if
they choose to swim.
Resources - Swimming Beaches and Fresh, Estuarine, and Marine Waters
EPA New England scientists have conducted (and will continue to conduct) preliminary
sanitary surveys at several beaches as part of the Clean New England Beach Initiative -
"It's a Shore Thing." The surveys identify potential sources of indicator bacteria using
shoreline and watershed observations, analysis of historical data, mapping of the watershed
and drainage system, and collection and measurement of water at the beach, stormwater
outfalls, and upstream sources. EPA scientists work directly with the local health or
engineering departments or watershed associations and the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health to gather information. Based on the surveys, a report is produced with
recommendations for mitigating pathogen problems and protecting public health at the
particular beach. For copies of the reports, please contact Dr. Matt Liebman at EPA New
England at (617) 918-1626 or liebman.matt@epa.gov. To date, surveys have been
conducted for:
- Wollaston Beach, Quincy, MA (2002)
- Willows Pier, Salem, MA (2002)
- Provincetown Harbor, Provincetown, MA (2002)
- West Hill Park Beach, Uxbridge, MA (2003)
- Kings Beach, Lynn (2003 and 2004))
- Brackenbury Beach, Beverly, MA (2004)
- Rices Beach, Beverly, MA (2004)
- Good Harbor Creek, Gloucester, MA (2004)
The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has a well established shellfish
monitoring program that provides quality assured data for each shellfish growing area.
Each growing area (except those classified as prohibited) must have a complete sanitary
survey every 12 years, a triennial evaluation every 3 years, and an annual review in order to
maintain a shellfish harvesting classification. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program
establishes minimum requirements for the sanitary surveys, triennial evaluations, annual
reviews, and annual fecal coliform water quality monitoring. The surveys identify specific
sources, assess the effectiveness of controls and attainment of standards, and recommend
steps to address pollution problems. Sanitary surveys can be very useful at the local level
to help identify sources or potential sources of bacteria to a water resource of concern. The
principal components of a sanitary survey include: 1) an evaluation of pollution sources that
may affect an area, 2) an evaluation of hydrographic and meteorological characteristics that
may affect distribution of pollutants, and 3) an assessment of water quality. For more
information on the sanitary surveys contact: Mr. Michael Hickey at the following e-mail
address and telephone number: michael.hickev(5)state.ma.us or (508)563-1779 x122.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-3 July, 2005
-------
Draft Guidance for Saltwater Beaches. California Department of Health Services:
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/beaches/saltwater.htm
See sections above on other resources for addressing other pathogen sources
5.2 Mitigation Measures - Pathogens from Boats
A resource manager who suspects that discharges from boats are contributing to pathogen impairment
of a particular water body has a number of options for addressing the problem. Options include:
petitioning the State for the creation of a No Discharge Area (NDA, also referred to as no
discharge zones or NDZs);
supporting development of pumpout facilities for sewage from boats; distributing information
on the proper operation and maintenance of MSDs; and
encouraging marina owners to provide clean and safe onshore restrooms and pumpout
facilities.
5.2.1 Establishing No Discharge Areas
Section 312 of the CWA authorizes states to designate areas as NDAs for vessel sewage. A NDA is a
designated body of water in which the discharge of ALL boat sewage, even if it is treated, is prohibited.
When traveling in NDA waters, boaters with Type I or Type II MSDs must do one of the following: 1)
close the seacock and remove the handle 2) fix the seacock in the closed position with a padlock or
non-releasable wire-tie 3) lock the door to the space enclosing the toilet with a padlock or door handle
key lock.
A body of water can become an NDA if a community or state believes that the waters are ecologically
and recreationally important enough to require more protection than that provided by current Federal
and State laws. Lakes, freshwater reservoirs, or other freshwater impoundments whose entrance
points and exit points are too shallow to support traffic by vessels with installed toilets, and rivers that
do not support interstate vessel traffic are all, by default, designated NDAs. Other water bodies can be
designated NDAs by States and EPA.
NDAs in Massachusetts: There are currently seven NDAs in Massachusetts: all of Buzzards Bay,
Waquoit Bay in Falmouth, the Coastal Waters of Harwich, Three Bays/Centerville Harbor in
Barnstable, Stage Harbor in Chatham, Wellfleet Harbor, and the Coastal Waters of Nantucket from
Muskeget Island to Great Point, including Nantucket Harbor. In addition, the communities in the
vicinity of Plymouth, Kingston and Duxbury Harbors are currently working on obtaining an NDA for this
area.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-4 July, 2005
-------
Applying for an NDA: The MA Department of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) assists in the writing
of the application, provides resources and information to interested communities, coordinates with
EPA, and helps to ensure that the proposed NDA has adequate pumpout facilities. In Massachusetts,
all NDA applications must be certified by CZM to be consistent with CZM's Program Policies. CZM
then officially requests that the Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs designate the
proposed waters for EPA approval as a NDA. Communities interested in establishing an NDA should
view the CZM NDA template that can assist those interested in creating an NDA. This template is
available at: http://www.mass.gov/czm/ndatemplate.htm. For additional information, interested parties
can contact CZM's NDA Coordinator, Todd Callaghan at 617-626-1233 or
todd.callaghan@state.ma.us and Ann Rodney at EPA New England at 617-918-1538 or
rodnev.ann@epa.gov.
There are seven requirements pursuant to Section 312 (f)(3) of the CWA and Chapter 40 Code of
Federal Regulations Section 140.4 that the applicant must provide:
1. A certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters described in the petition
requires greater environmental protection than the applicable Federal standards.
2. A map showing the location of commercial and recreational pumpout facilities.
3. A description of the location of pumpout facilities within waters nominated for a NDA.
4. The general schedule of operating hours of the pumpout facilities.
5. The draft requirements on the vessels that may be excluded from a pumpout facility because
of insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility.
6. Information indicating that the treatment of waste from such pumpout facilities is in
conformance with Federal law.
7. Information on vessel population and vessel usage of the subject waters.
In addition to these seven requirements, EPA New England reviews the type of outreach campaign
planned for boaters when evaluating an area for an NDA designation.
Enforcement: It is a violation of Federal Law to discharge treated or untreated boat sewage within the
waters of an NDA. The Massachusetts Environmental Police are charged with enforcing the
restrictions of NDAs. CZM and Massachusetts Environmental Law Enforcement are actively pursuing
an amendment to Massachusetts General Law 90B Sections 11 and 14. The amendment will allow
state and local officials to collect fines of up to $2,000 for violations within NDAs. To detect discharges
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-5 July, 2005
-------
of sewage into NDAs dye tablets may be placed in sewage holding tanks on boats. Any discharge of
sewage will then be visible.
5.2.2 Ensuring Clean and Adequate Pumpout Facilities and Shore-Side Restrooms
are Available
One potential barrier to compliance with NDA area requirements is the lack of clean and adequate
pumpout facilities. Marina owners should ensure that these facilities are clean, easily accessible, and
affordable. Clean and adequate sewage pumpout facilities at marinas significantly reduce the
number of direct discharges of sewage from boats into the water. If boats in the marina use small
portable (removable) toilets, a dump station should also be provided. In addition, maintaining
pleasant shore side restrooms can reduce the use of boat toilets and the subsequent discharge of
sewage. Dirty, wet, and dark restrooms are often a source of complaints from boaters.
Pumpout Facilities: A sewage pumpout facility is a place where boaters can empty their sewage tanks.
A graphic pumpout symbol is often placed at docks and marinas to show boaters where a pumpout
facility is located. There are three main types of sewage pumpout facilities:
1. Fixed-point collection systems include one or more centrally located sewage pumpout stations
generally located at the end of a fueling pier so that fueling and pumpout operations can be
combined. Wastewater can be pumped from the boats to an onshore holding tank, a public
sewer system, a private treatment facility, or another approved disposal facility
2. Portable/mobile systems are similar to fixed-point systems and in some situations may be used
in their place at a fueling dock. Portable units include 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 a municipal sewage system or a holding tank for removal by a septic tank
pumpout service
3. Dedicated slipside systems provide continuous wastewater collection at a slip. Slipside
pumpouts should be provided to live-aboard vessels. The remainder of the marina can still be
served by either marina-wide or mobile pumpout systems
To prevent the failure of pumpout stations and improper disposal of sanitary wastes, management
measures include:
Arranging maintenance contracts with contractors competent in the repair and servicing of
pumpout facilities;
Developing regular inspection schedules;
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-6 July, 2005
-------
Maintaining a dedicated fund for the repair and maintenance of marina pumpout stations
(Government-owned facilities only); and
Adding language to slip leasing agreements mandating the use of pumpout facilities and
specifying penalties for failure to comply
Marina Restrooms: Providing clean, safe, dry, well-lit, and ventilated restrooms for customers 24 hours
a day can minimize the discharge of sewage from boats to the marine environment. Some marinas
clean their restrooms four or more times a day on busy summer weekends to maintain pleasant
facilities. Other marinas have found that contracting out restroom cleaning is cost effective. In addition
it is important to locate restrooms convenient to all boats, especially for guests sleeping overnight on
weekends.
5.2.3 Outreach and Education
Two of the most important factors in successfully preventing sewage discharge from boats are
providing adequate and reasonably available pumpout facilities and conducting a comprehensive
boater education program. Educating boaters about the location of NDAs, the availability of pumpout
facilities, and the importance of properly operating and maintaining MSDs, helps reduce the impact of
sewage from boats. Marina operators should post signs notifying boaters about the location and
requirements of NDAs, and the availability of pumpout facilities and restrooms. Ready-to-use outreach
materials for these efforts are available from a number of sources (see Section 5.4). Marina owners
and local officials should design education efforts to:
Educate boaters about the impact of improper vessel discharges on beach closures,
shellfish contamination, loss of recreational opportunities and aesthetic losses, and loss of
marina industry revenue (Woodley 1999)
Encourage boaters to install and use a Coast Guard certified MSD that is appropriate for
their vessel (see http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel sewage/vsdmsd.html)
Educate boaters on the use and maintenance of their MSDs properly
Educate boaters on how to use marina pumpout stations for Type III MSDs (Woodley 1999)
5.2.4 Reducing the Impact of Gray Water Discharges
To reduce the amount of untreated wastewater that enters coastal waters, marina owners can provide
laundry facilities and an area near the restrooms where boaters can clean their dishes. These changes
should be accompanied by an education effort to encourage boaters to implement the following BMPs.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-7 July, 2005
-------
Refrain from use of dish soap on-board,
Use low-nitrogen detergents on boats,
Provide dishwashing and laundry facilities at marinas, and
Encourage use of marina shower and restroom facilities.
5.3 Resources - Pathogens from Boats
National Management Measures for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas
and Recreational Boating. US EPA. EPA841-B-01-005. Available at:
http://www. epa. gov/owow/n ps/mmsp/
Environmental Guide for Marinas - Vessel Sewage. Rhode Island Sea Grant
http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/BMP/sewage.html
No Discharge Zones for Vessel Sewage - EPA Website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel sewage/vsdnozone.html
Using your Head to Protect Our Aquatic Resources. US EPA Website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel sewage/vsdfIyer.html
NDAs. CZM website: http://www.mass.gov/czm/nda.htm
Massachusetts Pumpout Facilities. CZM. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/czm/potoc.htm
Clean Vessel Act Symbol. US Fish and Wildlife Service:
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/info/falogos.html#CVA symbol
Massachusetts Clean Marina Guide. Prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. for CZM
Available at: http://www.mass.gov/czm/marinas/guide/macleanmarinaguide.htm
No Discharge Zones: How They Work. Woodley, J. September/October 1999. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel sewage/vsdarticle.html
Application for a State Designated, Federally Approved NDA. (Template). CZM. Available
at: http://www.state.ma.us/czm/ndatemplate.doc
Marine Pollution Control Programs. USEPA. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/
A Guidebook for Marina Owners and Operators on the Installation and Operation of
Sewage Pumpout Stations. MDDNR. 1991.
Vessel Sewage Discharge Program. USEPA 2002. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/regulatory/vessel sewage/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-8 July, 2005
-------
Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Grant Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Federal Aid. USFWS. 1999. Available at: http://fa.r9.fws.gov/cva/cvaiul97.html
US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Boston Website. Available at:
http://www.uscg.mil/d1/units/msobos/
US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Providence Website. Available at:
http://www.uscg.mil/d1/units/msoprov/
5.4 Mitigation Measures - Pathogens from Marinas
In addition to the boats that are present in marinas, there are a number of other potential sources of
pathogens. These include; pets, wildlife attracted to fish scraps, and septic systems. These topics are
discussed in other sections of the document (pets in Section 3.1.2.2, wildlife in Section 3.1.2.3, and
septic systems in Section 3.2). The waters adjacent to marinas often have long residence times (i.e.
minimal flushing rates) circulation or inadeguate stormwater controls. These conditions and activities
make coastal areas particularly sensitive.
This section describes a number of specific measures marina owners and operators can use to
address pets in marinas and fish waste disposal (Table 3-1). As with other types of nonpoint source
pollution, nonstructural practices such as public education are a crucial component of managing
boating, marinas and the beaches alongside marinas. Other important BMPs focus on "clean marina
operations" and the management of sewage.
Pets: Proper management is essential for setting ground rules for pets at the marina, avoiding conflicts
between marina users over pet issues, and reducing the impacts of pet waste on marina waters. The
following BMPs are important components of an effective pet waste management program.
Dog Walking Areas: Provide a specific dog walk area at the marina with signs to direct
customers.
Pet Waste Disposal: Require marina customers to immediately clean up all pet feces.
Provide free disposable dog scoop or litter bags to boaters and ask them to dispose of the
material in the marina dumpster. Also consider installing mini septic systems for pet waste.
These systems are buried in the ground and have a lid on top for dropping the waste in.
They also come with a digester enzyme. Pet septic systems are available in many pet
catalogs for a low cost (<$50). One such product is called the "Doggie Doolie."
Pet Regulations: Include relevant pet rules and regulations in patron contracts and on signs.
Litter Box Use and Disposal: Encourage cat owners to maintain litter boxes on their boats
and to dispose of used litter in appropriate trash receptacles.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-9 July, 2005
-------
Fish waste: If wildlife attracted to fish waste is believed to be contributing to pathogen pollution near a
marina, implementation the following BMPs may be appropriate.
Offshore Cleaning and Disposal: Encourage fishermen to clean fish off-shore and discard
fish waste at sea.
Fish Cleaning Area and Rules: The best way to prevent a problem is by developing and
clearly marking a fish cleaning area and posting rules for disposal of fish waste on the
marina property. This will discourage fishermen from cleaning and disposing of fish at
improper locations.
Fish Cleaning Staff: Provide a staff person who can clean fish for fishermen for a fee.
Covered Containers: Provide covered containers for fish waste.
Fish Cleaning Provisions in Customer Contracts: Include requirements for cleaning fish in
the customer's environmental contract.
Fish Composting: Compost fish waste where appropriate by mixing it with peat moss or
wood chips to make garden mulch. This quickly produces excellent compost for use in the
marina gardens without any odor problem. For more ideas about composting fish waste,
refer to The Leaf and Yard Waste Composting Guide found on the MA DEP's website at
www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle/files/leafguid.doc.
Fish Cleaning Stations: Towns should also consider installing fish cleaning stations at public
boat launch ramps and fishing piers.
Wildlife Feeding Rules: Prohibit the feeding of wild birds or animals at marinas. Consider
posting "No Feeding Wildlife" signs around marina grounds and having staff casually
educate children and adults on the negative effects of wildlife feeding.
Resources - Pathogens from Marinas
Call the DMF at (617) 626-1520 to locate the nearest DMF regional office for assistance.
Massachusetts Clean Marina Guide: This guide was created for the CZM as part of the
Massachusetts Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Plan. It provides a comprehensive
reference for owners and operators of marinas on strategies to reduce marina and boating
impacts on the coastal environment. Available at:
http://www.mass.qov/czm/marinas/quide/macleanmarinaquide.htm
Massachusetts Clean Marine Initiative: This CZM program provides funds for coastal
communities to take a number of measures to reduce pollution of marine waters. More
information is available via the CZM Information Line at (617) 626-1212 or online at:
www. state. ma. u s/czm.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-10 July, 2005
-------
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas and
Recreational Boating. USEPA 2001. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/index.html
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. USEPA. 1993. Chapters. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/
Are Marinas Really Polluting? Natchez, D.S. 1991. International Marina Institute, Wickford.
The State Sanitary Code regulations (310 CMR 15.00) are available at:
www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/t5pubs.htm#regs.
National Management Measures for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution from Marinas
and Recreational Boating. USEPA 2001. EPA 841-B-01-005. Available at:
http://www. epa. gov/owow/n ps/mmsp/
Clean Marinas Clear Value; Environmental and Business Success Stories. USEPA. 1996.
EPA 841-R-96-003. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/marinas/index.html
The Virginia Clean Marina Guidebook. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation 2001. Richmond, Virginia. Available
at: http://www.vims.edu/adv/cleanmarina/guidebook.html
Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. USEPA Region 1985.
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/coastnps.html
5.5 Mitigation Measure - Improve Marina Flushing
Water quality within a marina basin depends in part on how well the basin is flushed, which depends
on water circulation within the marina. Especially in high-use areas, pathogen concentrations can
build-up in areas with minimal flushing. Water exchange is controlled by several factors including tides
and bathymetry. It is important to understand how man-made structures such as jetties and piers affect
the movement of water during a typical tidal cycle. Constrictions can decrease flushing of the cove,
and prevent pollutants from being carried out to sea. Marinas should be designed so that their
structures do not significantly restrict the natural circulation and exchange of water. BMPs include:
Marina Bottom and Entrance Channel Placement. Try to avoid having bottoms of the
marina and their entrance channels deeper than adjacent navigable harbor channels. If the
marina bottom is significantly below that of the main channel, bottom water exchange might
be reduced. This could lead to high concentrations of pathogens from boat and land-based
sources. This can also restrict the flow of dissolved oxygen to waters around the marina
and lead to fouling and odor problems.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-1 1 July, 2005
-------
Minimize Dead Water in Marina Designs. Dead water can form in isolated areas under the
marina and where marina structures block water flow. New marina should be designed
without structures that will lead to the development of dead water areas, thereby ensuring
water movement and exchange throughout the entire marina basin. This reduces the
potential for pathogens to reach concentrations in excess of the WQS.
Open Marina Designs and Wave Attenuators. Consider using open designs and wave
attenuators where possible to improve flushing. Open designs avoid the use of structures in
bottom waters that restrict water flow. Wave attenuators are structures that dampen wave
energy, but still allow water to pass through and into the protected area. Wave attenuators
may not sufficiently protect the marina in areas subject to significant wave action, and the
need for wave protection may make solid breakwaters the only practical alternative for
some marinas. Site specific study is required to reach the appropriate solution.
Promote Flow-Through Currents. If feasible without compromising wave protection, provide
openings at opposite ends of the marina to promote flow-through currents and increase
flushing.
Resources - Improve Marina Flushing
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. Chapter 5. Marina Flushing Management Measure II. Siting and Design. USEPA
1993. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter5/ch5-2a.html
National Management Measures Guidance to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from
Marinas and Recreational Boating. USEPA 2001. Report: EPA 841-B-01-005 Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/mmsp/marinas.pdf
5.6 Financing
CZM offers the CPR and the Coastal NPS grant programs to help address NPS pollution. More
information is available in Section 3.1.5, and the following websites:
Coastal Pollutant Remediation Grant Program at the CZM Website:
http://www.mass.gov/czm/cprgp.htm
Coastal Nonpoint Source Grant Program at CZM Website
http://www.mass.gov/czm/coastalnpsgrants.htm
CZM website available at: http://www.mass.gov/czm
Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program at: http://www.mass.gov/envir/massbays/
Buzzards Bay National Estuary program at: http://www.buzzardsbay.org/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 5-12 July, 2005
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
Center for Watershed Protection. 1999. Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 3. No. 1. Center for
Watershed Protection. Ellicott, MD.
Center for Watershed Protection. 2003. Impacts of impervious Cover on Aquatic Ecosystems. Center
for Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
CT DEP. 2004. Stormwater Quality Manual. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Available at: http://dep.state.ct.us/wtr/stormwater/strmwtrman.htm
MA CZM. 2001. Massachusetts Clean Marina Guide. Prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc. for the
Massachusetts Department of Coastal Zone Management
http://www.state.ma.us/czm/macleanmarineguide.htm
MA CZM. 2002. No Discharge Areas. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.
http://www.state.ma.us/czm/nda.htm
FHA. 1998. Highway Statistics. Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC. Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/hs98page.htm
Hammer, D.A. (ed.). 1989. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and
Agricultural. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Ml.
Low Impact Development Center. No date. Website: http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/
MA DEP. 2004. The Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Manual, Draft:
November 2, 2004. Expected Availability: Fall 2005 on the MA DEP's Nonpoint Source Program
Website: http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm although the exact location where this
document will appear on the MA DEP website has not yet been determined.
MA DEP. 1997. Stormwater Management Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Manual. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. Available at:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/stormwtr/stormpub.htm
MassHighway. 2004. The MassHighway Stormwater Handbook. Massachusetts Highway Department.
Available at: http://166.90.180.162/mhd/downloads/proiDev/swbook.pdf
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 6-1 July, 2005
-------
MDDNR. 1991. A Guidebook for Marina Owners and Operators on the Installation and Operation
Sewage Pumpout Stations. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Boating
Administration, Annapolis, MD.
Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Third Edition.
McGraw-Hill
Moore, J.A., J. Smyth, S. Baker, and J.R. Miner. 1988. Evaluating Coliform Concentrations in Runoff
from Various Animal Waste Management Systems. Special Report 817. Agricultural Experiment
Stations Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, and U.S Dep. of Agriculture, Portland, OR.
NEIWPCC. 2003. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual a Handbook for Municipalities.
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Available at:
http://www.neiwpcc.org/PDF Docs/iddmanual.pdf
Rasmus, J. and K. Weldon. 2003. Moonlight Beach Urban Runoff Treatment facility; Using Ultraviolet
disinfection to reduce bacteria counts. StormWater, May/June 2003. Available at:
http://www.forester.net/sw 0305 moonlight.html
Rosen, B. H., 2000. Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Wastewater. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. Available at:
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WSI/pdffiles/Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds.pdf
Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management
Practices Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC
Stormwater Managers Resource Center. No date. Website: http://www.stormwatercenter.net/
Underhill, M. 1999. Integrated Management of Urban Canadian Geese. Conference Proceedings,
Waterfowl Information Network. Available at:
http://212.187.155.84/pass 06june/Subdirectories for Search/Glossary&References Contents/Pro
ceedingsContents/ProceedingsReflOO WATERFOWLINFORMATIONNETWORK/PaperHhtm
USEPA. 1999c. Stormwater O & M Fact Sheet Preventive Maintenance. EPA-832-F-99-004. USEPA
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/prevmain.pdf
USEPA. 2000b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-00-001.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/305b/98report/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 6-2 July, 2005
-------
USEPA. 2002. National Management Measures to Control Non Point Source Pollution from Urban
Areas - Draft. EPA 842-B-02-2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
USEPA. 2003. National Management Measures to control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture.
EPA 841-B-03-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html
Woodley, J. September/October 1999. No Discharge Zones: How They Work. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/vessel sewage/vsdarticle.html
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc 6-3 July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL WATERSHED FUNDING, OUTREACH TOOLS, AND STRATEGIES
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX A
ADDITIONAL WATERSHED FUNDING, OUTREACH TOOLS, AND STRATEGIES
Education and Training
Watershed Academy
EPA's Watershed Academy is a focal point in EPA for providing information to watershed practitioners
about the watershed approach. See web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/
Key elements of the Academy include:
Watershed Academy Web
The Academy has a web-based training program called Watershed Academy Web (see
www.epa.gov/watertrain) which has about 50 online training modules addressing all aspects
of watershed management. Users can access the modules anywhere, anytime and at no
charge. We also offer a Watershed Management Certificate program where users who
complete 15 required modules can earn a certificate.
Live training courses
The Watershed Academy sponsors a variety of live training courses including for example
the ABC's of TMDLs, CWA Tools for Watershed Protection, Watershed Partnership
Seminar, etc. We also publicize watershed-related courses sponsored by others.
Documents and other outreach materials
The Watershed Academy provides links to a variety of documents/outreach materials on its
web site.
Nonpoint Source Web Site
Offers latest tools, funding opportunities and information to help states and communities address
polluted runoff, including BMPs, model ordinances, monitoring and assessment tools, and low-impact
development. Website is available at: www.epa.gov/owow/nps
Technical Tools
W.A.T.E.R.S.
A powerful mapping tool that allows users to view data from many Office of Water databases and find
geography-specific water quality information. Website can be found at: www.epa.gov/waters.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc ^_<| Jul 20Q5
-------
STORE!
A repository for water quality, biological, and physical data that is used by state agencies, EPA and
other federal agencies, universities, citizens and others. Users can click on the water drop on-line to
retrieve monitoring data. Website can be found at: www.epa.gov/storet.
Funding and Grants
Catalog of Federal Funding for Watershed Protection
EPA has an easy to use searchable database that provides information on more than 85 Federal
programs that provide funding (cost sharing, loans, etc.) for various watershed protection activities.
This searchable database has been updated to include FY 2005 funding information and is posted on
EPA's website at: www.epa.gov/watershedfunding
National Environmental Finance Centers' Enhanced Database of Funding Sources
This enhanced and updated on-line directory allows users to search for federal, state, local, and
private watershed funding sources available for the development and implementation of watershed
projects. Information on nationwide funding opportunities, as well as state and local funding
opportunities for fund seekers in EPA's Regions 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, Rl, VT) and Region 10 (AK, ID,
OR, WA), is available at: http://ssrc.boisestate.edu. Information regarding New England's
Environmental Finance Center can be found at: http://efc.muskie.usm.maine.edu/
Watershed Academy Web Sustainable Finance On-line Training Module
A finance on-line training module will be created to transfer strategic financial planning tools and case
studies to watershed organizations and local governments.
The training module will be available at http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Plan2Fund
A watershed planning tool that helps organizations track financial information as it relates to their
goals, objectives, and tasks. Available at: http://sspa.boisestate.edu/efc/services.htm
Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) Funding Website
This website will serve as a central portal to federal grant information, case studies, the Watershed
Academy Web, and other relevant funding and links. The website will be available at
http://www.epa.gov/owow/funding.html
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc ^_2 Jul 2005
-------
Targeted Watersheds Grant Program
The Targeted Watershed Grant Program provides monetary assistance directly to watershed
organizations to implement restoration/protection activities within their watershed. Grants are also
available to support watershed service providers in their effort to train and educate watershed
organizations to become more effective and autonomous. The Targeted Watershed Grant Program
website is available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/initiative/
Information and Outreach
Adopt Your Watershed
EPA maintains a searchable, on-line database of local watershed protection efforts, which allows users
to find information easily about watershed protection efforts in their communities. Users can click on a
map or type in a zip code to find their 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) or watershed address and
then link to information about groups active in their communities. The database includes over 3,500
groups, including broad-based watershed partnerships involved in developing and implementing
watershed protection plans as well as school and community groups doing stream cleanups,
restoration, and monitoring projects. We now offer an on-line editing feature that allows groups to up-
date their own information). Website can be found at: www.epa.gov/adopt/
Water Drop Patch Project
This project, developed by OWOW in partnership with the Girl Scouts of the USA, is part of a broader
interagency Linking Girls to the Land Initiative designed to engage Girl Scouts in hands-on
conservation and environmental stewardship programs. The Girl Scout Water Drop booklet includes
twenty community-based watershed protection activities, including water quality monitoring, stream
cleanups, stream assessments, water festivals, and storm drain stenciling to help build stewardship for
local waters. More information can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/adopt/ and
http://www.epa.gov/linkinggirls/
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc ^_2 Julv 2005
-------
APPENDIX B
MUNICIPALITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS REGULATED BY THE PHASE II NPDES
STORMWATER PERMIT PROGRAM
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX B
MUNICIPALITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS REGULATED BY THE PHASE II NPDES STORMWATER
PERMIT PROGRAM
Municipalities Fully-Regulated by the Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit Program
(Permit requirements apply throughout the entire geographic boundary of the municipality)
Abington
Braintree
Chelmsford
Everett
Haverhill
Leominster
Lynnfield
Melrose
Newton
Quincy
Saugus
Swampscott
Wellesley
Winchester
Arlington
Brockton
Chelsea
Fairhaven
Holbrook
Lexington
Maiden
Milton
Northampton
Randolph
Somerset
Taunton
West Springfield
Winthrop
Attleboro
Brookline
Chicopee
Fitchburg
Holyoke
Longmeadow
Marl borough
Nahant
Norwood
Reading
Somerville
Wakefield
Westfield
Woburn
Belmont
Burlington
Danvers
Framingham
Hull
Lowell
Maynard
Needham
Peabody
Revere
Springfield
Waltham
Weymouth
Beverly
Cambridge
Dedham
Gloucester
Lawrence
Lynn
Medford
New Bedford
Pittsfield
Salem
Stoneham
Watertown
Wilmington
Municipalities Partially-Regulated By the Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit Program
(Permit requirements apply throughout a limited geographic area within the municipality)
Acton
Auburn
Blackstone
Cohasset
Dover
Easton
Georgetown
Hamilton
Holliston
Ludlow
Medfield
Acushnet
Avon
Boxborough
Concord
Dracut
Essex
Grafton
Hampden
Hudson
Lunenburg
Medway
Agawam
Barnstable
Boylston
Dalton
Dudley
Fall River
Granby
Hanover
Lanesborough
Manchester
Merrimac
Amesbury
Bedford
Bridgewater
Dartmouth
East
Bridgewater
Foxborough
Groton
Hanson
Leicester
Mansfield
Methuen
Andover
Bellingham
Canton
Dennis
East
Longmeadow
Franklin
Groveland
Hingham
Lincoln
Marblehead
Middleton
Ashland
Billerica
Charlton
Dighton
Easthampton
Freetown
Hadley
Holden
Littleton
Mashpee
Millbury
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
B-1
July, 2005
-------
Municipalities Partially-Regulated By the Phase II NPDES Stormwater Permit Program
(Permit requirements apply throughout a limited geographic area within the municipality)
Millis
North Reading
Paxton
Rockport
South Hadley
Sudbury
Walpole
Westborough
Whitman
Millville
Northborough
Pembroke
Sandwich
Southampton
Sutton
Wayland
Westford
Wilbraham
Natick
Northbridge
Plainville
Scituate
South borough
Swansea
Webster
Westminster
Williamsburg
Norfolk
Norton
Raynham
Seekonk
Southwick
Tewksbury
Wenham
Weston
Wrentham
North Andover
Norwell
Rehoboth
Sharon
Stoughton
Tyngsborough
West Boylston
Westport
Yarmouth
North
Attleboro
Oxford
Rockland
Shrewsbury
Stow
Uxbridge
West
Bridgewater
Westwood
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
B-2
July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX C
LOWER CHARLES RIVER ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION & ELIMINATION (IDDE)
PROTOCOL GUIDANCE FOR CONSIDERATION-NOVEMBER 2004
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc July, 2005
-------
Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Protocol
Guidance for Consideration - November 2004
Purpose/Goal
This document provides a common framework from which lower Charles River communities can
develop and implement a comprehensive plan to identify and eliminate dry and wet weather
illicit discharges to their separate storm sewer systems. Adopted from BWSC (2004) and Pitt
(2004), the protocol relies primarily on visual observations and the use of field test kits and
portable instrumentation during dry weather to complete a thorough inspection of the
communities' storm sewers in a prioritized manner. The protocol is applicable to most typical
storm sewer systems, however modifications to materials and methods may be required to
address situations such as open channels, systems impacted by sanitary sewer overflows or
sanitary sewer system under drains, or situations where groundwater or backwater conditions
preclude adequate inspection. The primary focus of the protocol is sanitary waste, however,
toxic and nuisance discharges may also be identified. Implementation of the protocol would
satisfy the relevant conditions under Minimum Control Measure No. 3 (IDDE) of the
communities' NPDES Small MS4 General Permit.
Drainage Area/Outfall Prioritization
Areas to consider for prioritizing investigative work include:
Areas suspected to have significant problems (documented by EPA, the community, or
others)
Direct discharges to sensitive or critical waters (e.g. water supplies, town beach)
Areas with inadequate sewer LOS or subject of numerous/chronic customer complaints
Areas served by common manholes or underdrains
Remaining areas prioritized through an outfall screening & ranking process
Drainage Area Investigations
1. Public Notification/Outreach Program
Provide letter/mailer to residents and building owners located within subject drainage basin
and/or sewershed notifying them of scope and schedule of investigative work, and the potential
need to gain access to their property to inspect plumbing fixtures. Where necessary, notification
of property owners through letter, door hanger, or otherwise will be required to gain entry.
Assessors records will provide property owner identification.
2. Field verification and correction of subarea storm sewer mapping
Adequate storm and sanitary sewer mapping is a prerequisite to properly execute an illicit
discharge detection and elimination program. As necessary and to the extent possible,
Page 1 of 6
-------
infrastructure mapping should be verified in the field and corrected prior to investigations. This
effort affords an opportunity to collect additional information such as latitude and longitude
coordinates using a global position system (GPS) unit if so desired. To facilitate subsequent
investigations (see Part 5. below), tributary area delineations should be confirmed and junction
manholes should be identified during this process. Orthophoto coverages (available from source
sources as MassGIS, MapQuest, and TerraServer) will also facilitate investigations by providing
building locations and land use features.
3. Infrastructure cleaning requirements
To facilitate investigations, storm drain infrastructure should be evaluated for the need to be
cleaned to remove debris or blockages that could compromise investigations. Such material
should be removed to the extent possible prior to investigations, however, some cleaning may
occur concurrently as problems manifest themselves.
4. Dry weather criteria
In order to limit or remove the influence of stormwater generated flows on the monitoring
program, antecedent dry weather criteria need to be established. An often used rule of thumb is
to wait two (2) days after cessation of a precipitation event prior to monitoring activities. This
duration can be adjusted to shorter or longer periods dependent upon the relative extent, slope,
and storage of the system under investigation.
5. Manhole inspection and flow monitoring methodology
Beginning at the uppermost junction manhole(s) within each tributary area, drainage manholes
are opened and inspected for visual evidence of contamination after antecedent dry weather
conditions are satisfied (e.g. after 48 hours of dry weather). Where flow is observed, and
determined to be contaminated through visual observation (e.g. excrement or toilet paper
present) or field monitoring (see Parts 5. & 6. below), the tributary storm sewer alignment is
isolated for investigation (e.g. dye testing, CCTV; see Part 7. below). No additional downstream
manhole inspections are performed unless the observed flow is determined to be uncontaminated
or until all upstream illicit connections are identified and removed. Where flow is not observed
in a junction manhole, all inlets to the structure are partially dammed for the next 48 hours when
no precipitation is forecasted. Inlets are damned by blocking a minimal percentage
(approximately 20% +/- depending on pipe slope) of the pipe diameter at the invert using
sandbags, caulking, weirs/plates, or other temporary barriers. The manholes are thereafter
reinspected (prior to any precipitation or snow melt) for the capture of periodic or intermittent
flows behind any of the inlet dams. The same visual observations and field testing is completed
on any captured flow, and where contamination is identified, abatement is completed prior to
inspecting downstream manholes.
Page 2 of 6
-------
In addition to documenting investigative efforts in written and photographic form, it is
recommended that information and observations regarding the construction, condition, and
operation of the structures also be compiled.
6. Field Measurement/Analysis:
Where flow is observed and does not demonstrate obvious olfactory evidence of contamination,
samples are collected and analyzed with field instruments identified in Table 1. Measured values
are then compared with benchmark values using the flow chart in Figure 1 to determine the
likely prominent source of the flow. This information facilitates the investigation of the
upstream stormsewer alignment described in Part 7. Benchmark values may be refined over the
course of investigations when compared with the actual incidences of observed flow sources.
In those manholes where periodic or intermittent flow is captured through damming inlets,
additional laboratory testing (e.g. toxicity, metals, etc.) should be considered where an industrial
batch discharge is suspected for example.
Table 1 - Field Measurements, Benchmarks, and Instrumentation
Analyte Benchmark Instrumentation1
Surfactants (as MBAS) >0.25 mg/L MB AS Test Kit (e.g. CHEMetrics K-9400)
Potassium (K) (ratio below) Portable Ion Meter (e.g. Horiba Cardy C-
131)
Ammonia (NH?) NHa/K > 1.0 Portable Colorimeter or Photometer (e.g.
Hach DR/890, CHEMetrics V-2000)
Fluoride (F) >0.25 mg/L Portable Colorimeter or Photometer (e.g.
Hach DR/890, CHEMetrics V-2000)
Temperature Abnormal Thermometer
pH Abnormal pH Meter
Instrumentation manufacturers and models provided for informational purposes only. Mention of specific products
does not constitute or imply EPA endorsement of same.
Page 3 of 6
-------
Figure 1. Flow Chart for Determining Likely Source of Discharge (Pitt, 2004)
7.
Isolation and confirmation of illicit sources
Where field monitoring has identified storm sewer alignments to be influence by sanitary flows
or washwaters, the tributary area is isolated for implementation of more detailed investigations.
Additional manholes along the tributary alignment are inspected to refine the longitudinal
location of potential contamination sources (e.g. individual or blocks of homes). Targeted
internal plumbing inspections/dye testing or CCTV inspections are then employed to more
efficiently confirm discrete flow sources.
Post-Removal Confirmation
After completing the removal of illicit discharges from a subdrainage area and before beginning
the investigation of downstream areas, the subdrainage area is reinspected to verify corrections.
Depending on the extent and timing of corrections, verification monitoring can be done at the
initial junction manhole or the closet downstream manhole to each correction. Verification is
accomplished by using the same visual inspection, field monitoring, and damming techniques as
described above.
Work Progression & Schedule
Page 4 of 6
-------
Since the IDDE Protocol requires the verified removal of illicit discharges prior to progressing
downstream through the storm sewer system, preparations should be made to initiate
investigations in other subareas to facilitate progress while awaiting completion of corrections.
Since work progress will be further constrained by the persistence of precipitation and snow melt
events, consideration must be given to providing adequate staffing and equipment resources to
perform concurrent investigations in several subareas.
Program Evaluation
The progress of the IDDE Program should be evaluated by tracking metrics such as:
Number/% of manholes/structures inspected
Number/% of outfalls screened
Number/% of illicit discharges identified through:
- visual inspections
- field testing results
temporary damming
Number/% of homes inspected/dye tested
Footage/% of pipe inspected by CCTV
Number/% of illicit discharges removed
Estimated flow/volume of illicit discharges removed
Footage and location of infrastructure j etting/cleaning required
Infrastructure defects identified and repaired
Water main breaks identified and repaired
Cost of illicit discharge removals (total, average unit costs)
Page 5 of 6
-------
References Cited
Boston Water & Sewer Commission, 2004, A systematic Methodology for the Identification and
Remediation of Illegal Connections. 2003 Storm water Management Report, chap. 2.1.
Pitt, R. 2004 Methods for Detection of Inappropriate Discharge to Storm Drain Systems.
Internal Project Files. Tuscaloosa, AL, in The Center for Watershed Protection and Pitt, R.,
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and
Technical Assessments: Cooperative Agreement X82907801-0, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, variously paged. Available at: http://www.cwp.org.
Instrumentation Cited (Manufacturer URLs)
MB AS Test Kit - CHEMetrics K-9400: http ://www. chemetrics.com/Products/Deterg.htm
Portable Photometer - CHEMetrics V-2000: http://www.chemetrics.com/v2000.htm
Portable Colorimeter - HachDR/890: http://www.hach.com/
Portable Ion Meter: Horiba Cardy C-131: http://www.wq.hii.horiba.eom/c.htm
Page 6 of 6
-------
APPENDIX D
STRUCTURAL STORMWATER MITIGATION PRACTICES
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX D
STRUCTURAL STORMWATER MITIGATION PRACTICES
D.1 Stormwater Infiltration/Retention Practices
Stormwater infiltration and retention BMPs store runoff and allow it to gradually infiltrate to
groundwater. Retention BMPs, also known as exfiltration systems, include infiltration basins, trenches,
swales, and vegetated filter strips. These systems must be designed with sufficient storage capacity to
hold runoff long enough to permit gradual infiltration. Infiltration systems remove pathogens by
filtration through the soil matrix and reduce Stormwater volume. Pre-treatment of runoff is often
required to prevent failure of infiltration systems due to sediment accumulation. Infiltration systems
have historically had significant failure rates and site constraints often limit their effectiveness
(Schueler et al 1992). Off-line infiltration systems are generally preferable. Offline systems only treat a
proscribed volume of runoff (e.g. the first 0.5 inches of a rainfall event). Resources for more
information on vegetated filter strips are provided in Section 3.1.1.
D.1.1 Infiltration/Biofilter Swales
Infiltration swales (also referred to as biofilter swales) are channels designed to retain Stormwater
runoff until it infiltrates to the groundwater. Figure D-1 is a schematic diagram of an infiltration swale.
They are generally designed with sufficient volume to retain a 10-year storm event. To ensure
adequate infiltration they must either be built in areas with soils capable of supporting significant
infiltration or must have an underdrain system (MassHighway 2004). Infiltration swales can
significantly reduce pathogen loading to a water body by eliminating the direct discharge of Stormwater
runoff to surface waters. Pathogens in the water that infiltrates to groundwater are removed through
filtering in the soil matrix. Due to their linear nature, infiltration swales are well suited for treating road
runoff.
Figure D-1 Infiltration Swale (MassHighway 2004)
0.6 TO 2.4 M
(2 TO 8 FEET)
BOTTOM WIDTH
10-YEAR DESIGN
2-YEAR DESIGN
-STORM CAPACITY
,SHOULDER-
/ ROADWAY
CAPACITY _
it
IJlPt,^ WATER
QUALITY VOLUME
/
₯ ^ *l
- 3:1 SLOPE
OR FLATTER
762.0-MM (30")
PERMEABLE SOIL
152.4 MM (6") GRAVEL
101.6 MM (4") UNDERDRAIN
PERFORATED PIPE
PROVIDE UNDERDRAIN WHERE
NATURAL SOILS ARE NOT
SUITABLE FOR INFILTRATION
BIOFILTER SWALE
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc
July, 2005
-------
D.1.2 Vegetated Filter Strips
Vegetated filter strips are vegetated areas that are intended to treat sheet flow from adjacent
impervious areas. However, no data is available on the effectiveness of filter strips at removing
bacteria. One problem associated with filter strips is that maintaining sheet flow is difficult.
Consequently, urban filter strips are often "short circuited" by concentrated flows, which results in little
or no treatment of stormwater runoff. Figure D-2 is a schematic diagram of a vegetated filter strip.
Filter strips function by slowing runoff velocities, filtering out sediment and other pollutants, and
providing some infiltration into underlying soils. The reduction of flow and removal of sediments can
also reduce the pathogen load to adjacent water bodies. Filter strips were originally used as an
agricultural treatment practice, and have more recently evolved into an urban practice. With proper
design and maintenance, filter strips may provide relatively high pollutant removal in some
circumstances. Filter strips are best suited to treating runoff from roads and highways, roof
downspouts, and small parking lots. They are also ideal components of the "outer zone" of a stream
buffer or as pretreatment for other stormwater treatment practices (Stormwater Manager's Resource
Center, no date).
Figure D-2 Vegetated Filter Strip (MassHighway 2004)
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
TURF GRASS COVER
WOODED COVER
SHALLOW STONE TRENCH
SERVES AS A LEVEL SPREADER
RECEIVING WATER
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-2
July, 2005
-------
D.1.3 Infiltration Trenches
Infiltration trenches are trenches backfilled with stones to create a reservoir to store runoff and allow it
to infiltrate to the groundwater. Infiltration trenches have a high failure rate; slightly more than half
totally or partially fail within five years of construction (Schueler et al. 1992). Figure D-3 is a schematic
diagram of an infiltration trench. It is important that soils at the site have sufficient permeability to allow
infiltration and pretreatment is necessary for removing sediments to reduce clogging. Grass clippings,
sediments, and leaves can accumulate on the surface of the trench. They should be removed
regularly. Bacteria removal by infiltration trenches is estimated to be 90% (Schueler et al 1992).
Figure D-3 Infiltration Trench (MassHighway 2004)
OBSERVATION WELL
OVERFLOW BERM
RUNOFF FILTERS THROUGH GRASS
BUFFER STRIP (6.1 M (20') MINIMUM);
GRASS CHANNEL; OR SEDIMENTATION TRAP
50.8-MM (2") PEA GRAVEL
FILTER LAYER
GEOTEXT1LE
TRENCH 0.9 TO 2.4 M
(3'-8') DEEP FILLED WITH
38TO 54 MM (1.5"-2.5")
DIAMETER CLEAN STONE
"j" RUNOFF ENTERS UNDISTURBED SOILS
CROSS-SECTION
D.1.4 Infiltration Basin
Infiltration basins are stormwater impoundment structures designed to store runoff until it infiltrates to
the groundwater through the floor of the basin. However, failure rates for infiltration basins are high.
Within five years, 60-100% of infiltration basins fail due to reduced permeability of the underlying soils
due to clogging with sediments (Schueler et al 1992). Figure D-4 is a schematic diagram of an
infiltration basin showing side and top views. Infiltration basins may be designed to allow a portion of
the stormwater to run out during large storm events. Their use is limited to areas with permeable soils,
and pre-treatment of runoff to remove sediments is vital. Pollutant removal is achieved by filtration
through the soil matrix. Estimated removal rates for bacteria range from 75-98% depending on how
much runoff passes through the structure without infiltrating (Schueler 1987).
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-3
July, 2005
-------
Figure D-4 Infiltration Basin (MassHighway 2004)
_LEVEL SPREADER
MMNTJNANCE
UNIT OF 100-YEAR STORM
CONTROL
STRUCTURE
PLAN
ORIFICES FOR
PEAK RATE
CONTROL
T 100-YEAR DESIGN STORM CAPACITY
T 10-YEAR DESIGN STORM CAPACITY
T 2-YEAR DESIGN STORM CAPACITY
.SCOUR PROTECTION
AT OUTFALL
RIPRAP APRON
OR
PLUNGE POOL
LEVEL SPREADER
PROFILE
D.2 Stormwater Detention Practices
Stormwater detention BMPs are structures that temporarily store runoff and slow its release to the
watershed. These methods are primarily designed to reduce Stormwater surges and the
concentrations of sediments and nutrients in Stormwater. Stormwater detention may also reduce
pathogen concentrations in Stormwater to a limited extent. See Table 3-1 for an overview of various
Stormwater detention practices and the mitigation they provide. Detaining runoff may reduce bacteria
through a number of mechanisms including:
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-4
July, 2005
-------
Natural dye-off of bacteria occurs during detention;
Sediments and associated bacteria settle out; and
Stormwater may infiltrate to the groundwater and pathogens removed by filtration through
the soil matrix.
Although detention systems may reduce bacteria concentrations, there is also the potential that they
can add to the problem if they attract waterfowl or other wildlife. Therefore, consideration should be
given to factors that reduce use of the detention structure by waterfowls. Resources for more
information on stormwater detention practices are provided in Section 3.1.1.
D.2.1 Created Wetlands
Created wetlands are shallow pools that create conditions suitable for the growth of marsh or wetland
plants. These systems achieve pathogen reduction through sedimentation, exposure to ultraviolet
radiation, chemical reactions, natural die-off, and predation by zooplankton (Rosen 2000). These
mechanisms result in an estimated 78% reduction of bacteria in stormwater (Winer 2000; as cited in
Center for Watershed Protection 2003). In addition to reducing pathogen concentrations, wetlands
have the benefit of significantly reducing the concentrations of nutrients, metals, and suspended solids
while creating habitat for wildlife. Created wetlands may be combined with wet ponds or extended
detention. These structures are suitable for on-line or off-line treatment (assuming adequate hydrology
can be maintained with off-line systems).
D.2.2 Extended Detention Ponds
Extended detention ponds are designed, as the name suggests, to hold stormwater in the pond and
slow its release to the watershed. Figure D-5 is a schematic diagram showing an aerial and a cross
sectional view of an extended detention pond. Extended detention ponds generally feature a low-flow
orifice attached to the outlet of the pond. During detention, sedimentation and natural die-off reduce
pathogen concentrations in the runoff. A detention time of 32 hours may result in an order of
magnitude reduction in bacteria concentration in stormwater (Whipple and Hunter 1981; as cited in
Schueler 1987). As an added benefit, detention can reduce downstream erosion and remove up to
90% of particulate pollutants (Schueler 1987).
There are two types of extended detention ponds for mitigating stormwater impacts, wet and dry
detention ponds. Wet extended detention ponds include a storage volume above a permanent pool.
Dry ponds drain completely between precipitation events. Wet ponds may be enhanced with wetland
features or combined with extended detention. In comparison to wet ponds, sediment re-suspension is
more likely in dry detention ponds and they generally do not provide adequate soluble pollutant
removal. Extended detention ponds are suitable for on-line or off-line treatment.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc D-5
July, 2005
-------
Figure D-5 Extended Detention Pond (MassHighway 2004)
SCOUR PROTECTION
AT OUTFALL
ANTI-SEEP COLLAR or-
FILTER DIAPHRAM
PROFILE
D.2.3 Vegetative Riparian Buffer Zones
Vegetative riparian buffers are vegetated corridors along aquatic channels. These areas may preserve
existing vegetation or be designed and constructed to protect water quality. However, data on their
effectiveness at removing pathogens are not available. Vegetated riparian buffers act primarily by
reducing runoff velocity resulting in increased sedimentation and infiltration. However, forested buffers
have only a limited ability to remove pollutants because stormwater is often concentrated and travels
through the buffer area in a channel or ditch (Center for Watershed Protection 2003).
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-6
July, 2005
-------
D.2.4 Swales
Swales are vegetated earthen channels that convey runoff. They are often used in residential areas as
an alternative to curb and gutter systems. Despite there effectiveness at removing some pollutants,
Winer (2000; as referenced in Center for Watershed Protection 2003) found that swales can increase
bacteria concentrations in the water that flows through them. Therefore, unless they provide significant
infiltration, swales should not be relied on to reduce bacteria concentrations. Instead, they may be
implemented as part of a comprehensive stormwater management strategy. Pollutant removal
primarily occurs via settling, filtration through the vegetation, and plant uptake. Depending on site
conditions infiltration may also occur. Use of check dams in the swale slows flow and may enhance
pollutant removal.
D.3 Disinfection, Chemical Treatment, and Other Treatment Practices
In addition to treatment methods that rely on infiltration and detention, there are a number of other
methods for treating stormwater. These include chemical disinfection, alum treatment, sand filters, oil
and grit chambers, and catch basins with sumps and hoods. A brief description of these methods is
provided below (see also Table 3-1). With the exception chemical disinfection, these technologies are
not designed primarily to remove pathogens from stormwater. Therefore, the efficacy of these
methods at removing pathogens is often limited.
D.3.1 Chemical Disinfection
A number of chemical disinfection technologies for reducing pathogen concentrations in wastewater
and drinking water may be applicable for treating stormwater. However, to date none of these
technologies have been widely used to treat runoff. This is likely due to their high costs and a number
of technical challenges. These technologies may be applicable, however, to situations where other
means to reduce pathogen concentrations in stormwater are ineffective, impractical, or insufficient.
Application of these technologies will generally require pretreatment to reduce turbidity and sediment
content prior to disinfection. A brief description of a few disinfectant methods and the potential
advantages and disadvantages of their use for treating stormwater is provided below.
Chlorination: Chlorination is the most commonly used disinfectant for wastewater and drinking water
treatment. Chlorination relies on the oxidation of organic molecules to inactivate pathogens.
Advantages
Effective at treating a wide range of pathogens
Economical relative to other disinfectant technologies
Relies on proven and effective technology (USEPA 1999a)
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc Q_y Jul 20Q5
-------
Disadvantages
Toxic to aquatic life and has the potential to negatively impact the receiving water body
Discharge would likely require a NPDES permit (Caltrans 2004)
Since chlorine effectiveness can be reduced by suspended solids, in most cases
stormwater would require treatment to remove suspended solids prior to chlorination
Produces disinfectant byproducts that are potential carcinogens (USEPA 1999a)
Ozone Treatment: Ozone treatment is used for treating drinking water and wastewater, but is not
widely used for treating stormwater. Ozone works by directly oxidizing organic molecules and
producing hydroxyls radicals that also oxidize organic molecules (USEPA 1999a).
/Advantages
Effluent does not contain residuals that are toxic to aquatic life (Caltrans 2004)
Reduces the concentration of organic contaminants
Can reduce BOD and total suspended solids (TSS) (Caltrans 2004)
Produces fewer disinfectant byproducts than chlorine (Caltrans 2004)
Disadvantages
High cost
High energy requirements
Most suitable for continuous flows (Caltrans 2004)
Ultraviolet Irradiation: Disinfection of water can be achieved through exposure to ultraviolet radiation of
sufficient intensity. Ultraviolet radiation inactivates bacteria by penetrating the cell wall and disrupting
nucleic acids and other cell components (USEPA 1999a). A system to treat dry-weather runoff using
ultraviolet irradiation in California is reported to achieve mean fecal coliform concentrations of 2
CFU/100ml (Rasmus and Weldon 2003).
/Advantages
Minimal residual in the effluent
Relatively low maintenance requirements
Can achieve low pathogen concentrations
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc D-8
July, 2005
-------
Disadvantages
Effectiveness can be greatly reduced by turbidity
May require substantial pre-treatment (Caltrans 2004)
Requires extremely high ultraviolet (UV) dosages to inactivate cryptosporidium and giardia
(USEPA1999a)
Resources for Disinfection and Chemical Treatment
Stormwater Treatment BMP New Technology Report. California Department of
Transportation. 2004. SW-04-069-.04.02 Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.qov/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/ pdfs/new technoloqv/CTSW-
RT-04-069.pdf
Moonlight Beach Urban Runoff Treatment facility: Using Ultraviolet Disinfection to Reduce
Bacteria Counts. Rasmus, J. and K. Weldon. 2003. StormWater, May/June 2003. Available
for download at http://www.forester.net/sw 0305 moonlight.html
D.3.2 Alum Treatment
Treatment with alum or other aluminum coagulants involves the dosing of stream flows with coagulant
to bind phosphorus and coagulate sediments to promote settling. Alum treatment is primarily applied
for phosphorus removal where other BMPs are not viable. However, removal rates ranging from 50 -
99% have been documented for bacteria and other pollutants. This treatment technology has been
applied successfully for treating stormwater. Buffering is typically required due to the low alkalinity of
most New England waters. An alum treatment system design must consider the following elements:
A secure facility to house the system elements,
One or more 3,000 - 6,000 gallon tanks to hold a slurry of alum and buffering solutions,
Pumps and/or diversion structures (for off-line systems),
Flow metering devices and triggers to activate the discharge of chemical at a pre-
determined flow,
Mechanical mixing or aeration to maximize contact and promote floe formation, and
Fluctuations in stormwater quality during the course of a storm or from storm to storm may
result in variable treatment effectiveness.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc Q_g
July, 2005
-------
D.3.3 Sand Filters/Filter Beds
Filter beds are designed to strain runoff through a sand filter to an underdrain system for discharge.
Figure D-6 is a schematic diagram showing top and side views of a sand filter. To date, extensive
application of this technology has been limited to the mid-Atlantic and southwestern US. Sand filters
have achieved fecal coliform removal rates of 40% in stormwater (Schueler et al 1992). In addition,
sand filters reduce sediment, nutrient, and trace metal concentrations. Frequent maintenance of the
filter is required to remove accumulated sediments, trash, debris, and leaf litter (Schueler et al 1992).
Sand filters should not generally be used as on-line systems.
Figure D-6 Sand Filter (MassHighway 2004)
OUTLET PIPE COLLECTION SYSTEM
PROFILE
PERFORATED PIPE
IN GRAVEL JACKET
FILTER GEOTEXTILE
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-10
July, 2005
-------
D.3.4 Oil/Grit Chambers
Oil and grit chambers are underground systems consisting of multiple chambers for the separation of
coarse sediments and floating contaminants from stormwater. Oil and grit chambers are unlikely to
achieve significant reductions in pathogen concentrations. Figure D-7 is a schematic diagram of an oil
and grit chamber. There a number of oil/grit chamber designs currently on the market. These self-
contained units include a small permanent pool below the inlet to permit the settling of coarse
sediments and typically have hooded outlet structures to remove oil and floating contaminants
(Figure D-7). In addition, several proprietary designs rely on a vortex to enhance sediment removal.
Their primary utility is the removal of coarse sediments as a pre-treatment for other BMPs. Since
actual pollutant removal does not occur until the chambers are cleaned out, the effectiveness of these
systems relies on regular maintenance (Schueler 1992). In addition, re-suspension of sediments in the
chambers may limit their effectiveness (Schueler 1992). Pollutant removal may be enhanced for off-
line systems.
Figure D-7 Oil and Grit Chamber (MassHighway 2004)
JL_
FIRST CHAMBER
(SEDIMENT TRAPPING)
SECOND CHAMBER
(OIL SEPERATION)
THIRD CHAMBER
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-11
July, 2005
-------
D.3.5 Catch Basin w/ Sumps & Hood
Deep sump catch basins are inlet structures that provide for some removal of sediments and floating
contaminants. The effectiveness of catch basins with sumps and hoods at removing pathogens has
not been tested. However, it is likely to be negligible. Therefore, catch basins may provide adequate
pre-treatment for other BMPs but they should not be relied on to reduce pathogen concentrations.
Figure D-8 is a schematic diagram of a deep sump catch basin. Deep sump catch basins function
similarly to oil and grit chambers. Stormwater flows into the sump where coarse sediment is removed
by settling. The outlet of the sump is below the waterline so oil and grease and other floating materials
are retained in the catch basin. When regularly maintained they may remove limited amounts of
coarse sediments and oil and grease.
Figure D-8 Deep Sump Catch Basin (MassHighway 2004)
STANDARD FRAME & GRATE
STANDARD FRAME & GRATE
OUTLET PIPE
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
D-12
July, 2005
-------
D.4 Low Impact Development Strategies
Low impact development strategies (LIDS) are a set of tools intended to restore or maintain the
hydrology of the watershed by reducing runoff rates and volume and increasing groundwater recharge.
LIDS are defined as follows (from USEPA 2000a):
LID is a site design strategy with a goal of maintaining or replicating the pre-development
hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques to create a functionally equivalent
hydrologic landscape. Hydrologic functions of storage, infiltration, and ground water
recharge, as well as the volume and frequency of discharges are maintained through the use
of integrated and distributed micro-scale stormwater retention and detention areas, reduction
of impervious surfaces, and the lengthening of flow paths and runoff time (Coffman, 2000).
Other strategies include the preservation/protection of environmentally sensitive site features
such as riparian buffers, wetlands, steep slopes, valuable (mature) trees, flood plains,
woodlands and highly permeable soils.
LID principles are based on controlling stormwater at the source by the use of micro-scale
controls that are distributed throughout the site. This is unlike conventional approaches that
typically convey and manage runoff in large facilities located at the base of drainage areas.
These multifunctional site designs incorporate alternative stormwater management practices
such as functional landscape that act as stormwater facilities, flatter grades, depression
storage and open drainage swales. This system of controls can reduce or eliminate the need
of a centralized best management practice (BMP) facility for the control of stormwater runoff.
Although traditional stormwater control measures have been documented to effectively
remove pollutants, the natural hydrology is still negatively affected (inadequate base flow,
thermal fluxes or flashy hydrology), which can have detrimental effects on ecosystems, even
when water quality is not compromised (Coffman, 2000). LID practices offer an additional
benefit in that they can be integrated into the infrastructure and are more cost effective and
aesthetically pleasing than traditional, structural stormwater conveyance systems.
Although LIDS are not primarily designed to reduce pathogen pollution, their mitigation of hydrologic
impacts is likely to reduce pathogen loading from stormwater in many situations. One of the primary
impacts of increased urbanization is the increase in impervious surface area within the watershed. As
a result, runoff volume and velocity increase leading to more flushing of contaminants, including
pathogens, into adjacent surface waters. Therefore, one of the most significant ways to reduce
stormwater's contribution to pathogen contamination is to reduce the volume and rate of runoff from a
given area. LIDS aim to reduce runoff by increasing infiltration to groundwater and plant uptake.
These approaches may be particularly effective if they are targeted at areas known to contribute
significantly to pathogen contamination, such as areas with high use by domestic animals or wildlife.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc D-13 July 2005
-------
Although LIDS are often intended primarily for new development, many of these practices can be
applied as retrofits to existing sites with similar benefits. The following section focuses on the LIDS
that are most likely to be applicable to existing developments (see also Table 3-1). For more
information on LIDS for future development see the information referenced in Resources - Low Impact
Development Strategies (Section 0.4.8).
D.4.1 Disconnecting Impervious Areas
One of the most effective LIDS is "disconnecting" impervious areas. Impervious areas that drain
directly to closed drainage systems produce runoff in all but the smallest rain events. If runoff from
paved surfaces is allowed to flow over pervious or vegetated surfaces before entering a drainage
collection system, some or all of the runoff from small rain events will be intercepted and percolated
into the ground. This can eliminate stormwater's contribution to pathogen impairment during small
storm events. The following steps can be taken to disconnect impervious areas:
Remove curbs on roads and parking lots
Locate catch basins in pervious areas adjacent to parking lots, as opposed to in the paved
portion of the lot
Disconnect roof drains and direct flows to vegetated areas
Direct flows from paved areas such as driveways to stabilized vegetated areas
Break up flow directions from large paved surfaces
Encourage sheet flow through vegetated areas
Carefully locate impervious areas so that they drain to natural systems, vegetated buffers,
natural resource areas, or infiltratable zones/soils
D.4.2 Bioretention
Bioretention uses a conditioned planting soil bed and planting materials to filter runoff stored within a
shallow depression. The method combines physical filtering and adsorption with biological processes.
These processes are likely to remove sediments and associated pathogens from the water. A
bioretention system can include the following components: a pretreatment filter consisting of a grass
channel inlet area, a shallow surface water ponding area, a bioretention planting area, a soil zone, an
underdrain system, and an overflow outlet structure (MD DNR, 1999).
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc D-14
July, 2005
-------
D.4.3 Soil Amendment
The aeration and addition of compost amendments to disturbed soils is extremely effective at restoring
the hydrologic functions of soils and reducing runoff. Soil amendments increase the spacing between
soil particles so that the soil can absorb and hold more moisture. Compared to compacted, un-
amended soils, amended soils provide greater infiltration and subsurface storage which reduces a
site's overall runoff volume, and helps maintain or restore the predevelopment peak discharge rate and
timing. The reduction in runoff, along with the filtering effect of the soil matrix can reduce pathogen
loading.
D.4.4 Porous Pavement
Porous pavement allows rain and snowmelt to pass through it and infiltrate into the ground, thereby
reducing the runoff from a site. This reduction in runoff may also reduce the area's contribution to
pathogen loading. The two primary types of porous pavement include porous asphalt and pervious
concrete. Porous asphalt consists of an open-graded coarse aggregate, bonded together by asphalt
cement, with sufficient interconnected voids to make it highly permeable. Pervious concrete consists of
specially formulated mixtures of Portland cement, uniform, open-graded coarse aggregate, and water.
Pervious concrete has enough void space to allow rapid percolation of liquids through the pavement.
The porous pavement surface is typically placed over a highly permeable layer of open-graded gravel
and crushed stone. The void spaces in the aggregate layers act store runoff. Porous pavement may
substitute for conventional pavement on parking areas, areas with light traffic, and the shoulders of
airport taxiways and runways, provided that the grades, subsoil, drainage characteristics, and
groundwater conditions are suitable (USEPA 1999b). However, porous pavement is reported to have
a failure rate of 75% due to clogging with sediments (Schueleret al 1992).
0.4.5 Green Roofs
Green roofs, also known as vegetated roof covers, eco-roofs, or nature roofs, help to mitigate the
effects of urbanization on water quality by filtering, absorbing and detaining rainfall. They are
constructed of a lightweight soil media, underlain by a drainage layer, and a high quality impermeable
membrane that protects the building structure. The soil is planted with a specialized mix of plants that
can thrive in the harsh, dry, high temperature conditions of the roof and tolerate short periods of
inundation from storm events. Green roofs may reduce pathogen loads when roof runoff flows over
potentially contaminated surfaces by reducing the volume and frequency of the runoff.
D.4.6 Rain Barrels and Cisterns
Rain barrels are low-cost, effective, and easily maintained retention devices applicable to residential,
commercial, and industrial sites. Rain barrels operate by retaining a predetermined volume of rooftop
runoff. Rain barrels are typically used to store runoff for later reuse in lawn and garden watering.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc D-15 July 2005
-------
Stormwater cisterns are roof runoff management devices that provide retention storage volume in
underground storage tanks for re-use for irrigation or other uses. Reduction in pathogen loading may
occur when the stored runoff would have otherwise washed contaminants into stormwater systems.
On-lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and
the possibility of reducing water utility costs (MD DER, 1999). Rain barrels are a bad idea unless there
is a way of preventing mosquitoes from laying their eggs.
D.4.7 Rain Gardens
A simple, yet effective method to control stormwater is through the use of rain gardens. Also known as
bioretention areas, rain gardens are small vegetated depressions that collect, store, and infiltrate
stormwater runoff. They contain various soil types from clays to sands and size varies depending on
area drained and available space. Their primary utility in reducing pathogen in stormwater relies on
the reduction in runoff volume and in the increase infiltration.
D.4.8 Resources - Low Impact Development Strategies
Low Impact Development Page. USEPA Website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/
Low Impact Development Center. Website: http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/
Low Impact Development Design Strategies. Prince George's County Maryland,
Department of Environmental Resources 1999. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidnatl.pdf
Low Impact Development, a Literature Review. USEPA 2000a. EPA-841-B-00-005.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid.pdf
Bioretention Applications. USEPA 2000 [do these need to be in the references?]. EPA-841-
B-00-005A. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/bioretention.pdf
Field Evaluations of Permeable Pavements for Stormwater Management. USEPA 2000.
EPA-841-B-00-005B. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/pavements.pdf
Vegetated Roof Cover. USEPA 2000. EPA-841-B-00-005D Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/roofcover.pdf
D.5 Operation and Maintenance Measures
Operation and maintenance programs should be comprehensive and include annual inspection and
maintenance of mitigation measures that have been enacted. Requirements of an operation and
maintenance program will depend on the specific BMPs employed. However, some general guidelines
and specific examples are provided below. The effectiveness of operation and maintenance activities
at reducing pathogen concentrations will be dependent on the specific BMP in question.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc D-16
July, 2005
-------
Recommended general operation and maintenance measures include:
Conduct inspections and prompt repair or replacement of runoff management practices;
Maintain transportation and storm drain infrastructure to reduce loads at the source;
Inspect, maintain, and repair controls to maintain design treatment capacity; and
Inspect, maintain, and repair aquatic buffers.
The Massachusetts Highway Department suggests the following for operation and maintenance of
stormwater systems associated with highways and bridges (MassHighway 2004):
"1. Maintain records that document catch basin inspection and cleaning (as well as any
maintenance activities for other drainage structures), including: executed contracts,
certificates of completion, contractor invoices, or other types of maintenance logs.
a. Develop a centralized database for keeping records on inspection and maintenance of
catch basins. This will include developing a map of its drainage systems, on a project by
project basis as individual roadway projects are proposed and issued environmental
permits. MassHighway will collect data on the accumulation of debris (including the
frequency of cleaning catch basins, and any drainage problems) for representative areas,
and determine if the current inspection and cleaning schedule should be altered for
particular areas.
b. The schedule will target areas that are in most need of cleaning, with an emphasis on
locations adjacent to sensitive receiving waters (e.g., public drinking water reservoirs),
while corresponding to MassHighway's limited maintenance budgets.
c. Upon completion of the review, the Standard Operating Procedure for catch basin
cleaning will be updated, as necessary;
2. Sweep roadways on an annual basis after winter deicing applications as warranted, with
an emphasis on high sand accumulation areas and locations adjacent to sensitive receiving
waters;
3. Note problems and take appropriate corrective actions to maintain outlets and BMPs in
good working condition;
4. Take appropriate control measures to avoid discharge of materials to receiving wetland
and water resources during cleaning and maintenance activities (e.g., avoid side-casting
sediments from ditch cleaning into adjacent wetlands);
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc Q_<| 7
July, 2005
-------
5. Install, inspect and maintain construction BMPs to ensure appropriate sediment control is
provided throughout construction and until the site is stabilized."
D.5.1 Resources - Operation and Maintenance
National Management Measure to Control Non Point Source Pollution from Urban Areas -
Draft. USEPA 2002. EPA 842-B-02-2003. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html
Operation, Maintenance, and Management of Stormwater Management Systems.
Livingston, Shaver, Skupien, and Horner August 1997. Watershed Management Institute.
Call: (850)926-5310.
Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources - Stormwater Control Operation and
Maintenance. USEPA Webpage: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/stormwater.htm
Stormwater O & M Fact Sheet Preventive Maintenance. USEPA 1999. 832-F-99-004.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/prevmain.pdf
The MassHighway Stormwater Handbook. Massachusetts Highway Department. 2004.
Available at: http://166.90.180.162/mhd/downloads/proiDev/swbook.pdf
D.6 References
Caltrans 2004. Stormwater Treatment BMP New Technology Report. SW-04-069-.04.02 California
Department of Transportation. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hg/env/stormwater/special/newsetup/ pdfs/new technologv/CTSW-RT-04-
069.pdf
Center for Watershed Protection 2003. Impacts of impervious Cover on Aquatic Ecosystems. Center
for Watershed Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
Coffman, L. 2000. Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, an Integrated Design Approach. EPA
841-B-00-003. Prince George's County, MD. Department of Environmental Resources.
MassHighway. 2004. The MassHighway Stormwater Handbook. Massachusetts Highway Department.
Available at: http://166.90.180.162/mhd/downloads/proiDev/swbook.pdf
MD DNR. 1999. Low-Impact Development: An Integrated Design Approach, Prince Georges County,
Maryland. Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc Q_<| g
July, 2005
-------
Rasmus, J. and K. Weldon. 2003. Moonlight Beach Urban Runoff Treatment facility; Using Ultraviolet
disinfection to reduce bacteria counts. StormWater, May/June 2003. Available at:
http://www.forester.net/sw 0305 moonlight.html
Rosen, B. H., 2000. Waterborne Pathogens in Agricultural Wastewater. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Watershed Science Institute. Available at:
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/WSI/pdffiles/Pathogens in Agricultural Watersheds.pdf
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC
Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management
Practices Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC
Stormwater Manager's Resource Center. No date. Website: http://www.stormwatercenter.net/
USEPA. 2000a. Low Impact Development, A Literature Review. EPA-841-B-00-005. U.S. EPA, Low
Impact Development Center. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html
USEPA. 1999a. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA 815-R-99-014. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbptg.html#disinfect
USEPA. 1999b. Stormwater Technology Fact Sheet, Porous Pavement. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC,
September 1999.
Whipple and Hunter. 1981. Settleability of Urban Runoff. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
53(1); 1726-1732.
Winer, R. 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment
Practices. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc Q_<| g
July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX E
TOWNS AND CITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY SEPTIC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementation Guidance.doc July, 2005
-------
APPENDIX E
TOWNS AND CITIES PARTICIPATING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY SEPTIC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Current Towns and Cities Participating in the Program
Barnstable
Bridgewater
Dennis
Essex
Hanson
Kingston
Middleborough
Orleans
Shirley
Southhampton
Wellfleet
West Newbury
Bellingham
Chatham
East Bridgewater
Falmouth
Holden
Leicester
Middleton
Pembroke
Shrewsbury
Taunton
West Boylston
Whitman
Bourne
Dartmouth
Eastham
Halifax
Hopkinton
Mashpee
Norton
Provincetown
South borough
Townsend
West Bridgewater
Wrentham
Towns and Cities that Participated in the Program in the Past
Acushnet
Athol
Belchertown
Bourne
Carver
Dartmouth
Dudley
Fairhaven
Gloucester
Hardwick
Holden
Lancaster
Lynnfield
Mendon
Agawam
Attleboro
Bellingham
Boxford
Chatham
Dedham
Duxbury
Falmouth
Grafton
Harwich
Hopkinton
Leicester
Mashpee
Merrimac
Amesbury
Avon
Belmont
Boylston
Chesterfield
Dennis
East
Bridgewater
Foxborough
Greenfield
Hatfield
Hubbardston
Lexington
Maynard
Middleborough
Amherst
Ayer
Berlin
Brewster
Colrain
Dighton
Eastham
Franklin
Groton
Haverhill
Hudson
Littleton
Medfield
Middleton
Ashburnham
Barnstable
Bernardston
Bridgewater
Concord
Dover
Easton
Georgetown
Halifax
Hingham
Kingston
Long meadow
Medway
Millville
Ashland
Barre
Blackstone
Brookfield
Conway
Dracut
Essex
Gill
Hanover
Holbrook
Lakeville
Lunenburg
Medway
Milton
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
E-1
July, 2005
-------
Towns and Cities that Participated in the Program in the Past
Monterey
North borough
Pembroke
Reading
Scituate
South bo rough
Button
Wakefield
West Newbury
Winchester
Nantucket
Northbridge
Phillipston
Rowley
Seekonk
Southbridge
Taunton
Walpole
Westford
Wrentham
Natick
Norton
Plymouth
Royalston
Sharon
Southwick
Templeton
Wareham
Wey mouth
Yarmouth
Needham
Norwell
Plympton
Rutland
Shrewsbury
Spencer
Tisbury
Wayland
Whitman
North Reading
Orange
Provincetown
Sandwich
Shutesbury
Stoughton
Townsend
Webster
Wilmington
Northampton
Paxton
Raynham
Saugus
Southampton
Sunderland
Truro
West Boylston
Winchendon
Q:\mw97\Projects\10598001\303\lmplementationGuidance.doc
E-2
July, 2005
------- |