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

-------