Guidance specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Guidance gpecif@ing Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters
0 I'D CY)
ON Ln C)"
41 1- @:D LTI\
@:4 C@) - --i

United States Office of Water 840-13-92-002
Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 January 1993
Agency
EPA Guidance Specifying
Management Measures
For Sources Of ' Nonpoint
Pollution In Coastal
Waters

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Service Center

2224 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300

Issued Under the Authority of
Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

Guidance Specifying Management Measures
For Sources Of Nonpoint Pollution
In Coastal Waters

Issued Under the Authority of Section 6217(g)
of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Off ice of Water
Washington, DC

FOREWORD

This document contains guidance specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal
waters. Nonpoint pollution is the pollution of our nation's waters caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting
from human activity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. In
addition, hydrologic modification is a form of nonpoint source pollution that often adversely affects the biological
and physical integrity of surface waters.

In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Congress recognized that nonpoint
pollution is a key factor in the continuing degradation of many coastal waters and established a new program to
address this pollution. Congress further recognized that the solution to nonpoint pollution lies in State and local
action. Thus, in enacting the CZARA, Congress called upon States to develop and implement State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs.

Congress assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the responsibility to develop this technical
guidance to guide the States' development of Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs, which must be in
conformity with the technical guidance. EPA developed this guidance by carefully surveying the technical literature,
working with Federal and State agencies, and engaging in extensive dialogue with the public to identify the best
economically achievable measures that are available to protect coastal waters from nonpoint pollution.

This "management measures" guidance addresses five source categories of nonpoint pollution: agriculture,
silviculture, urban, marinas, and hydromodification. A suite of management measures is provided for each source
category. In addition, we have included a chapter that provides management measures that provide other tools
available to address many source categories of nonpoint pollution; these tools include the protection, restoration, and
construction of wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems.

In addition to this "management measures" guidance, EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) have jointly published final guidance for the approval of State programs that implement management
measures. That guidance explains more fully how the management measures guidance will be implemented in State
programs.

We at EPA strongly believe that, working together, the States, EPA, NOAA, other Federal agencies, and local
communities can achieve the goal of the Clean Water Act to make our waters fishable and swimmable. We hope
that the enclosed guidance will help us all achieve our common goal.

Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds

CONTENTS

Page

Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................ 1-1

1. Background ............................................................. 1-1

A. Nonpoint Source Pollution ............................................... 1-1

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

B. Coastal Zone Management ............................................... 1-2
C. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 .......................... 1-3

1. Background and Purpose of the Amendments .............................. 1-3
2. State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs ......................... 1-4
3. Management Measures Guidance ....................................... 1-5

D. Program Implementation Guidance ......................................... 1-6

II. Development of the Management Measures Guidance ................................ 1-7

A. Process Usedito Develop This Guidance ..................................... 1-7
B. Scope and Contents of This Guidance ....................................... 1-7

1. Categories of Nonpoint Sources Addressed ................................ 1-7
2. Relationship Between This Management Measures Guidance for
Coastal Nonpoint Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements for
Point Sources ..................................................... 1-8
3. Contents of This Guidance .......................................... 1-10

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

A. The Nonpoint Source Pollution Process ..................................... 1-12

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

B. Management Measures as Systems ........................................ 1-13
C. Economic Achievability of the Proposed Management Measures .................... 1-13

Chapter 2. Management Measures for Agriculture Sources .............................. 2-1

I. Introduction ............................................................. 2-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ......................................... 2-1
B. What "Management Practices" Are ......................................... 2-1
C. Scope of This Chapter .................................................. 2-2
0 V

CONTENTS (Continued)
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters Page
and to Other EPA Documents ............................................. 2-2
E. Coordination of Measures ................................................. 2-3
F. Pollutants That Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution ...................... 2-3

1. Nutrients ....................................................... 2-3
2. Sediment ....................................................... 2-6
3. Animal Wastes ................................................... 2-7
4. Salts .......................................................... 2-8
5. Pesticides ....................................................... 2-9
6. Habitatj Impacts ................................................... 2-10

Management Measures for Agricultural Sources ................................... 2-12

A. Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure ............................ 2-12

1 . Applicability .................................................... 2-12
2. Description ..................................................... 2-12
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-14
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-14
5. Erosion and Sediment Control Management Practices ....................... 2-16
6. Cost Information ................................................. 2-27

Bl. Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined
Animal Facility Management (Large Units) .................................. 2-33

1. Applicability .................................................... 2-33
2. Description ..................................................... 2-34
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-36
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-37
5. Confined Animal Facility Management Practices ........................... 2-38
6. Cost Information ................................................. 2-41

B2. Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined
Animal Facility Management (Small Units) .................................. 2-43

1. Applicability .................................................... 2-43
2. Description ..................................................... 2-44
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-46
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-47
5. Confined Animal Facility Management Practices ........................... 2-48
6. Cost Information ............... .................................. 2-51

C. Nutrient Management Measure ........................................... 2-52

1. Applicability ......... .......................................... 2-53
2. Description ..................................................... 2-53

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

3. Manag@inent Measure Selection ....................................... 2-53
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-54
5. Nutrient Management Practices ....................................... 2-56
6. Cost Information ................................................. 2-60

D. Pesticide Management Measure ........................................... 2-61

1. Applicability .................................................... 2-61
2. Description ..................................................... 2-61
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-63
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-63
5. Pesticide Management Practices ...................................... 2-68
6. Cost Information ................................................. 2-70
7. Relationship of Pesticide Management Measure to Other Programs .............. 2-71

E. Grazing Management Measure ............................................ 2-73

1. Applicability .................................................... 2-73
2. Description ..................................................... 2-74
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-75
4. Effectiveness Information ........................................... 2-75
5. Range and Pasture Management Practices ............................... 2-78
6. Cost Information ................................................. 2-83

F. Irrigation Water Management Measure ...................................... 2-88

1. Applicability .................................................... 2-89
2. Description ................................................. ... 2-89
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 2-93
4. Effectiveness Information ........ 2-94
5. Irrigation Water Management Practices ................................. 2-94
6. Cost Information ................................................ 2-104

III. Glossary .............................................................. 2-107

IV. Ref6rences ..................................... ......................... 2-114

Appendix 2A ........................................ 11 ................. 2-121

Appendix 2B ..................................... ......................... 2-151

vii

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Chapter 3. Management Measures for Forestry ....................................... 3-1

1. Introduction ............................................................. 3-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ......................................... 3-1
B. What "Management Practices" Are .......................................... 3-1
C. Scope of This Chapter .................................................. 3-1
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters
and to Other EPA Documents ............................................. 3-2
E. Background ......................................................... 3-3

1. Pollutant Types and Impacts .......................................... 3-4
2. Forestry Activities Affecting Water Quality ............................... 3-5

F. Other Federal, State, and Local Silviculture Programs ............................ 3-7

1. Federal Programs ................................................. 3-7
2. State Forestry NPS Programs ......................................... 3-8
3. Local Governments ................................................ 3-8

11. Forestry Management Measures ............................................... 3-10

A. Preharvest Planning ................................................... 3-10

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-11
2. Description ..................................................... 3-11
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-14
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-17

B. Strearnside Management Areas (SMAs) ..................................... 3-26

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-26
2. Description ..................................................... 3-26
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-27
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-31

C. Road Construction/Reconstruction ......................................... 3-38

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-38
2. Description ..................................................... 3-38
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-39
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-46

D. Road Management .................................................... 3-53

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-53
2. Description ..................................................... 3-53

Vid

CONTENTS (Continbed)

Page

3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-55
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-55

E. Timber Harvesting .................................................... 3-59

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-59
2. Description ..................................................... 3-60
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-60
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-64

F. Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration .................................... 3-69

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-69
2. Description ..................................................... 3-69
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-70
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-75

G. Fire Management .................................................... 3-78

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-78
2. Description ..................................................... 3-78
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-79
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-80
0 H. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas .......................................... 3-82
1. Applicability .................................................... 3-82
2. Description ..................................................... 3-82
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-83
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-86

1. Forest Chemical Management ............................................ 3-88

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-88
2. Description ..................................................... 3-88
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-89
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-93
5. Relationship of Management Measure Components for Pesticides
to Other Programs ................................................ 3-95

J. Wetlands Forest Management .................. I ......................... 3-97

1. Applicability .................................................... 3-97
2. Description ..................................................... 3-97
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 3-98
4. Practices ...................................................... 3-99

0 ix

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

111. Glossary .............................................................. :3-104

IV. References ............................................................ 3-109

Appendix 3A .......................................................... :3-121

Chapter 4. Management Measures for Urban Areas .................................... 4-1

1. Introduction .............................................................. 4-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ......................................... 4-1
B. What "Management Practices" Are ......................................... 4-1
C. Scope of This Chapter .................................................. 4-1
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA Documents ........... 4-2
E. Overlap Between This Management Measure Guidance for Control of Coastal
Nonpoint Sources and Storm Water Permit Requirements for Point Sources ............. 4-3

1. The Storm Water Permit Program ...................................... 4-3
2. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs .............................. 4-3
3. Scope and Coverage of This Guidance ................................... 4-3

F. Background ......................................................... 4-4

1. Urbanization and Its Impacts ......................................... 4-5
2. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts ............................. 4-7
3. Opportunities ................................................... 4-10

II. Urban Runoff ........................................................... 4-12

A. New Development Management Measure .................................... 4-:12

1. Applicability .................................................... 4-12
2. Description ................................. ....... ........ 4-13
3. Management Measure Selection ...................... : ....... .... 4-23
4. , Practices .................... .................................. 4-24
5. Effectiveness and Cost Information .................................... 4-35

B. Watershed Protection Management Measure ................................. 4-36

1. Applicability ..................................................... 4-36
2. Description ...................................................... 4-36
3. Management Measure Selection and Effectiveness Information ................. 4-37
4. Watershed Protection Practices and Cost Information ........................ 4-42
5. Land or Development Rights Acquisition Practices and Cost Information .......... 4-51

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

C. Site Development Management Measure .................................... 4-53

1. Applicability .................................................... 4-53
2. Description ..................................................... 4-53
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-55
4. Practices and Cost Information for Control of Erosion During
Site Development ................................................ 4-55
5. Site Planning Practices ............................................. 4-60

III. Construction Activities ........................................................ 4-63

A. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure ............... 4-63

1. Applicability .................................................... 4-63
2. Description ..................................................... 4-63
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-66
4. Erosion Control Practices ........................................... 4-66
5. Sediment Control Practices .......................................... 4-72
6. Effectiveness and Cost Information .................................... 4-73

B. Construction Site Chemical Control Management Measure ........................ 4-83

1. Applicability .................................................... 4-83
2. Description ..................................................... 4-83
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-85
4. Practices ...................................................... 4-85

IV. Existing Development ..................................................... 4-88

A. Existing Development Management Measure ................................. 4-88

1. Applicability ..................................................... 4-88
2. Description ............................ : ........................ 4-88
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-90
4. Practices ...................................................... 4-90
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information ........................... 4-94

V. Onsite Disposal Systems ..................................................... 4-97

A. New Onsite bisposal System Manage ment Measures .............................. 4-97

1. Applicability .................................................... 4-97
2. Description ..................................................... 4-98
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-98'
4. Practices ...................................................... 4-99
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-110

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

B. Operating Onsite Disposal Systems Management Measure ....................... 4- 112

1. Applicability ................................................... 4- 112
2. Description ................................................... 4-112
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... il-I 14
4. Practices ..................................................... . W 14

VI. Pollution Prevention ...................................................... 4-119

A. Pollution Prevention Management Measure .................................. . wo

1. Applicability ................................................... @t-llq
2. Description .................................................... 4-119
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... i@-125
4. Practices, Effectiveness Information, and Cost Information ................... 4-125

VII. Roads, Highways, and Bridges ............................................... 4-136

A. Management Measure for Planning, Siting and Developing Roads and
Highways ......................................................... 4-136

1. Applicability ................................................... . 4-136
2. Description .................................................... 4-136
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... @@-137
4. Practices ...................................................... 4- 137
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-139

B. Management Measure for Bridges ........................................ 4-140
1. Applica6ility ................................................... 'w40
2. Description ...................................................... 4-140
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... @@-140
4. Practices ..................................................... 4-141
5- Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 1[-141

C. Management Measure for Construction Projects .............................. @W42

1. Applicability ................................................... 4-142
2. Description .................................................... 4-142
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... 4-143
4. Practices ..................................................... 4-143
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-145

D. Management Measure for Construction Site Chemical Control .................... 4-146

1. Applicability ................................................... 4-146
2. Description .................................................... 4-146

xii

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... 4-146
4. Practices ..................................................... 4-147
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-147

E. Management Measure for Operation and Maintenance .......................... 4-148

1. Applicability ................................................... 4-148
2. Description .................................................... 4-148
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... 4-148
4. Practices ..................................................... 4-149
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-150

F. Management Measure for Road, Highway, and Bridge Runoff Systems .............. 4-154

1. Applicability ................................................... 4-154
2. Description .................................................... 4-154
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 4-155
4. Practices ..................................................... 4-155
5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information .......................... 4-155
6. Pollutants of Concern ............................................ 4-156

VIII. Glossary .............................................................. 4-158

IX. References ..................................... 4-16 1

Chapter 5. Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating .................... 5-1

1. Introduction ............................................................. 5-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ......................................... 5-1
B . What "Management Practices" Are ......................................... 5-1
C. Scope of This Chapter .................................................. 5-1
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and t6 Other EPA Documents ........... 5-2
E. Problem Statement ..................................................... 5-2
F. Pollutant Types and Impacts .............................................. 5-3

1. Toxicity in the Water Column ........................................ 5-3
2. Increased Pollutant Levels in Aquatic Organisms ........................... 5-4
3. Increased Pollutant Levels in Sediments .................................. 5-4
4. Increased Levels of Pathogen Indicators .................................. 5-6
5. Disruption of Sediment and Habitat ..................................... 5-6
6. Shoaling and Shoreline Erosion ....................................... 5-6

0 Xiii

CONTENTS (C'Ontinued)

Page

G. Other Federal and State Marina and Boating Programs ........................... 5-7

I NPDES Storm Water Program ........................................ 5-7
2. Other Regulatory Programs ........................................... 5-8

H. Applicability of Management Measures ...................................... 5-8

Siting and Design ............................. ............................ 5-10

A. Marina Flushing Management Measure ..................................... 5-11

1. Applicability ..................................................... 5-11
2. Description ..................................................... 5-11
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-12
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-12

B. Water Quality Assessment Management Measure .............................. 5-16

1 . Applicability .................................................... 5-16
2. Description ..................................................... 5-16
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-17
4. Practices ................. ..................................... 5-17

C. Habitat Assessment Management Measure ................................... 5-21

1. Applicability ..................................................... 5-21
2. Description ..................................................... 5-21
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-21
4. Practices ................................. I ..................... 5-22

D. Shoreline Stabilization Management Measure ................................. 5-26

1 . Applicability .................................................... 5-26
2. Description ..................................................... 5-26
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-27
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-27

E. Storm Water Runoff Management Measure .................................. 5-28

1. Applicability ..................................................... 5-28
2. Description ..................................................... 5-28
3. Management Measure Selection .................. .................... 5-29
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-29

xiv

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

F. Fueling Station Design Management Measure ................................. 540

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-40
2. Description ..................................................... 5-40
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-40
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-40

G. Sewage Facility Management Measure ...................................... 5-42

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-42
2. Description ..................................................... 5-42
3. Management Measure Selection .......... ........................... 5-43
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-43

Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance ..................................... 5-46

A. Solid Waste Management Measure ........................................ 5-47

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-47
2. Description ..................................................... 5-47
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-47
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-47

B. Fish Waste Management Measure ......................................... 5-49

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-49
2. Description ..................................................... 5-49
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-49
4. Practices ....................................................... 5-49

C. Liquid Material Management Measure ...................................... 5-51

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-51
2. Description ..................................................... 5-51
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-51
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-51

D. Petroleum Control Management Measure .................................... 5-53

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-53
2. Descr'jption ...................................................... 5-53
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-53
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-53

0 xv

CONTENTS (Continued)
E. Boat Cleaning Management Measure ................................ Page
....... 5-55

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-55
2. Description ..................................................... 5-55
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-55
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-55

F. Public Education Management Measure ..................................... 5-57

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-57
2. Description ..................................................... 5-57
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-57
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-57

G. Maintenance of Sewage Facilities Management Measure ......................... 5-60

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-60
2. Description ..................................................... 5-60
3. Management Measure Selection ....................................... 5-60
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-60

H. Boat Operation Management Measure ...................................... 5-62

1. Applicability .................................................... 5-62
2. Description ..................................................... 5-62
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 5-62
4. Practices ...................................................... 5-62

IV. Glossary ............................................................... 5-64

V. References ............................................................. 5-66

Appendix 5A ........................................................... 5-75

Chapter 6. Management Measures for Hydromodification: Channelization and
Channel Modification, Dams, and Steambank and Shoreline Erosion .............. 6-1

1. Introduction ............................................................. 6-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ......................................... 6-1
B. What "Management Practices" Are ......................................... 6-1
C. Scope of This Chapter .................................................. 6-2
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA Documents ........... 6-2

Xvi

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Channelization and Channel Modification Management Measures ....................... 6-3

A. Management Measure for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface
Waters ............................................................. 6-8

1. Applicability ..................................................... 6-8
2. Description ...................................................... 6-8
3. Management Measure Selection ....................................... 6-9
4. Practices ...................................................... 6-10
5. Costs for Modeling Practices ........................................ 6-17

B. Instream and Riparian Habitat Restoration Management Measure ................... 6-19

1. Applicability .................................................... 6-19
2. Description ..................................................... 6-19
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 6-20
4. Practices ...................................................... 6-20

Dams Management Measures ................................................ 6-24

A. Management Measure for Erosion and Sediment Control ......................... 6-28

1. Applicability .................................................... 6-28
2. Description ..................................................... 6-28
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 6-29
4. Practices ...................................................... 6-29
5. Effectiveness for All Practices ....................................... 6-30
6. Costs for All Practices ............................................. 6-31

B. Management Measure for Chemical and Pollutant Control ......................... 6-32

1. Applicability .................................................... 6-32
2. Description ..................................................... 6-32
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 6-33
4. Practices ............................. 6-33
1

C. Management Measure for Protection of Surface Water Quality
and Instrearn and Riparian Habitat ......................................... 6-35

1. Applicability ..................................................... 6-35
2. Description ..................................................... 6-35
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 6-37
4. Introduction to Practices .............................................. 6-38
5. Practices for Aeration of Reservoir Waters and Releases ..................... 6-38
6. Practices to Improve Oxygen Levels in Tailwaters ......................... 6-41

Xvii

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

7. Practices for Adjustments in the Operational Procedures of Dams
for Improvements of Water Quality .................................... 644
8. Watershed Protection Practices ....................................... 6-46
9. Practices to Restore or Maintain Aquatic and Riparian Habitat ................. 6-47
10. Practices to. Maintain Fish Passage .................................... 6-50
11. Costs for All Practices ............................................. 6-55

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Management Measure ................................ 6-57

A. Management Measure for Eroding Streambanks and Shorelines .................... 6-59

1. Applicability .................................................... 6-59
2. Description .................................................... . 6-59
3. Management Measure Selection ..................................... 1 6-60
4. Practices ...................................................... 6-60
5. Costs for All Practices .............................................. 6-82

V. Glossary ................................................................ 6-85

VI. References .............................................................. 6-96

A. Channelization and Channel Modification ..................................... 6-96
B. Dams .............................................................. 6-99
C. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion ........................................ 6-105

Chapter 7. Management Measures for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and
Vegetated Treatment Systems ............................................ 7-1

1. Introduction ............................... *.......................... 7-1

A. What "Management Measures" Are ....................................... 7-1
B. What "Management Practices" Are ........................................ 7-1
C. Scope of This Chapter ................................................. 7-2
D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA Documents ........... 7-3
E. Definitions and Background Information ...................................... 7-3

1. Wetlands and Riparian Areas ......................................... 7-4
2. Vegetated Buffers .................................................. 7-6
3. Vegetated Treatment Systems ........................................ :.7-6

11. Management Measures ....................................................... 7-8

A. Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ................. 7-8

1. Applicability ................................................... 7-8
2. Description ...................................................... 7-8

xviii

CONTENTS (Continued)

page

3. Management Measure Selection ....................................... 7-9
4. Practices ...................................................... 7-18
5. Costs for All Practices ............................................. 7-28

B. Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ............... 7-33

1. Applicability .................................................... 7-33
2. Description ..................................................... 7-33
3. Management Measure Selection ...................................... 7-33
4. Practices ...................................................... 7-34
5. Costs for All Practices ............................................. 7-43

C. Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems ......................... 7-47

1. Applicability .................................................... 7-47
2. Description ..................................................... 7-47
3. Management Measure Selection ....................................... 7-48
4. Practices ...................................................... 7-50
5. Costs for All Practices ............................................. 7-54

III. Glossary ............................................................... 7-57

IV. References ............................................................. 7-59

Chapter 8. Monitoring and Tracking Techniques to Accompany Management Measures ......... 8-1

1. Introduction ............................................................. 8-1

II. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating
Pollution Loads ........................................................... 8-3

A. Nature and Scope of Nonpoint Source Problems ................................ 8-3
B. Monitoring Objectives .................................................. 8-3

1. Section 6217 Objectives ............................................. 8-4
2. Formulating Monitoring Objectives ..................................... 8-4

C. Monitoring Approaches ................................................. 8-4

1. General ........................................................ 84'
2. Understanding the System to Be Monitored ............................... 8-6
3. Experimental Design .............................................. 8-10
4. Site Locations ................................................... 8-12
5. Sampling Frequency and Interval ..................................... 8-13
6. Load Versus Water Quality Status Monitoring ............................ 8-15
7. Parameter Selection ............................................... 8-16

XiX

CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

8. Sampling Techniques ............................................... 8-17
9. Quality Assurance and Quality Control ................................. 8-20

D. Data Needs ......................................................... 8-21
E. Statistical Considerations ............................................... 8-21

1. Variability and Uncertainty .......................................... 8-21
2. Samples and Sampling .............................................. 8-22
3. Estimation and Hypothesis Testing .................................... 8-26

F. Data Analysis ......................................................... 8-27

111. Techniques and Procedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, and
Maintenance of Management Measures ......................................... 8-32

A. Overview .......................................................... 8-32
B. Techniques ......................................................... 8-32

1. Implementation .................................................. 8-32
2. Operation and Maintenance .......................................... 8-33

IV. References ............................................................. 8-61

FIGURES

Number Page

2-1 Pathways through which substances are transported from agricultural land
to become water pollutants ................................................ 2-4
2-2 Sediment detachment and transport ........................................... 2-7
2-3 Diversion ............................................................. 2-22
2-4 Strip-cropping and rotations ............................................... 2-25
2-5 Gradient terraces with tile outlets ........................................... 2-26
2-6 Gradient terraces with waterway outlet ....................................... 2-26
2-7 Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined
Animal Facilities (large units) ................ ..... I ........................ 2-35
2-8 Example of manure and runoff storage system .................................. 2-35
2-9 Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined
Animal Facilities (small units) ............................................. 2-45
2-10 Typical barnyard runoff management system ................................... 2-46
2-11 Example of soil test report ................................. I .............. 2-57
2-12 Example of Penn State's quicktest form ...................................... 2-58
2-13 Example of work sheet for applying manure to cropland ........................... 2-59
2-14 Factors affecting the transport and water quality impact of a pesticide ................. 2-62
2-15 Source and fate of water added to a soil system ................................. 2-89
2-16 Variables influencing pollutant losses from irrigated fields ......................... 2-90
2-17 Diagram of a tensiometer ................................................ 2-91,
2-18 Schematic of an electrical resistance block and meter ............................. 2-91
2-19 Com daily water use as influenced by stage of development .......................... 2-92
2-20 Basic components of a trickle irrigation system ................................. 2-99
2-21 Methods of distribution of irrigation water from (a) low-pressure underground
pipe, (b) multiple-outlet risers, and (c) portable gated pipe ........................ 2-100
2-22 Backflow prevention device using check valve with vacuum relief and low pressure
drain .............................................................. 2-104

3-1 Conceptual model of forest biogeochemistry, hydrology and stormflow .................. 3-5
3-2 Comparison of forest land areas and mass erosion under various land uses ............... 3-6
3-3 How to select the best road layout ........................................... 3-20
3-4 Typical side-hill cross section illustrating how cut material, A, equals fill
material, B ........................................................... 3-21
3-5 Alternative water crossing structures ......................................... 3-23
3-6 Culvert conditions that block fish passage ..................................... 3-23
3-7 Multiple culverts for fish passage in streams that have wide ranges of flows ............. 3-23
3-8 Soil loss rates for roadbeds with five surfacing treatments .......................... 3-24
3-9 SMA pollutant removal processes ........................................... 3-27
3-10 Florida's strearnside management zone widths as defined by the Site Sensitivity
Classification ......................................................... 3-33
3-11 Guide for calculating the average width of the RMZ ............................. 3-35
3-12 Washington State Forest Practices Board (1988) requirements for leave trees
in the RMZ .......................................................... 3-36
3-13 Uniform harvesting in the riparian zone ...................................... 3-37
3-14 Vegetative shading along a stream course ..................................... 3-37
3-15 Illustration of road structure terms .......................................... 3-39

X.Xi

FIGURES (Continued)

Number Page

3-16 Mitigation techniques used for controlling erosion and sediment to protect water
quality and fish habitat ................................................... 3-40
3-17 Diagram of broad-based dip design for forest access roads ......................... 3-47
3-18 Design of pole culverts .................................................. 3-48
3-19 Design and installation of pipe culverts ....................................... 3-48
3-20 Brush barrier atitoe of fill ............................................... 3-49
3-21 Dimensions of typical rock riprap blanket ............... I .. .I........... I ...... 3-50
3-22 Culvert installation in streambed. ....................... ................... 3-51
3-23 Culvert installation using a diversion ........................................ 3-52
3-24 Road maintenance examples .............................................. 3-54,
3-25 Hypothetical skid trail pattern for uphill and downhill logging ....................... 3-67
3-26 Relation of soil loss to good ground cover ............ L ........................ 3-83
3-27 Soil losses from a 35-foot long slope by mulch type .............................. 3-87
3-28 Impervious roadfill section placed on wetlands consisting of soft organic
sediments with sand lenses .............................................. 3-100
3-29 Pervious roadfill section on wetland allows movement of ground water through
it and minimizes flow changes ............................................ 3-100
3-30 Cross-section of a wetland road ........................................... 3-100

4-1 Changes in runoff flow resulting from increased impervious area ...................... 4-6
4-2 Changes in stream hydrology as a result of urbanization ............................ 4-7
4-3 Removal efficiencies of selected urban runoff controls for TSS ...................... 4-35
4-4 Predicted total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in surface water runoff from the
Rhode River Critical Area under different land use scenarios ........................ 4-39
4-5 Water velocity reductions for different mulch treatments ........................... 4-70
4-6 Actual soil loss reductions for different mulch treatments .......................... 4-71
4-7 TSS concentrations from Maryland construction sites ............................. 4-81
4-8 Comparison of cost and effectiveness for erosion control practices .......... ......... 4-82

5-1 Example marina designs ................................................. 5-13
5-2 Conceptual design of a sand filter system ..................................... 5-32
5-3 Schematic design of an enhanced wet pond system ............................... 5-33
5-4 Schematic design of a conventional infiltration trench ............................. 5-34
5-5 Schematic design of an infiltration basin ...................................... 5-34
5-6 Schematic design of a porous pavement system ................................. 5-37
5-7 Schematic design of a water quality inlet/oil grit separator ......................... 5-38
5-8 Examples of pumpout devices ............................................. 5-44
5-9 Example signage advertising pumpout availability ............................... 5-45

6-1 A cross-sectional view of a thermally stratified reservoir in mid-summer ................ 6-26
6-2 Influence of photosynthesis and respiration-decomposition processes and
organic matter sedimentation on the distribution of nutrients and organic
matter in a stratified reservoir ............................................. 6-27
6-3 Air injection system for reservoir aeration-destratification .......................... 6-39
6-4 Compressed air diffusion system for reservoir aeration-destratification ................. 6-40
6-5 Autoventing turbine and hub baffle system used in the autoventing turbines
at Norris Dam (French Broad River), Tennessee ................................. 6-42

XXII

FIGURES (Continued)

Number Page

6-6 Cross-section of a spillway with a "flip-lip" deflector ............................. 6-44'
6-7 Three-bay labyrinth weir ........................ I ........................ 6-45
6-8 Trap and haul system for fish by-pass of the Foster Dam, Oregon * .................... 6-53
6-9 Cross-section of a turbine bypass system used at Lower Granite and Little
Goose Dams, Washington ................................................ 6-54
6-10 The physical processes of bluff erosion in a coastal bay ........................... 6-58
6-11 Schematic cross section of a live stake installation showing important design elements ...... 6-61
'642 Schematic cross section of a live fascine showing important design elements ............. 6-62
6-13 Schematic cross section of a branchpacking system showing important design elements ..... 6-63
6-14 Schematic cross section of a joint planting system showing important design elements ...... 6-64
6-15 Schematic cross section of a five cribwall showing important design elements ............ 6-65
6-16 Continuous stone sill protecting a planted marsh ................................. 6-66
6-17 Headland breakwater system at Drummonds Field, Virginia ......................... 6-67
6A8 Vegetative stabilization site evaluation form ................................... 6-68
6-19 Schematic cross section of a timber bulkhead showing important design elements ......... 6-73
6-20 Schematic cross section of a stone revetment showing important design elements .......... 6-74
6-21 Schematic cross section of toe protection for a timber bulkhead showing
important design elements .......................................... I ..... 6-76
6-22 Example of return walls to prevent flanking in a bulkhead ......................... 6-77
6-23 Wakes from two different types of boat hulls ................................... 6-80

7-1 Cross section showing the general relationship between wetlands, uplands,
riparian areas, and a stream channel .......................................... 7-5
7,2 Schematic of vegetated treatment system, including a vegetated filter strip
and constructed wedand ................................................. 7-55

8-1 Factors contributing to lateral differences in lake quality ............................ 8-8
8-2 Scatter plot of nitrate concentration versus depth below water table ................... 8-28
8-3 Paired regression lines of pre-BMP and post-BMP total phosphorus loads,
LaPlatte River, Vermont ................................................. 8-29
8-4 Results of analysis of clustered pre-BMP and post-BMP data from Conestoga
Headwaters, Pennsylvania ................................................ 8-30
8-5 Summary of fecal coliform at the beach on St. Albans Bay, Vermont .................. 8-31
8-6 Trends in St. Albans Bay water quality, 1981-1990 .............................. 8-31

xxid

TABLES

Number Page

2-1 Relative Gross Effectiveness of Sediment Control Measures ........................ 2-15
2-2 Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Resource Parameters ..................... 2-17
2-3 Cost of Diversions ..................................................... 2-27
2-4 Cost of Terraces ........................................................ 2-28
2-5 Cost of Waterways ..................................................... 2-29
2-6 Cost of Permanent Vegetative Cover .......................................... 2-30
2-7 Cost of Conservation Tillage .......... .................................... 2-31
2-8 Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices from Chesapeake
Bay Installations ....................................................... 2-32
2-9 Relative Gross Effectiveness of Confined Livestock Control Measures ................. 2-37
2-10 Effectiveness of Runoff Control Systems ...................................... 2-38
2-11 Costs for Runoff Control Systems .......................................... 2-42
2-12 Concentrated Reductions in Barnyard and Feedlot Runoff Treated with
Solids Separation ...................................................... 2-47
2-13 Nutrient Reductions Achieved Under USDA's Water Quality Program ................. 2-55
2-14 Relative Effectiveness of Nutrient Management ................................. 2-55
2-15 Results of IPM Evaluation Studies .......................................... 2-64
2-16 Estimates of Potential Reductions in Field Losses of Pesticides for
Cotton Compared to a Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field ............... 2-66
2-17 Estimates of Potential Reductions in Field Losses of Pesticides for
Corn Compared to a Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field ................ 2-67
2-18 Estimated Scouting Costs by Coastal Region and Crop in the Coastal Zone
in 1992 ............................................................. 2-71
2-19 Grazing Management Influences on Two Brook Trout Streams in Wyoming ............. 2-76
2-20 Streambank Characteristics for Grazed Versus Rested Riparian Areas .................. 2-76
2-21 The Effects of Supplemental Feeding Location on Riparian Area Vegetation ............. 2-77
2-22 Bacterial Water Quality Response to Four Grazing Strategies ....................... 2-77
2-23 Nitrogen Losses from Medium-Fertility, 12-Month Pasture Program ................... 2-78
2-24 Cost of Water Development for Grazing Management .............................. 2-84
2-25 Cost of Livestock Exclusion for Grazing Management ............................ 2-85
2-26 Cost of Forage Improvement/Reestablishment for Grazing Management ................ 2-85
2-27 Summary of ACP Grazing Management Practice Costs, 1989 and 1990 ................ 2-86
2-28 Summary of Pollutant Impact- of Selected Irrigation Practices ....................... 2-95
2-29 Sediment Removal Efficiencies and Comments on BMPs Evaluated ................... 2-96
2-30 Expected Irrigation Efficiencies of Selected Irrigation Systems in California ............. 2-97
2-31 Irrigation Efficiencies of Selected Irrigation Systems for Cotton ...................... 2-97
2-32 Cost of Soil Water Measuring Devices ...................................... 2-105
2-33 Design Lifetime for Selected Salt Load Reduction Measures ....................... 2-106

3-1 State programs by region and frequency ....................................... 3-9
3-2 Clearcutting Versus Selected Harvesting Methods ................................ 3-14
3-3 Effect of Four Harvesting and Road Design Methods on Water Quality ................ 3-15
3-4 Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable Miniyarder
on Soil .............................................................. 3-16
3-5 The Relationship Between Slope Gradient and Annual Sediment Loss on an
Established Forest Road ................................................. 3-16

XXV

TABLES (Continued)

Number Page

3-6 The Effect of Skid Road Grade and Length on Road Surface Erosion .................. 3-17
3-7 Costs and Benefits of Proper Road Design (With Water Quality Considerations)
Versus Reconstruction (Without Water Quality Considerations) ...................... 3-17
3-8 Characteristics and Road Location Costs of Four "Minimum-Standard" Forest Truck
Roads Constructed in the Central Appalachians ................................. 3-18
3-9 Stable Back Slope and Fill Slope Angles for Different Soil Materials .................. 3-21
3-10 Comparison of Effects of Two Methods of Harvesting on Water Quality ................ 3-28
3-11 Water Quality Effects from Two Types of Logging Operations in the Alsea,
Watershed ........................................................... 3-28
3-12 Summary of Major Physical Changes Within Strearnside Treatment Areas .............. 3-29
3-13 Storm Water Suspended Sediment Delivery for Different Treatments .................. 3-29
3-14 Average Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel After
Harvesting ........................................................... 3-30
3-15 Average Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs per MBF ................... 3-30
3-16 Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Strearnside
Management Areas ..................................................... 3-31
3-17 Cost Impacts of Three Alternative Buffer Strips: Case Study Results with
640-Acre Base ........................................................ 3-32
3-18 Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths ....................................... 3-34
3-19 Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths ..................................... 3-34
3-20 Stand Stocking in the Primary SMZ .......................................... 3-36
3-21 Effects of Several Road Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield .................. 3-41
3-22 Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments in Controlling Soil Losses .................. 3-42
3-23 Reduction in the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20 Feet Long by
Grass and Forest Debris .... ............................................ 3-43
3-24 Comparison of Downslope Movement of Sediment from Roads for Various
Roadway and Slope Conditions ............................................ 3-43
3-25 Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads .......................... 3-44
3-26 Cost Summary for Four "Minimum-Standard" Forest Truck Roads Constructed in
the Central Appalachians ................................................. 3-45
3-27 Unit Cost Data for Culverts ............................................... 3-45
3-28 Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Road Construction ......... 3-45
3-29 Cost of Gravel and Grass Road Surfaces ..................................... 3-46
3-30 Costs of Erosion Control Measures .......................................... 3-46
3-31 Comparison of Road Repair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and Without BMPs ......... 3-56
3-32 Analysis of Cqsts and Benefits of Watershed Treatments Associated with Roads .......... 3-56
3-33 Comparative Costs of Reclamation of Roads and Removal of Stream Crossing
Structures ........................................................... 3-57
3-34 Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope .................................... 3-58
3-35 Soil Disturbance from Roads for Alternative Methods of Timber Harvesting ............. 3-61
3-36 Soil Disturbance from Logging by Alternative Harvesting Methods .................... 3-62
3-37 Relative Impacts of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and Compaction
in Pacific Northwest Clearcuts ............................................. 3-63
3-38 Percent of Land Area Affected by Logging Operations ............................ 3-63
3-39 Skidding/Yarding Method Comparison ....................................... 3-63
3-40 Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Skid Trail Rehabilitation in the Management
of Three Southep Timber Types in the Southeast ............................... 3-64

.xxvi

TABLES (Continued)

Number Page

3-41 General Large Woody Debris Stability Guide Based on Salmon Creek, Washington ........ 3-65
3-42 Deposited, Suspended, and Total Sediment Losses and Percentage of Exposed Soil
in the Experimental Watersheds During Water Years 1976 and 1977 for Various
Site Preparation Techniques ............................................... 3-71
3-43 Predicted Erosion Rates Using Various Site Preparation Techniques for
Physiographic Regions in the Southeastern United States ........................... 3-71
3-44 Erosion Rates for Site Preparation Practices in Selected Land Resource Areas
in the Southeast ....................................................... 3-72
3-45 Effectiveness of Chemical and Mechanical Site Preparation in Controlling Water
Flows and Sediment Losses ............................................... 3-72
3-46 Sediment Loss (kg/ha) in Storniflow by Site Treatment from January I
to August 31, 1981 ..................................................... 3-73
3-47 Nutrient Loss (kg/ha) in Stormflow by Site Treatment from January I
to August 31, 1981 ..................................................... 3-73
3-48 Analysis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site Productivity
in the Southeast ....................................................... 3-74
3-49 Site Preparation Comparison .............................................. 3-74
3-50 Comparison of Costs for Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM) vs. Broadcast -
Burning ............................................................. 3-75
3-51 Estimated Costs for Site Preparation ......................................... 3-76
3-52 Estimated Costs for Regeneration ........................................... 3-76
3-53 Cost-Share Information for Revegetation/Tree Planting ............................ 3-76
3-54 Comparison of the Effectiveness of Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch, and Netting in
Controlling Cumulative Erosion from Treated Plots on a Steep Road Fill in Idaho ......... 3-84
3-55 Costs of Erosion Control Measures .......................................... 3-85
3-56 Economic Impact of Implementation of Proposed Management Measures on
Road Construction and Maintenance ......................................... 3-85
3-57 Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed, Fertilizer,
and Mulch ........................................................... 3-85
3-58 Estimated Costs for Revegetation ........................................... 3-85
3-59 Concentrations of 2,4-D After Aerial Application in Two Tre@tment Areas ............... 3-90
3-60 Peak Concentrations in Streamflow from Herbicide Application Methods ............... 3-90
3-61 Peak Concentrations of Forest Chemicals in Soils, Lakes, and Streams After
Application ..................................... : .................... 3-91
3-62 Nitrogen Losses from Two Watersheds in Umpqua Experimental Watershed ............. 3-93
3-63 Total Nitrogen end Phosphorus Concentrations in Soil Water and Sedimentation
During Wet Season Flooding .............................................. 3-99
3-64 Recommended Ijarvesting Systems by Forested Wetland Site ...................... 3-102
3-65 Recommended Regeneration Systems by Forsted Wetland Type ..................... 3-103

4-1 Estimated Mean Concentrations for Land Uses, Based on Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program ........................................................ 4-7
4-2 Sources of Urban Runoff Pollutants .......................................... 4-8'
4-3 Percent of Limited or Restricted Classified Shellfish Waters
Affected by Types of Pollution ............................................. 4-9
4-4 Example Effects of Increased Urbanization on Runoff Volumes ...................... 4-14
4-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Management Practices .......................... 4-15

Xxvii

TABLES (Continued)

Number Page

4-6 Regional, Site-Specific, and Maintenance Considerations for Structural
Practices to Control Sediments in Stormwater Runoff ............................. 4-21
4-7 Effectiveness of Management Practices for Control of Runoff from
Newly Developed Areas ................................................. 4-25
4-8 Cost of Management Practices for Control of Runoff from
Newly Developed- Areas ................................................. 4-29
4-9 Load Estimates for Six Land Uses in Alameda County, California ..................... 4-38
4-10 General Effectiveness of Various Nonstructural Control Practices ..................... 4-40
4-11 Watershed Management: A Step-by-Step Guide .................................. 4-43
4-12 Items to Consider in Developing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ................ 4-56
4-13 State and Local Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Requirements ....... 4-58
4-14 Erosion and Sediment Problems Associated With Construction ...................... 4-64
4-15 ESC Quantitative Effectiveness and Cost Summary ..................... * ........ 4-75
4-16 ESC Quantitative Effectiveness and Cost Summary for
Sediment Control Practices .............................................. 4-78
4-17 Existing Development Management Practices Effectiveness Summary .................. 4-91
4-18 States That Have Adopted Low-flow Plumbing Fixture Regulations ................... 4-100
4-19 Daily Water Use and Pollutant Loadings by Source ............................. 4-100
4-20 Example Onsite Sewage Disposal System Siting Requirements ..................... 4-102
4-21 OSDS Effectiveness and Cost Summary ..................................... 4-104
4-22 Reduction in Pollutant Loading by Elimination of Garbage Disposals ................. 4-111
4-23 Phosphate Limits in Detergents ........................................... 4-115
4-24 Suggested Septic Tank Pumping Frequency ................................... 4-117
4-25 Estimates of Improperly Disposed Used Oil and Household
Hazardous Waste ...................................................... 4-120
4-26 Summary of Application Rates of Fertilizers from Various Studies ................... 4-121
4-27 Recommended Fertilizer Application Rates ................................... 4-122
4-28 Watershed Chen,iical Control Standards ...................................... 4-123
4-29 Waste Recycling Cost and Effectiveness Summary .............................. 4-127
4-30 Effectiveness and Cost Summary for Roads, Highways, and Bridges
Operation and Maintenance Management Practices ............................... 4-153
4-31 Highway Runoff Constituents and Their Primary Sources ......................... 4-156
4-32 Pollutant Concentrations in Highway Runoff .................................. 4-157
4-33 Potential Environmental Impacts of Road Salts ................................ 4-157

5-1 Boatyard Pressure-washing Wastewater Contaminants and
Regulatory Limits in the Puget Sound Area ..................................... 5-5
5-2 Cost Summary of Selected Marina Siting Practices ............................... 5-20
5-3 Stormwater Management Practice Summary Information ........................... 5-30
5-4 Annual Per Slip Pumpout Costs for Three Collection Systems ....................... 5-45
5-5 Approximate Costs for Educational and Promotional Material ....................... 5-58

6-1 Models Applicable to Hydromodification Activities .............................. 6-12
6-2 Approximate Levels of Effort for Hydrodynamic and Surface Water Quality
Modeling ............................................................ 6-13
6-3 Costs of Models for Various Applications ..................................... 6-18

xxviii

TABLES (Continued)

Number Page

6-4 Sources for Proper Design of Shoreline and Strearnbank Erosion Control
Structures ............................................................ 6-69
6-5 Froude Number for Combinations of Water Depth and Boat Speed .................. - 6-79
6-6 Examples of State Programs Defining Minimum Setbacks ........................... 6-81

7-1 Effectiveness of Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollution Control ............... 7-10
7-2 Range of Functions of Wetlands and Riparian Areas .............................. 7-19
7-3 Federal, State,i and Federal/State Programs for Wetlands Identification, Technical Study,
or Management of Wetlands Protection Efforts ................................. 7-21
7-4 Federal Programs Involved in the Protection and Restoration of Wetlands and
Riparian Areas on Private Lands ........................................... 7-25
7-5 Total Costs for Wetlands Assessment Project Examples ............................ 1 7-30
7-6 Costs for Wetlands Protection Programs ...................................... 7-31
7-7 Review of Wetland Restoration Projects ...................................... 7-36
7-8 Construction Cost Index ................................................... 7-44
7-9 Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for Pollutant Removal ....................... 749
7-10 Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for Surface Water Runoff Treatment ............. 7-50

8-1 Examples of Monitoring Parameters to Assess Impacts from Selected Sources ............ 8-17
8-2 Applications of Six Probability Sampling Designs to Estimate Means and
Totals ............................................................... 8-27
8-3 Typical Operation and Maintenance' Procedures for Agricultural
Management Measures .................................................. 8-34
8-4 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Forestry
Management Measures .................................................. 8-40
8-5 Typical Operation and Maintenance for Urban
Management Measures .................................................. 8-45
8-6 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Marinas and
Recreational Boating Management Measures ................................... 8-51
8-7 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Hydromodication
Management Measures .................................................. 8-54
8-8 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measures for Dams ..................................................... 8-55
8-9 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Shoreline Erosion
Management Measures .................................................. 8-58
8-10 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measure for Protection of Existing Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................... 8-59
8-11 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas .......................... 8-59
8-12 Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems .................................... 8-60

XXiX

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1. BACKGROUND

This guidance specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters is required under
section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). It provides guidance to
States and Territories on the types of management measures that should be included in State and Territorial Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. This chapter explains in detail the requirements of section 6217 and the
approach used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop the management measures.

A. Nonpoint Source Pollution

1. What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?

Nonpoint source pollution generally results from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage,
or hydrologic modification. Technically, the term "nonpoint source" is defined to mean any source of water pollution
that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. That definition
states:

The term "point source" means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may
0 be discharged. This term does not include agricultural storm water discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.

Although diffuse runoff is generally treated as nonpoint source pollution, runoff that enters and is discharged from
conveyances such as those described above is treated as a point source discharge and hence is subject to the permit
requirements of the Clean Water Act. In contrast, nonpoint sources are not subject to Federal permit requirements.
The distinction between nonpoint sources and diffuse point sources is sometimes unclear. Therefore, at several points
in this document, EPA provides detailed discussions to help the reader discern whether a particular source is a point
source or a nonpoint source. Refer to Chapter 2, Section II.B. I (discussing applicability of management measures
to confined animal facility management); Chapter 4, Section LE (discussing overlaps between this program and the
storm water permit program for point sources); and Chapter 5, Section LG (discussing overlaps between this program
and several other programs, including the point source permit program).

Nonpoint pollution is the pollution of our nation's waters caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through
the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks up and carries away natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human
activity, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and ground waters. In addition,
hydrologic modification is a form of nonpoint source pollution that often adversely affects the biological and physical
integrity of surface waters. A more detailed discussion of the range of nonpoint sources and their effects on water
quality and riparian habitats is provided in subsequent chapters of this guidance.

2. National Efforts to Control Nonpoint Pollution
a. Nonpoint Source Program

During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water pollution, EPA and the States have
focused most of their water pollution control activities on traditional "point sources," such as discharges through
pipes from sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. These point sources have been regulated by EPA and
the States through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established by

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 1-1

1. Introduction Chapter 1

section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Discharges of dredged and fill materials into wetlands have also been regulated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

As a result of the above activities, the Nation has greatly reduced pollutant loads from point source discharges and
has made considerable progress in restoring and maintaining water quality. However, the gains in controlling point
sources have not solved all of the Nation's water quality problems. Recent studies and surveys by EPA and by State
water quality agencies indicate that the majority of the remaining water quality impairments in our nation's rivers,
streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands result from nonpoint source pollution and other nontraditional
sources, such as urban storm water discharges and combined sewer overflows.

In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the growing national awareness of the
increasingly dominant influence of nonpoint source pollution on water quality, Congress amended the Clean Water
Act to focus greater national efforts on nonpoint sources. In the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress amended
section 101, "Declaration of Goals and Policy," to add the following fundamental principle:

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

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

b. National Estuary Program

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

c. Pesticides Program

Another program administered by EPA that controls some forms of nonpoint pollution is the pesticides program
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Among other provisions, this program
authorizes EPA to control pesticides that may threaten ground water and surface water. FIFRA provides for the
registration of pesticides and enforceable label requirements, which may include maximum rates of application,
restrictions on use practices, and classification of pesticides as "restricted use" pesticides (which restricts use to
certified applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals). The requirements of FIFRA, and their relationship to this
guidance, are discussed more fully in Chapter 2, Section ILD, of this guidance.

B. Coastal Zone Management

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

1-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 1 1. Introduction

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

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

C. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

1. Background and Purpose of the Amendments

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

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

"2. Almost one-half of our total population now lives in coastal areas. By 2010, the coastal
population will have grown from 10,010,010 in 1111 to 127,000,111 people, an increase of approximately
60 percent, and population density in coastal counties will be among the highest in the Nation.

"3. Marine resources contribute to the Nation's economic stability. Commercial and recreational
fishery activities support an industry with an estimated value of $12,000,000,000 a year.

"4. Wetlands play a vital role in sustaining the coastal economy and environment. Wetlands support
and nourish fishery and marine resources. They also protect the Nation's shores from storm and wave
damage. Coastal wetlands contribute an estimated $5,000,000,000 to the production of fish and shellfish
in the United States coastal waters. Yet, 50 percent of the Nation's coastal wetlands have been destroyed,
and more are likely to de'cline in the near future.

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

"6. Coastal planning and development control measures are essential to protect coastal water quality,
which is subject to continued ongoing stresses. Currently, not enough'is being done to manage and protect
coastal resources.

"8. There is a clear link between coastal water quality and land use activities along the shore. State
management programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) are
among the best tools for protecting coastal resources and must play a larger role, particularly in improving
coastal zone water quality."

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1-3

I. Introduction Chapter 1

Based upon these findings, Congress declared that:

"It is the purpose of Congress in this subtitle [the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 19901
to enhance the effectiveness of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 by increasing our
understanding of the coastal environment and expanding the ability of State coastal zone management
programs to address coastal environmental problems." (Section 6202(b))

2. State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs

To address more specifically the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water quality, Congress enacted
section 6217, "Protecting Coastal Waters," which was codified as 16 U.S.C. �1455b. This section provides that each
State with an approved coastal zone management program must develop and submit to EPA and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. The purpose
of the program "shall be to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint source pollution to restore
and protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other State and local authorities."

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs are not intended to supplant existing coastal zone managernent
programs and nonpoint source management programs. Rather, they are to serve as an update and expansion of
existing nonpoint source management programs and are to be coordinated closely with the existing coastal zone
management programs. The legislative history indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the
links between Federal and State coastal zone management and water quality programs and to enhance State and local
efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats. The legislative history further
indicates that State coastal zone and water quality agencies are to have coequal roles, analogous to the sharing of
responsibility between NOAA and EPA at the Federal level.

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

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

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

(3) Implement additional management measures applicable to land uses and areas identified under paragraphs
(1) and (2) above that are necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water quality standards and protect
designated uses; ,

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

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

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

(7) Propose to modify State coastal zone boundaries as necessary to implement NOAA's recommendations
under section 6217(e), which are based on NOAA's findings that inland boundaries must be modified to
more effectively manage land and water uses to protect coastal waters.

1-4 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 1 1. Introduction

Congress required that, within 10 months of EPA', publication of final guidance, Slates must develop and obtain
EPA and NOAA approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. Failure to submit an approvable
program (i.e., one that meets the requirements of section 6217(b)) will result in a reduction of Federal grant dollars
under the nonpoint source and coastal zone management programs. The reductions will begin in Fiscal Year 1996
(FY 1996) as a 10 percent cut, increasing to 15 percent in FY 1997, 20 percent in FY 1998, and 30 percent in FY
1999 and thereafter.

3. Management Measures Guidance

Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 requires EPA to publish (and
periodically revise thereafter), in consultation with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other Federal
agencies, "guidance for specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters."
"Management measures" are defined in section 6217(g)(5) as:

economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from existing and new
categories and classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant
reduction achievableffirough the application of the best available nonpoint pollutiqn control practices,
technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

The management measures guidance is to include at a minimum six elements set forth in section 6217(g)(2):

"(A) a description of a range of methods, measures, or practices, including structural and nonstructural
controls and operation and maintenance procedures, that constitute each measure;

"(B) a description of the categories and subcategories of activities and locations for which each
measure may be suitable;

(C) an identification of the individual pollutants or categories or classes of pollutants that may be
controlled by the measures and the water quality effects of the measures;

"(D) quantitative estimates of the pollution reduction effects and costs of the measures;

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

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

State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control programs must provide for the implementation of management measures
that are in conformity with this management measures guidance.

The legislative history (floor statement of Rep. Gerry Studds, House sponsor of section 6217, as part of debate on
Omnibus Reconciliation Bill, October 26, 1990) confirms that, as indicated by the statutory language, the
1. management measures" approach is technology-based rather than water-quality-based. That is, the management
measures are to be based on technical and economic achievability, rather than on cause-and-effect linkages between
particular land use activities and particular water quality problems. As the legislative history makes clear,
implementation of these technology-based management measures will allow States to concentrate their resources
initially on developing and implementing measures that experts agree will reduce pollution significantly. As
explained more fully in a separate document, Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development
and Approval Guidance, States will follow up the implementation of management measures with additional
management measures to address any remaining coastal water quality problems.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1-5

L Introduction Chapter 1

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

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

An additional major distinction drawn in the legislative history between effluent guidelines for point sources afid this
management measures guidance is that the management measures will not be directly or automatically applied to
categories of nonpoint sourcles as a matter of Federal law. Instead, it is the State coastal nonpoint program, backed
by the -authority of State law, that must provide for the implementation of management measures in conformity with
the management measures guidance. Under section 306(d)(16) of the CZMA, coastal zone programs must provide
for enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of the State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program, including the management measures developed by the State "in conformity" with this
guidance.

D. Program Implementation Guidance

In addition to this "management measures" guidance, EPA and NOAA have also jointly published Coa@tal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance. That document provides guidance to
States in interpreting and applying the various provisions of section 6217 of CZARA. It addresses issues such as
the following: the basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;
how EPA and NOAA expect State programs to implement manpLgement measures "in conformity" widi this
management measures guidance; how States may target sources -in implementing their programs; changes in State
coastal boundaries to implement their programs; and other aspects of State implementation of their programs.

1-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter I A Development of the Management Measures Guidance

II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT MEASURES GUIDANCE

A. Process Used to Develop This Guidance

Congress established a 6-month deadline (May 5, 199 1) for publication of -the proposed management measures
guidance and an 18-month deadline (May 5, 1992) for publication of the final guidance.

EPA published the proposed guidance on June 14, 1991, and, in the interest of promoting the broadest possible
consideration of the proposal by a wide variety of interested Federal and State agencies, affected industries, and
citizens groups, provided a 6-month comment period. EPA received 477 public comments on the proposed guidance.
In addition, EPA maintained an open process of consultation and discussion with many of the commenters and other
experts. EPA's response to those comments, both written and oral, is reflected in the final guidance and is
summarized in a separate document available from EPA entitled Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters: Response to Public Comments.

In developing the final guidance, EPA continued to draw upon a diversity of knowledgeable sources of technical
nonpoint source expertise by using a work group approach. Since the guidance addresses all nationally significant
categories of nonpoint sources that impact or could impact coastal waters, EPA drew upon expertise covering the
very wide range of subject areas addressed in this guidance.
Because experts in the field of nonpoint source pollution tend to ipecialize in particular source categories, EPA
decided to form work groups on a category basis. Thus, in consultation with NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and other Federal and State agencies, EPA established five work groups to develop this guidance:

(1) Urban, Construction, Highways, Airports/Bridges, and Septic Systems;
(2) Agriculture;
(3) Forestry;
(4) Marinas and Recreational Boating; and
(5) Hydromodification and Wetlands.

Each of these work groups held many I- or 2-day meetings to discuss the technical issues related to the guidance.
These meetings, which included State and Federal non-EPA participation, were very helpful to EPA in formulating
the final guidance. EPA, however, made all decisions on the final contents of the guidance.

B. Scope and Contents of This Guidance

1. Categories of Nonpoint Sources Addressed

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

This guidance thus focuses on five major categories of nonpoint sources that impair or threaten coastal waters
nationally: (1) agricultural runoff; (2) urban runoff (including developing and developed areas); (3) silvicultural
(forestry) runoff-, (4) marinas and recreational boating; and (5) channelization and channel modification, darns, and
streambank and shoreline erosion. EPA has also included management measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and
vegetated treatment systems that apply generally to various categories of sources of nonpoint pollution.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1-7

//. Development of the Management Measures Guidance Chapter 1

2. Relationship Between This Management Measures Guidance for Coastal
Nonpoint Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements for Point Sources

a. Urban Runoff

Historically, there have always been ambiguities in and overlaps between programs designed to control urban:runoff
nonpoint sources and those designed to control urban storm water point sources. For example, runoff may often
originate from a nonpoint source but ultimately may be channelized and discharged through a point source. Potential
confusion between these two programs has been heightened by Congressional enactment of two important pieces of
legislation: section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, which establishes permit requirements for certain municipal and
industrial storm water discharges, and section 6217 of CZARA, which requires EPA to promulgate and Suttes to
provide for the implementation of management measures to control nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. The
discussion below is intended to clarify the relationship between these two programs and describe the scope of the
coastal nonpoint program and its applicability to urban runoff in coastal areas.

b. The Storm Water Permit Program

The storm water permit program is a two-phase program enacted by Congress in 1987 under section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act. Under Phase 1, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required
to be issued for municipal separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000
or 100,000 people, respectively) and for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. Permits are also
to be issued, on a case-by-case basis, if EPA or a State determines that a storm water discharge contributes to a
violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA
published a rule implementing Phase I on November 16, 1990.

Under Phase II, EPA is to prepare two reports to Congress that assess the remaining storm water discharges;
determine, to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges; and establish
procedures and methods to control storm water discharges to the extent necessary to n-iitigate impacts on water
quality. Then, EPA is to issue regulations that designate storm water discharges, in addition to those addressed in
Phase 1, to be regulated to protect water quality, and EPA is to establish a comprehensive program to regulate those
designated sources. The program is required to establish (1) priorities, (2) requirements for State storm water
management programs, and (3) expeditious deadlines.

These regulations were to have been issued by EPA not later than October 1, 1992. Because of EPA's em: 'phasis
on Phase 1, however, the Agency has not yet been able to complete the studies and issue appropriate regulations as
required under section 402(p).

c. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs

As discussed above, Congress enacted section 6217 of CZARA in late 1990 to require that States develop Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs that are in conformity with this management measures guidance published by
EPA.

d. Scope and Coverage of This Guidance with Respect to Storm Water

EPA is excluding from coverage under this section 6217(g) guidance all storm water discharges that are covered by
Phase I of the NPDES storm water permit program. Thus EPA is excluding any discharge from a municipal separate
storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more; any discharge of storm water associated with industrial
activity; any discharge that has already been permitted; and any discharge'for which EPA or the State makes a
determination that the storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. All of these activities are clearly addressed by the storm
water permit program and therefore are excluded from the coastal nonpoint pollution control program.

1-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaq, 1993

Chapter I /L Development of the Management Measures Guidance

EPA is adopting a different approach with respect to other (non-Phase I) storm water discharges. At present, EPA
has not yet promulgated regulations that would designate additional storm water discharges, beyond those regulated
in Phase 1, that will be required to be regulated in Phase 11. It is thus not possible to determine at this point which
additional storm water discharges will be regulated by the NPDES program and which will not. Furthermore,
because of the great number of such discharges, it is likely that it would take many years to permit all of these
discharges, even if EPA allows for relatively expeditious State pern-titting approaches such as the use of general
permits.

Therefore, to give effect to the Congressional intent that coastal waters receive special and expeditious attention from
EPA, NOAA, and the States, storm water runoff that potentially may be ultimately covered by Phase 11 of the storm
water permit program is subject to this management measures guidance and will be addressed by the States' Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. Any storm water runoff that ultimately is regulated under an NPDES permit
will no longer be subject to this guidance once the permit is issued.

In addition, it should be noted that some other activities are not presently covered by NPDES permit application
requirements and thus would be subject to a State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Most importantly,
construction activities on sites that result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres, which are not currently covered by
Phase I storm water application requirements', are covered by the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.
Similarly, runoff from wholesale, retail, service, or commercial activities, including gas stations, which are not
covered by Phase I of the NPDES storm water program, would be subject instead to a State's Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program. Further, onsite disposal systems, which are generally not covered by the storm water
permit program, would be subject to a State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

Finally, EPA emphasizes that while different legal authorities may apply to different situations, the goals of the
NPDES and CZARA programs are complementary. Many of the techniques and practices used to control urban
runoff are equally applicable to both program . Yet, the programs do not work identically. In the interest of
consistency and comprehensiveness, States have the option to implement management measures in conformity with
this guidance throughout the State's 6217 management area, as long as NPDES storm water requirements continue
to be met by Phase I sources in that area. States are encouraged to develop consistent approaches to addressing
urban runoff throughout their 6217 management areas.

e. Marinas

Another specific overlap between the storm water program and the coastal nonpoint source programs under CZARA
occurs in the case of marinas (addressed in Chapter 5 of this guidance). In this guidance, EPA has attempted to
avoid addressing marina activities that are clearly regulated point source discharges. Any storm water runoff at a
marina that is ultimately regulated under an NPDES permit will no longer be subject to this guidance once the permit
is issued. The introduction to Chapter 5 contains a detailed discussion of the scope of the NPDES program with
respect to marinas and of the corresponding coverage of marinas by the CZARA program.

f. Other Point Sources

Overlapping areas between the point source and nonpoint source programs also occur with respect to concentrated
animal feeding operations. Operations that meet particular size or other criteria are defined and regulated as point
sources under the section 402 permit program, while other confined animal feeding operations are not currently
regulated as point sources. Other overlaps may occur with respect to aspects of mining operations, oil and gas
extraction, land disposal, and other activities.

On May 27, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated EPA's exemption of construction sites
smaller than 5 acres from the storm water pem-dt program in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759 (9th Cit.
1992). EPA is conducting further rulemaking proceedings on this issue and will not require permit applications for construction
activities under 5 acres untiffurther rulemaking has been completed.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1-9

IL Development of the Management Measures Guidance Chapter 1

EPA intends that the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs to be developed by the States, and the
management measures they contain, apply only to sources that are not required under EPA's current regulations to
obtain an NPDES permit. For any discharge ultimately covered by Phase Il of the storm water permitting program,
the management measures will continue to apply until an NPDES permit is issued for that discharge. In this
guidance, EPA has attempted to avoid addressing activities that are regulated point source discharges.

3. Contents of This Guidance

a. General

Each category of sources (agriculture, forestry, etc.) is addressed in a separate chapter of this guidance. Each chapter
is divided into sections, each of which contains (1) the management measure; (2) an applicability statement that
describes, when appropriate, specific activities and locations for which the measure is suitable; (3) a description of
the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis for the management measure's selection; (5) information on
management practices that are suitable, either alone or in combination with other practices, to achieve: the
management measure; (6) information on the effectiveness of the management measure and/or of practices to achieve
the measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or practices to achieve the measure.

b. What "Management Measures" Are

Each section of this guidance begins with a succinct statement, set off in bold typeface in a box, that specifies a
11 management measure." As explained earlier, "management measures" are defined in CZARA as economically
achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to our coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of
pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices,
technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated b y States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by EPA and NOAA.

c. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this guidance also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. As a practical matter, however, EPA anticipates that the management measures typicAly
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and cliniate.
The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can
be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these practices, or
appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and economic impacts
of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures are addressed in a separate
document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifting Management Measuresfor Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of praclices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
the management measure.

1-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 1 11. Development of the Management Measures Guidance

EPA recognizes as well that many sources may already achieve the management measures, or that only one or two
practices may need to be added to achieve the measures. Existing NPS progress should be recognized and
appropriate credit given to those who have already made progress toward accomplishing our common goal to control
NPS pollution. There is no need to spend additional resources for a practice that is already in existence and
operational. Existing practices, plans, and systems should be viewed as building blocks for these management
measures and may need no additional improvement.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

11L Technical Approach Taken in Developing This Guidance Chapter 1

III. TECHNICAL APPROACH TAKEN IN DEVELOPING THIS
GUIDANCE

A. The Nonpoint Source Poflution Process

Nonpoint source pollutants are transported to surface water by a variety of means, including runoff, snowmelt, and
ground-water infiltration. Ground water and surface water are both considered part of the same hydrologic cycle
when designing management measures. Ground-water contributions of pollutant loadings to surface waters in coastal
areas are often very significant. Hydrologic modification is another form of nonpoint source pollution that often
adversely affects the biological and physical integrity of surface waters.

1. Source Control

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

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

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

(3) Preventing interaction between precipitation and introduced pollutants. Examples include installing gutters
and diversions to keep clean rainfall away from barnyards, diverting rainfall runoff from areas of land
disturbance at construction sites, and timing chemical applications or logging activities based on weather
forecasts or seasonal weather patterns.
1
(4) Protecting riparian habitat and other sensitive areas. Examples include protection and preservation of
riparian zones, shorelines, wetlands, and highly erosive slopes.

(5) Protecting natural hydrology. Examples include the maintenance of pervious surfaces in developing area@
(conditioned based on ground-water considerations), riparian zone protection, and water management.

2. Delivery Reduction

Pollution prevention often involves delivery reduction in addition to appropriate source control measures. Delivery
reduction practices intercept pollutants leaving the source prior to their delivery to the receiving water by capturing
the runoff or infiltrate, followed either by treating and releasing the effluent or by permanently keeping the effluent
from reaching a surface water or ground-water resource. Management measures in this guidance incorporate delivery
reduction practices as appropriate to achieve the greatest degree of pollutant reduction economically achievable, as
required by the statute.

By their nature, delivery reduction practices often bring with them side effects that must be accounted for. For
example, management practices that intercept pollutants leaving the source may reduce runoff, but also may increase
infiltration to ground water. For instance, infiltration basins trap runoff and allow for its percolation. These devices,
although highly successful at controlling suspended solids, may not, because of their infiltration properties, be
suitable for use in areas with high ground-water tables and nitrate or pesticide residue problems. Thus, the reader
should select management practices with some care for the total water quality impact of the practices.

1-12 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 1 11L Technical Approach Taken in Developing This Guidance

The performance of delivery reduction practices is to a large extent dependent on suitable designs, operational
conditions, and proper maintenance. For example, filter strips may be effective for controlling particulate and soluble
pollutants where sedimentation is not excessive, but may be overwhelmed by high sediment input. Thus, in many
cases, filter strips are used as pretreatment or supplemental treatment for other practices within a management system,
rather than as an entire solution to a sedimentation problem.

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

B. Management Measures as Systems

Technical experts who design and implement effective nonpoint source control measures do so from a management
systems approach as opposed to an approach that focuses on individual practices. That is, the pollutant control
achievable from any given management system is viewed as the sum of the parts, taking into account the range of
effectiveness associated with each single practice, the costs of each practice, and the resulting overall cost and
effectiveness. Some individual practices may not be very effective alone but, in combination with others, may
provide a key function in highly effective systems. This management measures guidance attempts to adopt an
approach that encourages such system-building by stating the measures in general terms, followed by discussion of
specific management practices, which combined encourage the use of appropriate situation-specific sets of practices
that will achieve the management measure.

C. Economic Achievability of the Proposed Management Measures

EPA has determined that all of the management measures in this guidance are economically achievable, including,
where limited data were available, cost-effective. Congress defined "management measures" to mean "economically
achievable measures ... which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application
of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods,
or other alternatives."

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1-13

CHAPTER 2:' Management Measures for
Agriculture Sources

1. INTRODUCTION

A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect coastal waters from agricultural sources of nonpoint pollution.
"Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to our coastal waters, which
reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint
pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that States the management measures
generally will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location,
and climate. The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of
practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these
practices, or appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and
economic impacts of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures are
addressed in a separate document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
the management measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-1

I. Introduction Chapter 2

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter addresses six categories of sources of agricultural nonpoint pollution that affect coastal waters:

(1) Erosion from cropland;
(2) Confined animal facilities;
(3) The application of nutrients to cropland;
(4) The application of pesticides to cropland;
(5) Grazing management; and
(6) Irrigation of cropland.

Each category of sources (with the exception of confined animal facilities, which has two management measures)
is addressed in a separate section of this guidance. Each section contains (1) the management measure; (2) an
applicability statement that describes,'when appropriate, specific activities and locations for which the measure is
suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis for the management measure's
selection; (5) information on the effectiveness of the management measure and/or of practices to achieve the measure;
(6) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or in combination with other practices, to
achieve the management measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or practices to achieve the
measure.

D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters
and to Other EPA Documents

I . Chapter I of this document contains detailed information on the legislative background for this guidance, the
process used by EPA to develop this guidance, and the technical approach used by EPA in the guidance.

2. Chapter 7 of this document contains management measures to protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve
a nonpoint source abatement function. These measures apply to a broad variety of sources, including
agricultural sources.

3. Chapter 8 of this document contains information on recommencled monitoring techniques (1) to ensure proper
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the management measures and (2) to assess over tirne the
success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

4. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint.Pollution in Coastal Waters.

5. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains cletalls on how State Coastal Noripoint
Pollution Control Programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on the following:

� The basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of state Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to provide for the implementation of management measures
"in conformity" with this management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

2-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 1. Introduction

* Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

* Requirements concerning how States are to implement the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

E. Coordination of Measures

The management measures developed for agriculture are to be used as an overall system of measures to address
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution sources on any given site. In most cases, not all of the measures will be needed
to address the nonpoint sources at a specific site. For example, many farms or agriculture enterprises do not have
animals as part of the enterprise and would not need to be concerned with the management measures that address
confined animal facilities or grazing. By the same token, many enterprises do not use irrigation and would not need
to use the irrigation water management measure.

Most enterprises will have more than one source to address and may need to employ two or more of the measures
to address the multiple sources. Where more than one source exists, the application of the measures is to be
coordinated to produce an overall system that adequately addresses all sources for the site in a cost-effective manner.

The agricultural management measures for CZMA are, for the most part, systems of practices that are commonly
used and recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as components of Resource Management
Systems, Water Quality Management Plans, and Agricultural Waste Management Systems. Practices and plans
installed under State NPS programs are also included. Many farms and fields, therefore, may already be in
compliance with the measures needed to address the nonpoint sources on diem. For cases where existing source
control is inadequate to achieve conformity with the needed management measures, it may be necessary to add only
one or two more practices to achieve conformity. Existing NPS progress must be recognized and appropriate credit
given to the accomplishment of our common goal to control NPS pollution. There is no need to spend additional
resources for a practice that is already in existence and operational. Existing practices, plans, and systems should
be viewed as building blocks for these management measures and may need no additional improvement.

F. Pollutants That Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution'

The primary agricultural nonpoint source pollutants are nutrients, sediment, animal wastes, salts, and pesticides.
Agricultural activities also have the potential to directly impact the habitat of aquatic species through physical
disturbances caused by livestock or equipment, or through the management of water. The general pathways for
transport of pollutants from agricultural lands to water resources are shown in Figure 2-1 (USDA, 1991). The effects
of these pollutants on water quality are discussed below.

1. Nutrients

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the two major nutrients from agricultural land that degrade water quality.
Nutrients are applied to agricultural land in several different forms and come from various sources, including;

� Commercial fertilizer in a dry or fluid form, containing nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K),
secondary nutrients, and micronutrients;

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

This section on Pollutants That Cause Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution is adapted from USDA-SCS (1983).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-3

1. Introduction Chapter 2

Ifflothm Applications Precipitailon

mom
C

V,
010

CS
star Table
--7.7 - T_"-

Figure 2-1. Pathways through which substances are transported from agricultural land to become water pollutants
(USDA, 1991).

� Municipal and industrial treatment plant sludge, containing N,P,K, secondary nutrients, micronutrients, salts,
metals, and organic solids;

� Municipal and industrial treatment plant effluent, containing N,P,K, secondary nutrients, micronutrients,
salts, metals, and organics;

� Legumes and crop residues containing N, P, K, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients;

� Irrigation water;. and

� Atmospheric deposition of nutrients such as nitrogen and sulphur.

Surface water runoff from agricultural lands to which nutrients have been applied may transport the following
pollutants:

� Particulate-bound nutrients, chemicals, and metals, such as phosphorus, organic nitrogen, and metalsapplied
with some organic wastes;

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

� Sediment, particulate organic solids, and oxygen-demanding material;

2-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanuafY 1993

Chapter 2 1. Introduction

- Salts; and

* Bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms.

Ground-water infiltration from agricultural lands to which nutrients have been applied may transport the following
pollutants: soluble nutrients and chemicals, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, and many other major and minor
nutrients, and salts.

Surface water and ground-water pollutants from organic matter and crop residue decomposition and from legumes
growing on agricultural land may include nitrogen, phosphorus, and other essential nutrients found in the residue of
growing crops.

All plants require nutrients for growth. In aquatic environments, nutrient availability usually limits plant growth.
Nitrogen and phosphorus generally are present at background or natural levels below 0.3 and 0.05 mg/L, respectively.
When these nutrients are introduced into a stream, lake, or estuary at higher rates, aquatic plant productivity may
increase dramatically. This process, referred to as cultural eutrophication, may adversely affect the suitability of the
water for other uses.

Increased aquatic plant productivity results in the addition to the system of more organic material, which eventually
dies and decays. The decaying organic matter produces unpleasant odors and depletes the oxygen supply required
by aquatic organisms. Excess plant growth may also interfere with recreational activities such as switruning and
boating. Depleted oxygen levels, especially in colder bottom waters where dead organic matter tends to accumulate,
can reduce the quality of fish habitat and encourage the propagation of fish that are adapted to less oxygen or to
warmer surface waters. Highly enriched waters will stimulate algae production, with consequent increased turbidity
and color. Algae growth is also believed to be harmful to coral reefs (e.g., Florida coast). Furthermore, the
increased turbidity results.in less sunlight penetration and availability to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Since
SAV provides habitat for small or juvenile fish, the loss of SAV has severe consequences for the food chain.
Chesapeake Bay is an example in which nutrients are believed to have contributed to SAV loss.

a. Nitrogen

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

In addition to eutrophicatibn, excessive nitrogen causes other water quality problems. Dissolved ammonia at
concentrations above 0.2 mg/L may be toxic to fish, especially trout. Nitrates in drinking water are potentially
dangerous, especially to newborn infants. Nitrate is converted to nitrite in the digestive tract, which reduces the
oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood (methemoglobinemia), resulting in brain damage or even death. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has set a limit of 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen in water used for human consumption
(USEPA, 1989).

Nitrogen is naturally present in soils but must be added to increase crop production. Nitrogen is added to the soil
primarily by applying commercial fertilizers and manure, but also by growing legumes (biological nitrogen fixation)
and incorporating crop residues. Not all nitrogen that is present in or on the soil is available for plant use at any
one time. For example, in the eastern Com Belt, it is normally assumed that about 50 percent of applied N is
assimilated by crops during the year of application (Nelson, 1985). Organic nitrogen normally constitutes the
majority of the soil nitrogen. It is slowly converted (2 to 3 percent per year) to the more readily plant-available
inorganic ammonium or nitrate.

The chemical form of nitrogen affects its impact on water quality. The most biologically important inorganic forms
of nitrogen are ammonium (NH4-N), nitrate (NO,,-N), and nitrite (N02-N). Organic nitrogen occurs as particulate

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-5

I. Introduction G@apter 2

matter, in living organisms, and as detritus. It occurs in dissolved form in compounds such as amino acids, amines,
purines, and urea.

Nitrate-nitrogen is highly mobile and can move readily below the crop root zone, especially in sandy soils. It can
also be transported with surface runoff, but not usually in large quantities. Ammonium, on the other hand, becomes
adsorbed to the soil and is lost primarily with eroding sediment. Even if nitrogen is not in a readily available form
as it leaves the field, it can be converted to an available form either during transport or after delivery to waterbodies.

b. Phosphorus

Phosphorus can also contribute to the eutrophication'Of both freshwater and estuarine systems. While phosphorus
typically plays the controlling role in freshwater systems, in some estuarine systems both nitrogen and phosphorus
can limit plant growth. Algae consume dissolved inorganic phosphorus and convert it to the organic form.
Phosphorus is rarely found in concentrations high enough to be toxic to higher organisms.

Although the phosphorus content of most soils in their natural condition is low, between 0.01 and 0.2 percent by
weight, recent soil test results show that the phosphorus content of most cropped soils in the Northeast have climbed
to the high or very high range (Sims, 1992). Manure and fertilizers increase the level of available phosphorus in
the soil to promote plant growth, but many soils now contain higher phosphorus levels than plants need ( 'Killorn,
1980; Novais and Kamprath, 1978). Phosphorus can be found in the soil in dissolved, colloidal, or particulate forms.

Runoff and erosion can carry some of the applied phosphorus to nearby water bodies. Dissolved inorganic
phosphorus (orthophosphate phosphorus) is probably the only form directly available to algae. Particulate and
organic phosphorus delivered to waterbodies may later be released and made available to algae when the bottom
sediment of a stream becomes anaerobic, causing water quality problems.

2. Sediment

Sediment affects the use of water in many ways. Suspended solids reduce the amount of sunlight available to, aquatic
plants, cover fish spawning areas and food supplies, smother coral reefs, clog the filtering capacity of filter feeders,
and clog and harm the gills of fish. Turbidity interferes with the feeding habits of fish. These effects combine to
reduce fish, shellfish, coral, and plant populations and decrease the overall productivity of lakes, streams, estuaries,
%
a waters. In addition, recreation is limited because of the decreased fish population and the water's
'LapCpOeaStg, turbid appearance. Turbidity also reduces visibility, making swimming less safe.

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

Sediment is the result of erosion. It is the solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is being
transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice. The types of erosion as 3ociated
with agriculture that produce sediment are (1) sheet and rill erosion and (2) gully erosion. Soil erosion can be
characterized as the transport of particles that are detached by rainfall, flowing water, or wind (Figure 2-2). Eroded
soil is either redeposited on the same field or transported from the field in runoff.

Sediments from different sources vary in the kinds and amounts of pollutants that are adsorbed to the particles. For
example, sheet and rill erosion mainly move soil particles from the surfa@e'or plo@v layer of the soil. Sedirrient that
originates from surface soil has a higher pollution potential than that from subsurface soils. The topsoil of a field
is usually richer in nutrients and other chemicals because.of p@st fertilizer and pesticide applications, as well as
nutrient cycling and biological activity. Topsoil is also more likely to have a greater percentage of organic matter.
Sediment from gullies and streambanks usually carries less adso&d pollutants than sediment from surface soils.

2-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 1. Introduction

6 6 TRANSPORT BY FLOW
DETACHMENT BY
DETACHMENT RAINDROP IMPACT
BY FLOW

Figure 2-2. Sediment detachment and transport (USEPA, 1981).

Soil eroded and delivered Erorn cropland as sediment usually contains a higher percentage of finer and less dense
particles than the parent soil on the cropland. This change in composition of eroded soil is due to the selective
nature of the erosion process. For example, larger particles are more readily detached from the soil surface because
they are less cohesive, but they also settle out of suspension more quickly because of their size. Organic matter is
not easily detached because of its cohesive properties, but once detached it is easily transported because of its low
density. Clay particles and organic residues will remain suspended for longer periods and at slower flow velocities
than will larger or more dense particles. This selective erosion can increase overaH pollutant delivery per ton of
sediment delivered because small particles have a much greater adsorption capacity than larger particles. As a result,
eroding sediments generally contain higher concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and pesticides than the parent
soil (i.e., they are enriched).

3. Animal Wastes

Aniznal waste (manure) includes the fecal and urinary wastes of livestock and poultry; process water (such as from
a milking parlor); and the feed, bedding, litter, and sod with which they become intermixed. The fol.lowing
pollutants may be contained in manure and associated bedding materials and could be transported by runoff water
and process wastewater from confined animal facilities,

� Oxygen-demanding substances;
� Nitrogen, phosphorus, and many other major and minor nutrients or other deleterious materials;
� Organic solids;
� Salts;
� Bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms; and
� Sediments.

Fish kills may result from runoff, wastewater, or manure entering surface waters, due to ammonia or dissolved
oxygen depletion. 1"he decomposition of organic materials can deplete dissolved oxygen supplies in water, resulting
in anoxic or anaerobic conditions. Methane, amines, and sulfide are produced in anaerobic waters, causing the water
to acquire an unpleasant odor, taste, and appearance. Such waters can be unsuitable for drinking, fishing, and other
recreational uses.

Solids deposited in waterbodies can accelerate eutrophication through the release of nutrients over extended periods
of time. Because of the high nutrient and salt content of manure and runoff from manure-covered areas,
contamination of ground water can be a problem if storage structures are not built to minimize seepage.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 2-7

I. Introduction Chapter 2

Animal diseases can be transmitted to humans through contact with animal feces. Runoff from fields receiving
manure will contain extremely high numbers of bacteria if the manure has not been incorporated or the bacteria have
not been subject to stress. Shellfish closure and beach closure can result from high fecal coliform counts. Although
not the only source of pathogens, animal waste has been responsible for shellfish contamination in some'coastal
waters.

The method, timing, and rate of manure application are significant factors in determining the likelihood that water
quality contamination will result. Manure is generally more likely to be transported in runoff when applied to the
soil surface than when incorporated into the soil. Spreading manure on frozen ground or snow can result in high
concentrations of nutrients being transported from the field during rainfall or snowmelt, especially when the snowmelt
or rainfall events occur soon after spreading (Robillard and Walter, 1986). The water quality problems associated
with nitrogen and phosphorus are discussed under Section F. L

When application rates of manure for crop production are based on N, the P and K rates normally exceed plant
requirements (Westerman et al., 1985). The soil generally has the capacity to adsorb phosphorus leached from
manure applied on land. As previously mentioned, however, nitrates are easily leached through soil into @ground
water or to return flows, and phosphorus can be transported by eroded soil.

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

4. Salts

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

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

The movement and deposition of salts depend on the amount and distribution of rainfall and irrigation, the soil and
underlying strata, evapotranspiration rates, and other environmental factors. In humid areas, dissolved mineral salts
have been naturally leached from the soil and substrata by rainfall. In and and semi-arid regions, salts have not been
removed by natural leaching and are concentrated in the soil. Soluble salts in saline and sodic soils consist of
calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, carbonate, bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride ions. They are fairly easily
leached from the soil. Sparingly soluble gypsum and lime also occur in amounts ranging from traces to more than
50 percent of the soil mass.

Irrigation water, whether from ground or surface water sources, has a natural base load of dissolved mineraJ salts.
As the water is consumed by plants or lost to the atmosphere by evaporation, the salts remain and become
concentrated in the soil. This is referred to as the "concentrating effect."

The total salt load carried by irrigation return flow is the sum of the salt remaining in the applied water plus any
salt picked up from the irrigated land. Irrigation return flows provide the means for conveying the salu; to the
receiving streams or ground-water reservoirs. If the amount of salt in the return flow is low in comparison to the
total stream flow, water quality may not be degraded to the extent that use is impaired. However, if the process of

2-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 L Introduction

water diversion for irrigation and the return of saline drainage water is repeated many times along a stream or river,
water quality will be progressively degraded for downstream irrigation use as well as for other uses.

5. Pesticides

The term pesticide includes any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling,
or mitigating any pest or intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. The principal pesticidal
pollutants that may be detected in surface water and in ground water are the active and inert ingredients and any
persistent degradation products. Pesticides and their degradation products may enter ground and surface water in
solution, in emulsion, or bound to soil colloids. For simplicity, the term pesticides will be used to represent
11 pesticides and their degradation products" in the following sections.

Despite the documented benefits of using pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, miticides, nematicides, etc.)
to control plant pests and enhance production, these chemicals may, in some instances, cause impairments to the uses
of surface water and ground water. Some types of pesticides are resistant to degradation and may persist and
accumulate in aquatic ecosystems.

Pesticides may harm the environment by eliminating or reducing populations of desirable organisms, including
endangered species. Sublethal effects include the behavioral and structural changes of an organism that jeopardize
its survival. For example, certain pesticides have been found to inhibit bone development in young fish or to affect
reproduction by inducing abortion.

Herbicides in the aquatic environment can destroy the food source for higher organisms, which may then starve.
Herbicides can also reduce the amount of vegetation available for protective cover and the laying of eggs by aquatic
species. Also, the decay of plant matter exposed to herbicide-containing water can cause reductions in dissolved
oxygen concentration 'North Carolina State University, 11141,

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

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

The primary routes of pesticide transport to aquatic systems are (Maas et al., 1984):

(1) Direct application;
(2) In runoff;
(3) Aerial drift;
(4) Volatilization and subsequent atmospheric deposition; and
(5) Uptake by biota and subsequent movement in the food web.

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

(1) The intensity and duration of rainfall or irrigation;
(2) The length of time between pesticide application and rainfall occurrence;
(3) The amount of pesticide applied and its soil/water partition coefficient;
(4) The length and degree of slope and soil composition;
(5) The extent of exposure to bare (vs. residue or crop-covered) soil;

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-9

I. Introduction Chapter 2

(6) Proximity to streams;
(7) The method of application; and
(8) The extent to which runoff and erosion are controlled with agronomic and structural practices.

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

The rate of pesticide movement through the soil profile to ground water is inversely proportional to the pesticide
adsorption partition coefficient or Kd (a measure of the degree to which a pesticide is partitioned between Oe soil
and water phase). The larger the Kd, the slower the movement and the greater the quantity of water required to ]each
the pesticide to a given depth.

Pesticides can be transported to receiving waters either in dissolved form or attached to sediment. Dissolved
pesticides may be leached to ground-water supplies. Both the degradation and adsorption characteristics of pesticides
are highly variable.

6. Habitat Impacts

The functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is a result of interaction among geology, soil, waux, and
vegetation. Riparian-wedand areas are functioning properly when adequate vegetation is present to (1) dissipate
stream energy associated with high water flows, thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; (2) filter
sediment and aid floodplain development; (3) support denitrification of nitrate-contaminated ground water as it is
discharged into streams; (4) improve floodwater retention and ground-water recharge; (5) develop root masses that
stabilize banks against cutting action; (6) develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat
and the water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses;
and (7) support greater biodiversity.

Improper livestock grazing affects all four components of the water-riparian system: banks/shores, water colurnn,
channel, and aquatic and bordering vegetation (Platts, 1990). The potential effects of grazing include:

Shorelbanks

� Shear or sloughing of streambank soils by hoof or head action.

� Water, ice, and wind erosion of exposed streambank and channel soils because of loss of vegetative cover.

� Elimination or loss of streambank vegetation.

� Reduction of the quality and quantity of streambank undercuts.

� Increasing streambank angle (laying back of streambanks), which increases water width, decreases strewn
depth, and alters or eliminates fish habitat.

Water Column

� Withdrawal from streams to irrigate grazing lands.

� Drainage of wet meadows or lowering of the ground-water table to facilitate grazing access.

� Pollutants (e.g., sediments) in return water from grazed lands, which are detrimental to the designated uses
such as fisheries.

2-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 1. Introduction

Changes in magnitude and timing of organic and inorganic energy (i.e., solar radiation, debris, nutrients)
inputs to the stream.

� Increase in fecal contamination.

� Changes in stream morphology, such as increases in stream width and decreases in stream depth, including
reduction of stream shore water depth.

� Changes in timing and magnitude of stream flow events from changes in watershed vegetative cover.

� Increase in stream temperature.

Channel

� Changes in channel morphology.

� Altered sediment transport processes.

Riparian Vegetation

� Changes in plant species composition (e.g., shrubs to grass to forbs).

� Reduction of floodplain and streambank vegetation including vegetation hanging over or entering into the
water column.

� Decrease in plant vigor.

- Changes in timing and amounts of organic energy leaving the riparian zone.

� Elimination of riparian plant communities (i.e., lowering of the water table allowing xeric plants to replace
riparian plants).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-11

//. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources Chapter 2

11. MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL SOURCES

01
. ...... A. Erosion and Sediment Control Management Measure

0
Apply the erosion component of a Conservation Management System (CMS) as
defined in the Field Office Technical Guide of the U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Soil Conservation Service (see Appendix 2A of this chapter) to minimize the delivery
of sediment from agricultural lands to surface waters, or

Design and install a combination of management and physical practices to settle the
settleable solids and associated pollutants in runoff delivered from the contributing
area for storms of up to and including a 10-year, 24-hour frequency.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to activities that cause erosion on agricultural land and
on land that is converted from other land uses to agricultural lands. Agricultural lands include:

� Cropland;
� Irrigated cropland;
� Range and pasture;
� Orchards; 5 0
� Permanent hayland;
� Specialty crop production; and
� Nursery crop production.

Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal nonpoint programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing
so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department
of Commerce.

2. Description

The problems associated with soil erosion are the movement of sediment and associated pollutants by runoff into
a waterbody. See Section I.F.2 of this chapter for additional information regarding problems.

Application of this management measure will reduce the mass load of sediment reaching a waterbody and improve
water quality and the use of the water resource. The measure can be implemented by using one of two different
strategies or a combination of both. The first, and most desirable, strategy would be to implement practices on the
field that would prevent erosion and the transport of sediment from the field. Practices that could be used to
accomplish this are conservation tillage, contour strip-cropping, terraces, and critical area planting.

2-12 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 H. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

The second strategy is to route runoff from fields through practices that remove sediment. Practices that could be
used to accomplish this are filter strips, field borders, grade stabilization structures, sediment retention ponds, water
and sediment control basins, and terraces. Site conditions will dictate the appropriate combination of practices for
any given situation.

Conservation management systems (CMS) include any combination of conservation practices and management that
achieves a level of treatment of the five natural resources (i.e., soil, water, air, plants, and animals) that satisfies
criteria contained in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), such as a resource
management system (RMS) or an acceptable management system (AMS). These criteria are developed at the State
level, with concurrence by the appropriate SCS National Technical Center (NTC). The criteria are then applied in
the provision of field office technical assistance, under the direction of the District Conservationist of SCS. In-state
coordination of FOTG use is provided by the Area Conservationist and State Conservationist of SCS.

The erosion component of a CMS addresses sheet and rill erosion, wind erosion, c9ncentrated flow, streambank
erosion, soil mass movements, road bank erosion, construction site erosion, and irrigation-induced erosion. National
(minimum) criteria pertaining to erosion and sediment control under an RMS will be applied to prevent long-term
soil degradation and to resolve existing or potential off-site deposition problems. National criteria pertaining to the
water resource will be applied to control sediment movement to minimize contamination of receiving waters. The
combined effects of these criteria will be to both reduce upland soil erosion and minimize sediment delivery to
receiving waters.

The practical limits of resource protection under a CMS within any given area are determined through the application
of national social, cultural, and economic criteria. With respect to economics, landowners will not be required to
implement an RMS if the system is generally too costly for landowners. Instead, landowners may be required to
implement a less costly, and less protective, AMS. In some cases, landowner constraints may be such that an RMS
or AMS cannot be implemented quickly. In these situations, a "progressive planning approach" may be used to
ultimately achieve planning and application of an RMS or AMS. Progressive planning is the incremental process
of building a plan on part or all of the planning unit over a period of time. For additional details regarding, CMS,
RMS, and AMS, see Appendix 2A of this chapter.

Operation and Maintenance

Continued performance of this measure will be ensured through supporting maintenance operations where appropriate.
Since practices are designed to control a specific storm frequency, they may suffer damage when larger storms occur.
It is expected that damage will be repaired after such storms and that practices will be inspected periodically. To
ensure that practices selected to implement this measure will continue to function as designed and installed, some
operational functions and maintenance will be necessary over the life of the practices.

Most structural practices for erosion and sediment control are designed to operate without human intervention.
Management practices such as conservation tillage, however, do require "operation consideration" each time they are
used. Field operations should be conducted with such practices in mind to ensure that they are not damaged or
destroyed by the operations. For example, herbicides should not be applied to any practice that uses a permanent
vegetative cover, such as waterways and filter strips.

Structural practices such as diversions, grassed waterways, and other practices that require grading and shaping may
require repair to maintain the original design; reseeding may also be needed to maintain the original vegetative cover.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-13

A Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Trees and brush should not be allowed to grow on berms, dams, or other structural embankments. Cleaning of
sediment retention basins will be needed to maintain their original design capacity and efficiency.

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

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected based on an evaluation of available information that documents the beneficial
effects of improved erosion and sediment control (see Section II.A.4 of this chapter). Specifically, the available
information shows that erosion control practices can be used to greatly reduce the quantity of eroding soil on
agricultural land, and that edge-of-field practices can effectively remove sediment from runoff before it leaves
agricultural lands. The benefits of this management measure include significant reductions in the mass load of
sediment and associated pollutants (e.g., phosphorus, some pesticides) entering waterbodies. By reducing the load
of sediment leaving a field, downstream water uses can be maintained and improved.

Two options are provided under this management measure that represent best available technology for minimizing
the delivery of sediment from agricultural lands to receiving waters. Different management strategies, are employed,
however, with the options. IThe most desirable option is "(1)" since it not only minimizes the delivery of sediment
to receiving waters, but also reduces erosion to provide an agronomic benefit. Option "(2)" minimizes the delivery
of sediment to receiving waters, but does not necessarily provide the agronomic benefits of upland erosion control.
By providing these two options, States are given the flexibility to address erosion and sediment problems in a manner
that best reflects State and local needs and preferences.

By designing the measure to achieve contaminant load reduction objectives, the necessary mix of structural and
management practices for a given site should not result in undue economic impact on the operator. Many of the
practices that could be used to implement this measure may already be required by Federal, State, or local rules (e.g.,
filter strips or field borders along streams) or may otherwise be in use on agricultural fields. Since many producers
may already be using systems that satisfy or partly satisfy the intent of this management measure, the only action
that may be necessary will be to recognize the effectiveness of the existing practices and add additional practices,
if needed. By building upon existing erosion and sediment control efforts, the time, effort, and cost of implerrienting
this measure will be reduced.

4. Effectiveness Information

The effectiveness of management practices depends on several factors, including:

� The contaminant to be controlled;
� The types of practices or controls being considered; and
� Site-specific conditions.

Management practices or systems of practices must be designed for site-specific conditions to achieve desired
effectiveness levels. Practice systems include combinations of practices that provide source control of the
contaminant(s) as well as control or reductions in edge-of-field losses and delivery to receiving waters. Table 2-1
provides a gross estimate of practice effectiveness as reported in research literature. The actual effectiveness of a
practice will depend exclusively on site-specific variables such as soil type, crop rotation, topography, tillage, and
harvesting methods. Even within relatively small watersheds, extreme spatial and temporal variations are common.
With this type of variation, the ranges of likely values associated with the reported observations in Table 24 are
large.

2-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 1/. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

Table 2-1. Relative Gross Effectivenessa of Sedimeintb Control Measures
0 (Pennsylvania State University, 1992a)
Runoffd Totale Phosphorus Total" Nitrogen Sediment
Practice Category' Volume N N N
Reduced Tillage Systems' - 45 55 75
Diversion Systems9 - 30 10 35
Terrace Systems' - 70 20 85
Filter Strips@ - 75 70 65

Actual effectiveness depends on site-specific conditions. Values are not cumulative between practice categories.
Includes data where land application of manure has occurred.
c Each category includes several specific types of practices.
- indicates reduction; + increase; 0 no change in surface runoff.
Total phosphorus includes total and dissolved phosphorus; total nitrogen includes organic-N, ammonia-N, and nitrate-N.
Includes practices such as conservation tillage, no-till, and crop residue use.
9 Includes practices such as grassed waterways and grade stabilization structures.
Includes several types of terraces with safe outlet structures where appropriate.
Includes all practices that reduce contaminant losses using vegetative control methods.

The variability in the effectiveness of selected conservation practices that are frequently recommended by SCS in
resource planning is illustrated in Table 2-2. This table can be used as a general guide for estimating the effects of
these practices on water quality and quantity. The table references include additional site-specific information.
Practice effects shown include changes in the water budget, sediment yield, and the movement of pesticides and
nutrients. The impacts of variations in climate and soil conditions are accounted for to some extent through the
presentation of effectiveness data for different soil-climate combinations. Data were not available for all soils and
climates.

Data for the table were obtained from the research literature and include computer model simulation results. Values
are reported as the percentage of change in the mass load of a given parameter that can be expected from installing
the practice. Changes are determined versus a base condition of a rain-fed, nonleguminous, continuous, row crop
(usually com) that has been cultivated under conventional tillage.

Data from model studies are marked with an W." For example, -27M indicates that the load reduction estimate of
27 percent is derived from a model simulation. Data obtained from plot studies using rainfall simulators are marked
with an "S." For example, +15S indicates that the estimated load increase of 15 percent is based on a rainfall
simulation study.

The range is reported in parentheses, followed by other reported values within the range, set off by commas. For
example, (-32 to +10), -15, +5 denotes a range from a decrease of 32 percent to an increase of 10 percent, with
intermediate reported changes of a 15 percent decrease and 5 percent increase. Some practices have a relatively wide
range of values because of the variability in climate, soils, and management that occurs with these practices.
Although some of the ranges are large, they can usually be attributed to small changes in very small quantities (thus
the percentage change is great, yet the magnitude of change is small) or to the variability of site-specific conditions.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-15

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-2 contains the following information:

� Column (a) lists the practice and its SCS reporting code number.
1 0

� Column (b) lists the climate and a generalized soil classification for the site under consideration.

� Column (c) is the percentage change in surface runoff and deep percolation, components of the water
budget, caused by the applied practice.

� Column (d) is the percentage change in sediment load caused by the applied practice.

� Column (e) is the percentage change in the phosphorus load. Two phases of phosphorus are considered:
adsorbed and dissolved.

� Column (f) is the percentage change in the load of nitrogen in the adsorbed phase, nitrate in surface runoff,
and nitrate in the leachate.

� Column (g) is the percentage change in the pesticide load. The phases of the pesticide listed are
(1) strongly adsorbed in surface water, (2) weakly adsorbed in surface water, and (3) weakly adsorbed in
the leachate.

5. Erosion and Sediment Control Management Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Combinations of the following practices can be used to satisfy the requirements of this management measure. The
SCS practice number and definition are provided for each management practice, where available. Also *included in
italics are SCS statements describing the effect each practice has on water quality (USDA-SCS, 1988).

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

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

M b. Conservation cropping sequence (328): An adapted sequence of crops designed to provide
adequate organic residue for maintenance or improvement of soil filth.

This practice reduces erosion by increasing organic matter, resulting in a reduction of sediment and associated
pollutants to surface waters. Crop rotations that improve soil tilth may also disrupt disease, insect and weed
reproduction cycles, reducing the need for pesticides. This removes or reduces the availability of some pollutants
inthewatershed Deep percolation may carry soluble nutrients and pesticides to the groundwater. Underlyingsoil

2-16 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januajy 1993

0 0 0

Table 2-2. Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Resource Parameters (USDA-SCS, 1988)
9b
NOTE: Values in the tables are taken from published research, model simulations, and results of simulated rainfall plots. Both the range (in parentheses) and
additional values within the range (after parentheses, separated by comma) are presented. The values describe the percentage change in mass loads caused
03 by the use of the practice on a nonirrigated, nonlegume, continuous row crop that has been grown under conventional tillage. Values inside the range are
shown behind the range values and are separated by commas (-30,-90), -76. Values from model simulation are marked by an M, e.g., -30M, and values from a
rainfall simulator are marked with an S, e.g., -29S. Few data are available for and conditions and that zone is not included in the table. Not all soil-climate
combinations have available reference data. A minus is a decreased value; a plus is an increase.
r
ar
(a) (b) M (d) (e) (g)

Water Budget Phosphorus Nitrogen Pesticides
(0 (% Change) (% Change) (% Change) (% Change)
Practice Sediment Nitrogen Nitrate in Strongly Weakly Weakly
and Climate Surface Deep Yield Adsorbed Surface Nitrate in Adsorbed Adsorbed Adsorbed
Number and Soil Runoff Percolation (% Change) Sediment Runoff Phases Runoff Percolate SWb Leachate SWb

Contour H-S'
Farming
330 Sandy (-65,-75) (-20.-50) -20 -10 -15 -5
Silty (-60,-40) +10 (-65,-30) (-60,-65) (-60.-65) (45.-54) (-25,-72),- +10,+7
Clayey (-19,-20) +5 (-29,-55) -55 -20 -55 40 +10
(-12,-25)

SA-Sa

Silty (-27,-59) (-22,-59)
Clayey -54 -26 +10

Sandy -30 +10 -60 -60 -30 -60 -35 +10
Silty -16 (-30,-48) (-25,41) +6
Clayey (-17,-29) -12 +7

Clayey -15

Strip- H-Se
Cropping - CZ
Contour Silty -5M +9M (-37,90M),-49 -80M -86M -81 M 43M +158M 0,+6.
585 Clayey -28M +366M' -89M -52M -89M -51 M -26M +220Mc
Sandy No change No change -99M -99M -99M -98M -39M +12M
CZ

Table 2-2. (Continued)

(a) (b) M (d) M (g)

Water Budget Phosphorus Nitrogen Pesticides
(% Change) (% Change) (% Change) (% Change)

Practice Sediment Nitrogen Nitrate in Strongly Weakly Weakly
and Climate Surface Deep Yield Adsorbed Surface Nitrate in Adsorbed Adsorbed Adsorbed
Number and Soil Runoff Percolation (% Change) Sediment Runoff Phases Runoff Percolate SWb Leachate SWb
(A
C
Cons. w
Tillage- -
No Till Clayey (-33,+48)u
(-73M,-62) -53M -30M -53M -11 (-49M,+8) -51 M
329 Silty (-91,+36)" No change (-75,-99) (-64,-95) (+900,-22)' (-60.-94) (-42,+800) (8M,+16) -78 (+5M,-50)
-40,+100 1,+8'
Sandyd (-26M,-88),- (-66M.-99S) (-51,-87S) (0,+155) (-69s,-90s) (-67,-80) 0
61

SA-S' u-72s,-82 -72,-70 -42s,-45
Silty +36 -96 (-80,-90) +138 (-50,-90),- (0,+45) +2 Ji
60

H-Sa

silty (-21,-90) (-88,-99) (-75.-90) (+450.+160 (-75,-90) +500
0)

Cons. H-S'
Tillage -
(Other Silty (-15.-73) +5 (-43,+95) -90,-84 +1850,+17 -91.-82 +1800,+95
types) -51,-20 -85,-55 50, 00
M 329 Clayey -30 +10 -70

SA-Sa
tp Silty -54
Clayey (-29,-89) +10 (-70,-42)

Sandy (-40,-89) +5 (-40,-66) -91 -3 -95 -88
I -- - - I A _61) I Ifiz-0 I -C-11
QIILY k-e-VI-ew) ff %-499,
Clayey (-10.-61),- +10 (-29,-86) (+60M,-2*)
20 -34,-41

0 0
Table 2-2. (Continued)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g)

Water Budget Phosphorus Nitrogen Pesticides
(% Change) (% Change) (% Change) (% Change)

SA6

Silty (-16,-25),- (-38,-92),-69 (-38,-81) +63,+27
Sandy 20 If -45 If
Clayey -31 -90M Not sig.
-88M

Terraces H-Sa
with
Under- Sandy -14 (-95,-98)
ground Silty (-24,-60) (+12.+500)' (-87,-95) -95 -60 -95 (-70.+55)" +15
Outlets Clayey (-30,-36) (+5,+380)c (-90,-95) -30 -95 -30 +10
600

SA-Sa

Sandy -1 4M +67M (-95,-98) -99M -42M -99M -42M +20M (-73,-91 M)
Silty (mM,+QIVI) +162M (-95,-92M) -97M -72M -97M -78M +37M (-84,-91 M)
Clayey (-15,-36M) (+5,+293M)' (-95,-91 M) -96M -65M -96M -91 M (10 to high (-69M,-
values) 78M)

WASCOB' Ha
638
Sandy -40 +15 (-95,-99) -40 -95 -50 +15
silty (-88,-42) (-95,-50),-86 -71 -95 (-86,-44) +8 -4
Clayey (-90,-95)

SAR

Sandy (-95,-98)
Silty -73 -95 -73 +58' -50
Clayey -30 +5 (-90,-95) co
0
IZ-
Climatic conditions: H-S = Humid - Snow; H Humid; SAS = Semi-Arid - Snow; and SA Semi-Add. Measured values were large numbers.
b SW = Surface Water. Water and Sediment Control Basin
* Measured values were small numbers; percentage change may have large values. u Unknown, site-dependent, or conflicting values.
d Data have scattered values. # No reported value.

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

layers, rock and unconsolidated parent material may block, delay, or enhance the deliver), of these pollutants to
ground water. The fate of these pollutants will be site specific, depending on the crop management, the soil and
geologic conditions.

c. Conservation tillage (329): Any tillage or planting system that maintains at least 30 percent of the
soil surface covered by residue afterplanting to reduce soil erosion by water, or, where soil erosion
by wind is the primary concern, maintains at least 1,000 pounds of flat, small-grain n.sidue
equivalent on the surface during the critical erosion period.

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

In order to maintain the crop residue on the surface it is difficult to incorporate fertilizers and pesticides. Thismay
increase the amount of these chemicals in the runoff and cause more sur ace water pollution.
. f

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

With a no-till operation the only soil disturbance is the planter shoe and the compaction from the wheel3. The
surface applied fertilizers and chemicals are not incorporated and often are not in direct contact with the soil
surface. This condition may. result in a high surface runoff of pollutants (nutrient and pesticides). Macropores
develop under a no-till system. They permit deep percolation and the transmittal of pollutants, both soluble and
insoluble to be carried into the deeper soil horizons and into the ground water.

Reduced tillage systems disrupt or break down the macropores, incidentally incorporate some of the materials
applied to the soil surface, and reduce the effects of wheeltrack compaction. The results are less runoff and less
pollutants in the runoff.

d. Contour farming (330): Farming sloping land in such a way that preparing land, plantin. and
'91
cultivating are done on the contour. This includes following established grades of terraces or
diversions.

This practice reduces erosibn and sediment production. Less sediment and related pollutants may be tranported
to the receiving waters.

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

e. Contour orchard and other fruit area (33 1): Planting orchards, vineyards, or small fruits so that all
cultural operations are done on the, contour.

Contour orchards andfruit areas may reduce erosion, sediment yield, and pesticide concentration in the water lost.
Where inward sloping benches are used, the sediment and chemicals will be trapped against the slope. With annual
events, the bench may provide 100 percent trap efficiency. Outward sloping benches may allow greater sediment
and chemical loss. The amount of retention depends on the slope of the bench and the amount of cover. In addition,
outward sloping benches are subject to erosion form runoff from benches immediately above them. Contouring
allows better access to rills, permitting maintenance that reduces additional erosion. Immediately aft@r
establishment, contour orchards may be subject to erosion and sedimentation in excess of the now contoured orchard.
Contour orchards require more ferfilization and pesticide application than did the native grasses that frequently
covered the slopes before orchards were staried. Sediment leaving the site may carry more adsorbed nutrients and
pesticides than did the sediment before the benches were establishedfrom uncultivated slopes. If contoured orchards

2-20 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 2 1/. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

replace other crop or intensive land use, the increase or decrease in chemical transport from the site may be
determined by examining the types and amounts of chemicals used on the prior land use as compared to the contour
orchard condition.

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

M f Cover and green manure crop (340): A crop of close-growing grasses, legumes, or small grain
grown primarily for seasonal protection and soil improvement Itusuallyis grown for 1 yearorless,
except where thpre is permanent cover as in orchards.

Erosion, sediment and adsorbed chemical yields could be decreased in conventional tillage systems because of the
increased period of vegetal cover. Plants will take up available nitrogen and prevent its undesired movement.
Organic nutrients may be added to the nutrient budget reducing the need to supply more soluble jor7ns. Overall
volume of chemical application may decrease because the vegetation will supply nutrients and there may be
allelopathic effects of some of the types of cover vegetation an weeds. Temperatures of ground and surface waters
could slightly decrease.

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

This practice may reduce soil erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters. Plants may take up more of the
nutrients in the soil, reducing the amount that can be washed into surface waters or leached into ground water.

During grading, seedbed preparation, seeding, and mulching, large quantities of sediment and associated chemicals
may be washed into surface waters prior to plant establishment.

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

When this practice is employed, raindrops are intercepted by the residue reducing detachment, soil dispersion, and
soil compaction. Erosion may be reduced and the delivery of sediment and associated pollutants to surface water
may be reduced. Reduced soil sealing, crusting and compaction allows more water to infiltrate, resulting in an
increased potential for leaching of dissolved pollutants into the ground water.

Crop residues on the surface increase the microbial and bacterial action on or near the surface. Nitrates and
surface-applied pesticides may be tied-up and less available to be delivered to surface and ground water. Residues
trap sediment and reduce the amount carried to surface water. Crop residues promote soil aggregation and improve
soil tilth.

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

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-21

/L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

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

Mi. Diversion (362): A channel constructed across the slope with a supporting ridge on the lower side
(Figure 2-3).

This practice will assist in the stabilization of a watershed, resulting in the reduction of sheet and rill erosion by
reducing the length of slope. Sediment may be reduced by the elimination of ephemeral and large gullies. Thir may
reduce the amount of sediment and related pollutants delivered to the s4r ace waters.
f

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

This practice reduces erosion by having perennial vegetation on an area of the field Field borders serve as
"anchoring points "for contour rows, terraces, diversions, and contour strip cropping. By elimination of the practice
of tilling and planting the ends up and down slopes, erosion from concentrated flow in furrows and long rows may
be reduced This use may reduce the quantity of sediment and related pollutants transported to the surface waters.

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

Filter strips for sediment and related pollutants meeting minimum requirements may trap the coarser grained
sediment. They may notfilter out soluble or suspendedfine-grained materials. When a storm causes runoff in excess
When the field borders are located such that runoffflows across them in sheet flow, they may cause the deposition
of sediment and prevent itfrom entering the surface water. Where these practice are between cropland and a si ream

kX-.
Figure 2-3. Diversion (USDA-SCS, 1984).

2-22 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

or water body, the practice may reduce the amount of pesticide application drift from entering the surface water of
the design runoff, the filter may be flooded and may cause large loads of pollutants to be released to the surface
water. This type offilter requires high maintenance and has a relatively short service life and is effective only as
long as the flow through the filter is shallow sheet flow.

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

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

All types offilters may reduce erosion on the area on which they are constructed

Filter strips trap solidsfrom the runoffflowing in sheetflow through thefilter. Coarse-grained andfibrous materials
are filtered more efficiently than fine-grained and soluble substances. Filter strips workfor design conditions, but
when flooded or overloaded they may release a slug load of pollutants into the surface water.

m. Grade stabilization structure (4 10): A structure used to control the grade and head cutting in
natural or artificial channels.

Where reduced stream velocities occur upstream and downstream from the structure, streambank and streambed
erosion will be reduced This will decrease the yield of sediment and sediment-attached substances. Structures that
rap sediment will improve downstream water quality. The sediment yield change will be afunction of the sediment
yield to the structure, reservoir trap efficiency and of velocities of released water. Ground water recharge may affect
atquifer quality depending on the quality of the recharging water. If the stored water contains only sediment and
chemical with low water solubility, the ground water quality should not be affected

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

This practice may reduce the erosion in a concentrated flow area, such as in a gully or in ephemeral gullies. This
may result in the reduction of sediment and substances delivered to receiving waters. Vegetation may act as a filter
in removing some of the sediment delivered to the waterway, although this is not the primaryfunction of a grassed
waterway.

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

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

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

Reduced runoff and increased vegetation may lower erosion rates and subsequent yields of sediment and sediment-
attached substances. Less applied nitrogen may be required to grow crops because grasses and legumes will supply
organic nitrogen. During the period of the rotation when the grasses and legumes are growing, they will take up
more phosphorus. Less pesticides may similarly be required with this practice. Downstream water temperatures
may be lower depending on the season when this practice is applied. There will be a greater opportunityfor animal

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-23

IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

waste management on grasslands because manures and other wastes may be appliedfor a longer pari of the crop
year.

M p. Sediment basins (350): Basins constructed to collect and store debris or sediment.

Sediment basins will remove sediment, sediment associated materials and other debrisfrom the water which is passed
on downstream. Due to the detention of the runoff in the basin, there is an increased opportunity for soluble
materials to be leached toward the ground water.

M q. Contour stripcropping (585): Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands on the
contour to rdduce water erosion.

The crops are arranged so that a strip of grass or close-growing crop is alternated with a strip of clean7tilled crop
or fallow or a strip of grass is alternated with a close-growing crop (Figure 2-4).

This practice may reduce erosion and the amount of sediment and related substances delivered to the surface waters.
The practice may increase the amount of water which infiltrates into the root zone, and, at the time there is an
overabundance of soil water, this water may percolate and leach soluble substances into the ground water.

r. Field strip-cropping (586): Growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands across
the general slope (not on the contour) to reduce water erosion.

The crops are arranged so that a strip of grass or a close-growing crop is alternated with a clean-tilled crop or fallow.

This practice may reduce erosion and the delivery of sediment and related substances to the surface waters. The
practice may increase infiltration and, when there is sufficient water available, may increase the amount of leachable
pollutants moved toward the ground water.

Since this practice is not on the contour there will be areas of concentrated flow, from which detached sediment,
adsorbed chemicals and dissolved substances will be delivered more rapidly to the receiving waters. The sod strips
will not be efficient filter areas in these areas of concentrated flow.

s. Terrace (600): An earthen embankment, a channel, or combination ridge and channel constructed
across the slope (Figures 2-5 and 2-6).

This practice reduces the slope length and the amount of surface runoff which passes over the area downslop'? from
an individual terrace. This may reduce the erosion rate and production of sediment within the terrace interval.
Terraces trap sediment and reduce the sediment and associated pollutant content in the runoff water which enhance
surface water quality. Terraces may intercept and conduct surface runoff at a nonerosive velocity to stable outlets,
thus, reducing the occurrence of ephemeral and classic gullies and the resulting sediment. Increases in infiltration
can cause a greater amount of soluble nutrients and pesticides to be leached into the soil. Underground outlets may
collect highly soluble nutrient and pesticide leachates and convey runoff and conveying it directly to an outlet,
terraces may increase the delivery of pollutants to surface waters. Terraces increase the opportunity to leach salts
below the root zone in the soil. Terraces may have a detrimental effect on water quality if they concentrate and
accelerate delivery of dissolved or suspended nutrient, salt, and pesticide pollutants to surface or ground waters.

t. Water and sediment control basin (638): An earthen embankment or a combination ridge and
channel generally constructed across the slope and minor watercourses to form a sediment trap
and water detention basin.@

2-24 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Contour strip cropping systems can involve up to 10 strips in a field. A strip cropping
system could involve the following:
Corn leither for grain and/or silage)
Soybeans
1 st year Meadow
Established Meadow (2-4 years)
Oats
Grassed waterway or diversion
Tillage systems may include two kinds in the same year such as chisel plowing for the for
crop and moldboard plowing for the oats.
See the following figure showing typical patterns of stripcropping.

iNT) (MT) NT - No-Till
5 Yr Rotation C-Sb notation MT - Mulch Till
CT Conventional
C Corn
Sb Soybeans
,f v2 0 Small Grain
Yri
kmIl 0 M Rotation Meadow
(NT)
CI C2 kt4l)
__II o- IA2 CI tA2
OATI M
.@o
0 WTI
k"-VI
m2 iA% 11
@M-tl tAl
tmTl 0@0
0
C2

m2
0"o,

(NT) WT)
C-Sb Rotation

Grass waterway Grass Turn Strip
Down Ridge

Figure 2-4. Strip-cropping and rotations (USDA-ARS, 1987).

The practice traps and removes sediment and sediment-attached substances from runoff. Trap control efficiencies
for sediment and total phosphorus, that are transported by runoff, may exceed 90 percent in silt loam soils.
Dissolved substances, such as nitrates, may be removed from discharge to downstream areas because of the
increased infiltration. Where geologic condition permit, the practice will lead to increased loadings of dissolved
substances toward ground water. Water temperatures of surface runoff, released through underground outlets, may
increase slightly because of longer exposure to warming during its impoundment.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 2-25

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

'z
o

71@

14
I LE 4 AKE
>
Figure 2-5. Gradient terraces with tile outlets (USDA-SCS, 1984).

Figure 2-6. Gradient terraces with waterway outlet (USDA-SCS, 1984).

2-26 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 /1. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

N u. Wetland and riparian zone protection

Wetland and riparian zone protection practices are described in Chapter 7.

6. Cost Information

Both national and selected State costs for a number of common erosion control practices are presented in Tables 2-3
through 2-7. The variability in costs for practices can be accounted for primarily through differences in site-specific
applications and costs, differences in the reporting units used, and differences in the interpretation of reporting units.

The cost estimates for control of erosion and sediment transport from agricultural lands in Table 2-8 are based on
experiences in the Chesapeake Bay Program, but are illustrative of the costs that could be incurred in coastal areas
across the Nation. It is important to note that for some practices, such as conservation tillage, the net costs often
approach zero and in some cases can be negative because of the savings in labor and energy.

The annual cost of operation and maintenance is estimated to range from zero to 10 percent of the investment cost
(USDA-SCS-Michigan, 1988).

Table 2-3. Cost of Diversions

Reported Constant
Capital Costs Dollar Capital
Location Year Unit ($/unit) Costs ($/unit)a Reference

National 1985 ac 49.45 61.8 Barbarika, 1987.

North Carolina 1980 ac 120.00 164.35 NCAES, 1982

Maryland 1991 ft 3.12 3.12 Sanders et al., 1991.
Maryland 1987 ft 2.25 2.89 Smolen and Hurnenik,
1989.
Michigan 1981 ft 3.75 4.79 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.
Wisconsin 1987 ft 1.57 2.02 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.
Minnesota 1987 ft 1.43 1.84 Smolen and Hurnenik,
1989.
Virginia 1987 ft 1.33 1.71 Smolen and Humenik,
1 1989.

Reported costs inflated to 1991 dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for all
production items, 1977=1 00. Diversion lifetime is expected to be 10 years, but costs are not
annualized.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-27

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-4. Cost of Terraces

Reported Constant Dollar
Capital Costs Capital Costs
Location Year Unit ($/unit) ($/unit)" Reference

National 1985 ac 91.43 114.44 Barbarika, 1987.

Alabama 1982 a.s. 45-00 55.58 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Florida 1982 a.s. 40.00 49.41 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.
Georgia 1982 a.s. 3:9.00 48.18 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

North Carolina 1982 a.s. 47-00 58.06 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

South Carolina 1982 a.s. 17.00 21.00 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Virginia 1982 a.s. 39-00 48.18 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Wisconsin 1987 ft 10.00 12.86 Smolen and
Humenik, 1989.

Minnesota 1987 ft 2.25 2.89 Smolen and
a.s. = acres served Humenik, 1989.
aReported costs inflated to 1991 dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid'by farmers for all
production items, 1977=100. Terrace fifetime is expected to be 10 years, but costs are not
annualized.

2-28 EPA-640-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 It. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-5. Cost of Waterways

Reported Constant Dollar
Capital Costs Capital Costs
Location Year Unit ($/unit) ($/unit)' Reference

National 1985 ac 94.22 117.93 Barbarika, 1987.

Michigan 1981 ac 150.00 191.55 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Wisconsin 1987 ac 2880.00 3702.86 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

North Carolina 1980 ac 72.00 98.61 NCAES, 1982.

Alabama 1982 a.e. 1088.00 1344.00 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Florida 1982 a.e. 1026.00 1267.41 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Georgia 1982 a.e. 880.00 1087.06 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

North Carolina 1982 a.e. 1232.00 1521'.88 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

South Carolina 1982 a.e. 1442.00 1781.29 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Virginia 1982 a.e. 1530.00 1890.00 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Maryland 1991 ft 5.11 5.11 Sanders et al, 1991.

Maryland 1987 ft 6.00 7.71 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

a.e. = acres established
Reported costs inflated to 1991 dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for all production
items, 1977=100. Waterway lifetime is expected to be 10 years, but costs are not annualized.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-29

IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-6. Cost of Permanent Vegetative Cover

Constant Dollar
Reported Capital Capital Costs
Location Year Unit Costs ($/unit) ($/unit)" Reference

National 1985 ac 48.10 60.20 Barbarika, 1987.

Maryland 1991 ac 235.48 235.48 Sanders et al., 1991.

Maryland 1987 ac 120.00 154.29 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Michigan 1981 ac 62.50 79.81 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Wisconsin 1987 ac 70.00 90.00 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Minnesota 1987 ac 233.00 299.57 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Virginia 1987 ac 133.00 171.00 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Alabama 1982 ac 98.78 122.02 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Florida 1982 ac 98.24 121.36 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Georgia 1982 ac 98.52 121.70 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

North Carolina 1982 ac 73.74 91.09 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

South Carolina 1982 ac 121.54 150.14 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Virginia 1982 ac 101.36 125.21 Russell and
Christensen, 1984.

Reported costs inflated to 1991 dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for all production
items, 1977=100. Permanent vegetative cover lifetime is expected to be 10 years, but costs are not
annualized.

2-30 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januat), 1993

Chapter 2 Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-7. Cost of Conservation Tillage

Constant Dollar
Reported Capital Capital Costs
Location Year Unit Costs ($/unit) ($/unit)' Reference

Maryland 1987 ac 18.00 21.99 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Michigan 1987 ac 6.75 8.25 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Wisconsin 1981 ac 27.55 42.65 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Minnesota 1987 ac 13.40 16.37 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

Virginia 1987 ac 29.30 35.79 Smolen and Humenik,
1989.

North Carolina 1980 ac 10.00 17.12 NCAES, 1982.
Alabama 1982 aCb 19.00 26.84 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

Florida 1982 aCb 39.00 55.09 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

Georgia 1982 aCb 33.00 46.61 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

North Carolina 1982 aCb 12.00 16.95 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

South Carolina 1982 aCb 27.00 38.14 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

Virginia 1982 ae 16.00 22.60 Russell and Christensen,
1984.

Reported costs inflated to 1991 dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for other
machinery, 1977=100. Conservation tillage lifetime is expected to be 10 years, but costs are not
annualized.
bPer acre of planting and herbicides.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-31

/I. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-8. Annualized Cost Estimates for Selected Management Practices
from Chesapeake Bay Installations' (Camacho, 1991)
Practice Life Span Median Annual CoStSb
Practice (Years) (EACc)($/acre/yr)

Nutrient Management 3 2.40

Strip-cropping 5 11.60

Terraces 10 84.53

Diversions 10 52.09

Sediment Retention Water Control Structures 10 89.22

Grassed Filter Strips 5 7.31

Cover Crops 1 10.00

Permanent Vegetative Cover on Critical Areas 5 70.70
Conservation Tillaged 1 17.34
Reforestation of Crop and Pastured 10 46.66

Grassed Waterwaye 10 1.00/LF/yr
Animal Waste Systemf 10 3.76/ton/yr

Median costs (1990 dollars) obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) BMP tracking data
base and Chesapeake Bay Agreement Jurisdictions' unit data cost. Costs per acre are for acres benefited
by the practice.
bAnnualized BMP total cost including O&M, planning, and technical assistance costs.
cEAC = Equivalent annual cost: annualized total costs for the life span. Interest rate = 10%.
dGovernment incentive costs.
Annualized unit cost per linear foot of constructed waterway.
Units for animal waste are given as $/ton of manure treated.

2-32 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

B1. Management Measure for Facility Wastewater
and Runoff from Confined Animal Facility
Management (Large Units)

Limit the discharge from the confined animal facility to surface waters by:

(1) Storing both the facility wastewater andthe runoff from confined animal facilities
that is caused by storms up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour frequency storm.
Storage structures should:

(a) Have an earthen lining or plastic membrane lining, or
(b) Be constructed with concrete, or
(c) Bea storage tank;

and

(2) Managing stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility through an
appropriate waste utilization system.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended for application by States to all new facilities regardless of size and to all new
or existing confined animal facilities that contain the following number of head or more:

Head Animal UnitS2
Beef Feedlots 300 300
Stables (horses) 200 400
Dairies 70 98
Layers 15,000 1503
495 4
Broilers 15,000 1501
4954
Turkeys 13,750 2,475
Swine 200 80

except those facilities that are required by Federal regulation 40 CFR 122.23 to apply for and receive discharge
permits. That section applies to "concentrated animal feeding operations," which are defined in 40 CFR Part 122,
Appendix B. In addition, 40 CFR 122.23(c) provides that the Director of an NPDES discharge permit program may
designate any animal feeding operation as a concentrated animal feeding operation (which has the effect of subjecting

2See animal unit in Glossary.
3If facility has a liquid manure system, as used in 40 CFR Section 122, Appendix B.
4If facility has continuous overflow watering, as used in 40 CFR Section 122, Appendix B.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-33

I/. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources Chapter 2

the operation to the NPDES permit program requirements) upon determining that it is a significant contributor of
water pollution. In such cases, upon issuance of a permit, the terms of the permit apply and this management
measure ceases to apply.

Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments, States are subject to a number of requirements as they
develop coastal nonpoint programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

A confined animal facility is a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where the following
conditions are met:

� Animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or mainlained
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and

� Crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season
over any portion of the lot or facility.

Two or more animal facilities under common ownership are considered, for the purposes of these guidelines, to be
a single animal facility if they adjoin each other or if they use a common area or system for the disposal of wastes.

Confined animal facilities, as defined above, include areas used to grow or house the animals, areas used for
processing and storage of product, manure and runoff storage areas, and silage storage areas.

Facility wastewater and runoff from confined animal facilities are to be controlled under this management measure
(Figure 2-7). Runoff includes any precipitation (rain or snow) that comes i 'nto contact with any manure, litter, or
bedding. Facility wastewater is water discharged in the operation of an animal facility as a result of any or all of
the following: animal or poultry watering; washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure pits, or other animal
facilities; washing or spray cpoling of animals; and dust control.

2. Description

The problems associated with animal facilities result from runoff, facility wastewater, and manure. For additional
information regarding problems, see Section I.F.3 of this chapter.

Application of this management measure will greatly reduce the volume of runoff, manure, and facility wastewater
reaching a waterbody, thereby improving water quality and the use of the water resource. The measure can be
implemented by using practices that divert runoff water from upslope sites and roofs away from the facility, thereby
minimizing the amount of water to be stored and managed. Runoff water and facility wastewater should be'routed
through a settling structure or debris basin to remove solids, and then stored in a pit, pond, or lagoon for application
on agricultural land (Figure 2-8). If manure is managed as a liquid, all manure, runoff, and facility wastewater can
be stored in the same structure and there is no need for a debris basin.

For new facilities and expansions to existing facilities, consideration should be given to siting the facility:

� Away from surface waters;

� Away from areas with high leaching potential; and

� In areas where adequate land is available to apply animal, wastes in accordance with the nutrient
management measure.

2-34 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 H. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

(D A
17-:1 6
A
@j D E E 0
c A

(DRunaff from enclosed confined facilities
Runoff from silage storage areas Accumul ted solids
@ frornaflecifity,
Q Runoff from open confined areas
Runoff from manure storage areas Manage stored runoff
Storage for up to & including and accumulated
Facilities wastewater a 25-yr, 24-hr frequency storm solids from facility
0 through an
Minimize contamination of groundwater appropriate waste
utilization system

Figure 2-7. Management Measure- for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities
(Large Units).

Irrigation

4X11

Solids Settling Basin
1e7

Runoff Detention Basin

Figure 2-8. Example of manure and runoff storage system (S@utton, 1990).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-35

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

This management measure does not require manure storage structures or areas, nor does it specify required manure
management practices. This management measure does, however, address the management of runoff from manure
storage areas. Manure may be stacked in the confined lot or other appropriate area as long as the storage and
management of runoff from the confined lot are in accordance with this management measure. If manure is managed
as a solid, any drainage from the storage area or structure area or structure should be routed to the runoff storage
system.

When applied to agricultural lands, manure, stored runoff water, stored facility wastewater, and accumulated solids
from the facility are to be applied in accordance with the nutrient management measure. An appropriate waste
utilization system to minimize impacts to surface water and protect ground water may be achieved through
implementation of the SCS Waste Utilization practice (633).

It is recognized that implementation of this measure may increase the potential for movement of water and SOluble
pollutants through the soil profile to the ground water. It is not the intent of this measure to address a surface water
problem at the expense of ground water. Facility wastewater and runoff control systems can and should be designed
to protect ground water. Ground-water protection will also be provided by minimizing seepage to ground water, if
soil conditions require further protection, and by using the nutrient and pesticide management measures to reduce
and control the application of nutrients and pesticides.

Seepage to ground water can be minimized by lining the runoff or manure storage structure with an earthen lining
or plastic membrane lining, by constructing with concrete, or by constructing a storage tank. This is not difficult
to accomplish and should be achieved in the initial design to reduce costs. For some soils and locations, movement
of pollutants to the ground water is not a concern, but site evaluations are needed to determine the appropriate action
to take to protect the resources at the site.

Operation and Maintenance of This Measure

Operation

Holding ponds and treatment lagoons should be operated such that the design storm volume is available for storage
of runoff. Facilities filled to or near capacity should be drawn down as soon as all site conditions permit the safe
removal and appropriate use of stored materials. Solids should be removed from solids separation basins as soon
as possible following storm events to ensure that needed solids storage volume is available for subsequent slorms.

Maintenance

Diversions will need periodic reshaping and should be free of trees and brush growth. Gutters and downspouts
should be inspected annually and repaired when needed. Established grades for lot surfaces and conveyance ch;Mnels
are to be maintained at all times.

Channels should be free of trees and brush growth. Cleaning of debris basins, holding ponds, and lagoons will be
needed to ensure that design volumes are maintained. Clean water should be excluded from the storage structure
unless it is needed for further dilution in a liquid system.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected for larger-sized animal production facilities because it can eliminate the
pollutants leaving a facility by storing runoff from storms up to and including the 25-year, 24-hour frequency storm.
It also uses practices that reduce the amount of water that comes into contact with animal waste materials. It
requires that stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility are managed through an appropriate waste
utilization system. Any stored water, accumulated solids, processed dead animals, or manure are to be applied in
accordance with the nutrient management measure.

2-36 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januar), 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

The size limitations that define a large unit are based on EPA's analysis of the economic achievability of the
management measure.

4. Effectiveness InfoYmation

The effectiveness of management practices to control contaminant losses from confined livestock facilities depends
on several factors including:

� The contaminant(s) to be controlled and their likely pathways in surface, subsurface, and ground-water
flows;

� The types of practices (section 5) and how these practices control surface, subsurface, and ground-water
contaminant pathways; and

� Site-specific variables such as soil type, topography, precipitation characteristics, type of animal housing
and waste storage facilities, method of waste collection, handling and disposal, and seasonal variations. The
site-specific conditions must be considered in system design, thus having a large effect on practice
effectiveness level@.

The gross effectiveness estimates reported in Table 2-9 simply indicate summary literature values. For specific cases,
a wide range of effectiveness can be expected depending on the value and interaction of the site-specific variables
cited above.

When runoff from storms up to and including the 24-hour, 25-year frequency storm is stored, there will be no release
of pollutants from a confined animal facility via the surface runoff route. Rare storms of a greater magnitude or
sequential storms of combined greater magnitude may produce runoff, however. Table 2-10 reflects the occurrence
of such storms by indicating less than 100 percent control for runoff control systems.

Table 2-9. Relative Gross Effectiveness' of Confined Uvestock Control Measures
(Pennsylvania State University, 1992a)

Total' Totald Fecal
PractiCeb Runoff' Phosphorus Nitrogen Sediment Coliform
Category Volume N N N N

Animal Waste Systems' 90 80 60 85
Diversion Systems' 70 45 NA NA

Filter Strips" 85 NA 60 55

Terrace System 85 55 80 NA
Containment Structures' 60 65 70 90

NA = not available.
' Actual effectiveness depends on site-specific conditions. Values are not cumulative between practice categories.
b Each category includes several specific types of practices.
C . = reduction; + = increase; 0 = no change in surface runoff.
d Total phosphorus includes total and dissolved phosphorus; total nitrogen includes organic-N, ammonia-N, and nitrate-N.
Includes methods for collecting, storing, and disposing of runoff and process-generated wastewater.
Specific practices include diversion of uncontaminated water from confinement facilities.
9 Includes all practices that reduce contaminant losses using vegetative control measures.
" Includes such practices as waste storage ponds, waste storage structures, waste treatment lagoons.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-37

B. Management Measur@s for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-10. Effectiveness of Runoff Control Systems (I)PRA, 1986)

Removal Efficiency (%)

Management Practice Solids Phosphorus
I
Runoff Control System 80-90 70-95

5. Confined Animal Facility Management Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following -practices are descrilbed for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as,a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Combinations of the following practices can be used to satisfy the requirements of this management measure. The
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) practice number and definition are provided for each management practice,
where available. Also included in italics are SCS statements describing the effect each practice has on water quality
(USDA-SCS, 1988).

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

Where dikes are used to prevent water from flowing onto the floodplain, the pollution dispersion effect of the
temporary wetlands and backwater are decreased. The sediment, sediment-attached, and soluble materials being
transported by the water are carriedfarther downstream. Thefinalfate of these materials must be investigated on
site. Where dikes are used to retain runoff on thefloodplain or in wetlands the pollution dispersion effects of these
areas may be enhanced. Sediment and related materials may be deposited, and the quality of the waterflowing into
the stream from this area will be improved.

Dikes are used to prevent wetlands and to form wetlands. The formed areas may be fresh, brackish, or saltwater
wetlands. In tidal areas dikes are used to stop saltwater intrusion, and to increase the hydraulic head offresh water
which will force intruded salt water out the aquifer. During construction there is a potential of heavy sediment
loadings to the surface waters. When pesticides are used to control the brush on the dikes andjertilizers are used
for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation there is the possibilityfor these materials to be washed into the
surface waters.

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

This practice will assist in the stabilization of a watershed, resulting in the reduction of sheet and rill erosion by
reducing the length of slope. Sediment may be reduced by the elimination of ephemeral and large gullies. This may
reduce the amount of sediment and related pollutants delivered to the surface waters.

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

2-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

in removing some of the sediment delivered to the waterway, although this is not the primary function of a grassed
waterway.

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

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

Protection may result in a general improvement of surface water quality through the reduction of erosion and the
resulting sedimentation. Some increase in erosion may occur during and immediately after construction until the
disturbed areas are fully stabilized

Some increase in chemicals in surface water may occur due to the introduction offertilizersfor vegetated areas and
oils and chemicals associated with paved areas. Fertilizers and pesticides used during operation and maintenance
may be a source of water pollution.

Paved areas installed for livestock use will increase organic, bacteria, and nutrient loading to surface waters.
Changes in ground water quality will be minor. Nitrate nitrogen applied as fertilizer in excess of vegetation needs
may move with infiltrating waters. The extent of the problem, if any, may depend on the actual amount of water
percolating below the root zone.

M e. Lined waterway or outlet (468): A waterway or outlet having an erosion-resistant lining of concrete,
stone, or other permanent material,

The lined section extends up the side slopes to a designed depth. The earth above the permanent lining may be
vegetated or otherwise protected.

This practice may reduce the erosion in concentrated flow areas resulting in the reduction of sediment and
substances delivered to the receiving waters.

When used as a stable outlet for another practice, lined waterways may increase the likelihood of dissolved and
suspended substances being transported to surface waters due to high flow velocities.

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

This practice may reduce erosion and the delivery of sediment and related substances to surface waters. It will
reduce the volume of water polluted by animal wastes. Loadings of organic waste, nutrients, bacteria, and salts to
surface water are prevented from flowing across concentrated waste areas, barnyards, roads and alleys will be
reduced. Pollution and erosion will be reduced Flooding may be prevented and drainage may improye.

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

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-39

11. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources Chapter 2

can cause a greater amount of soluble nutrients and pesticides to be leached into the soil. Underground outleis may
collect highly soluble nutrient and pesticide leachates and convey runoff and conveying it directly to an outlet,
terraces may increase the delivery of pollutants to surface waters. Terraces increase the opportunity to leach salts
below the root zone in the soil. Terraces may have a detrimental effect on water quality if they concentrate and
accelerate delivery of dissolved or suspended nutrient, salt, and pesticide pollutants to surface or ground waters.

h. Waste storage pond (425): An impoundment made by, excavation or earth fill for temporary storage
of animal or other agricultural wastes.

This practice reduces the direct delivery of polluted water, which is the runoff from manure stacking areas and
feedlots and barnyards, to the surface waters. This practice may reduce the organic, pathogen, and nutrient loading
to surface waters. This practice may increase the dissolved pollutant loading to groundwater by leakage through
the sidewalls and bottom

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

This practice may reduce the nutrient, pathogen, and organic loading to the surface waters. This is accomplished
by intercepting and storing the polluted runofffrom manure stacking areas, barnyards andfeedlots. This practice
will not eliminate the possibility of contaminating surface and ground water, however, it greatly reduces this
possibility.

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

This practice may reduce polluted surficial runoff and the loading of organics, pathogens, and nutrients into the
surface waters. It decreases the nitrogen content of the surface runofffrom feedlots by denitrification. Runoff is
retained long enough that the solids and insoluble phosphorus settle andform a sludge in the bottom of the h2goon.
There may be some seepage through the sidewalls and the bottom of the lagoon. Usually the long-term seepage rate
is low enough, so that the concentration of substances transported into the ground water does not reach an
unacceptable level.

0 k. Application of manure andlor runoff water to agricultural land

Manure and runoff water are applied to agricultural lands and incorporated into the soil in accordance with the
management measures for nutrients.

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

Waste utilization helps reduce the transport of sediment and related pollutants to the surface water. Proper site
selection, timing of application and rate of application may reduce the potential for degradation of surface and
ground water. This practice may increase microbial action in the surface layers of the soil, causing a reaction which
assists in controlling pesticides and other pollutants by keeping them in place in the field.

Mortality and other compost, when applied to agricultural land, will be applied in accordance with the nutrient
management measure. The composting facility may be subject to State regulations and will have a written operation
and management plan if SCS practice 317 (composting facility) is used.

2-40 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 Il. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

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

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

n. Commercial rendering or disposal services

o. Incineration

p. Approved burial sites

6. Cost Information

Construction costs for control of runoff and manure from confined animal facilities are provided in Table 2-11. The
annual operation and maintenance costs average 4 percent of construction costs for diversions, 3 percent of
construction costs for settlement basins, and 5 percent of construction costs for retention ponds (DPRA, 1992).
Annual costs for repairs, maintenance, taxes, and insurance are estimated to be 5 percent of investment costs for
irrigation systems (DPRA, 1992).

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 2-41

/1. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-11. Costs for Runoff Control Systems (DPRA, 1992)

Cost/Unit Construction
Practice" Unit ($)b ,

Diversion foot 2.00

Irrigation
- Piping (4-inch) foot 1.75
- Piping (6-inch) foot 2.25
- Pumps (10 hp) unit 1,750.00
- Pumps (15 hp) unit 2,000.00
- Pumps (30 hp) unit 3,000.00
- Pumps (45 hp) unit 3,500.00
- Sprinkler/gun (150 gpm) unit 875.00
- Sprinkler/gun (250 gpm) unit 1,750.00
- Sprinkler/gun (400 gpm) unit 3,200.00
- Contracted service to empty 1,000 gallon 3.00
retention pond

Infiltration' acre 2,500.00

Manure Hauling mile per 4.5-ton load 2.15

Dead Animal Composting Facility cubic foot 5.00

Retention Pond
- 241 cubic feet in size cubic foot 2.58
- 2,678 cubic feet in size cubic foot 1.24
- 28,638 cubic feet in size cubic foot 0.60
- 267,123 cubic feet in size cubic foot 0.31

Settling Basin
- 53 cubic feet in size cubic,foot 4.26
- 488 cubic feet in size cubic foot 2.74
- 5,088 cubic feet in size cubic foot 1.71
- 49,950 cubic feet in size cubic foot 1.08

Expected lifetimes of practices are 20 years for diversions, settling basins, retention ponds, and infiltration areas and 15
years for irrigation equipment.
b 1990 dollars. This table does not present annualized costs.
c Does not include land costs.

2-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

132. Management Measure for Facility Wastewater
and Runoff from Confined Animal Facility
Mangement (Small Units)
I
Design and implement systems that collect solids, reduce contaminant
concentrations, and reduce runoff to minimize the discharge of contaminants in both
facility wastewater and in runoff that is caused by storms up to and including a 25-
year, 24-hour frequency storm. Implement these systems to substantially reduce
significant increases in pollutant loadings to ground water.

Manage stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility through an
appropriate waste utilization system.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended for application by States to all existing confined animal facilities that contain
the following number of head:

Head Animal Units5
Beef Feedlots 50-299 50-299
Stables (horses) 100-199 200-399
Dairies 20-69 28-97
Layers 5,000-14,999 50-1496
165-4941
Broilers 5,000-14,999 50-1496
165-4941
Turkeys 5,000-13,749 900-2,474
Swine 100-igg 40-79

except those facilities that are required by Federal regulation 40 CFR 122.23(c) to apply for and receive discharge
permits. 40 CFR 122.23(c) provides that the Director of an NPDES discharge permit program may designate any
animal feeding operation as a concentrated animal feeding operation (which has the effect of subjecting the operation
to the NPDES permit program requirements) upon determining that it is a significant contributor of water pollution.
In such cases, upon issuance of a permit, the terms of the permit apply and this management measure ceases to
apply.

Facilities containing fewer than the number of head listed above are not subject to the requirements of this
management measure. Existing facilities that meet the requirements of Management Measure B I for large units are
t
in compliance with the requirements of this management measure. Existing and new facilities that already minimize

See animal unit in Glossary.

If facility has a liquid manure system, as used in 40 CFR Section 122, Appendix B.

7
If facility has continuous overflow watering, as used in 40 CFR Section 122, Appendix B.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-43

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

the discharge of contaminants to surface waters, protect against contamination of ground water, and have a n
appropriate waste utilization system may already meet the requirements of this management measure. Such facilities
may not need additional controls for the purposes of this management measure.

A confined animal facility is a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where the following
conditions are met:

� Animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained
for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and

� Crops, vegetation forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season
over any portion of the lot or facility.

Facility wastewater and runoff from confined animal facilities are to be controlled under this management measure
(Figure 2-9). Runoff includes any precipitation (rain or snow) that comes into contact with any manure, fitter, or
bedding. Facility wastewater is water discharged in the operation of an animal facility as a result of any or all of
the following: animal or poultry watering; washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, bams, manure pits, or other animal
facilities; washing or spray cooling of animals; and dust control.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to minimize the discharge of contan-driants in both facility wastewater and
in runoff that is caused by storms up to and including a 25-year, 24-hour frequency storin by using practices such
as solids separation basins in combination with vegetative practices and other practices that reduce runoff and are
also protective of ground water.

The problems associated with animal facilities are the control of runoff, facility wastewater, and manure. For
additional information regarding problems, see Section I.F.3. of this chapter. -

Application of this management measure will greatly reduce the volume of runoff, manure, and facility wastewater
reaching a waterbody, thereby improving water quality and the use of the water resource. The measure can be
implemented by using practices that divert runoff water from upslope sites and roofs away from the facility, thereby
minimizing the amount of water that must be managed (Figure 2-10). Runoff water and facility wastewater from
the facility should be routed through a settling structure or debris basin to remove solids. If manure is managed as
a liquid, all manure, runoff, and facility wastewater can be stored in the same structure and there is no need for a
debris basin.

This management measure does not require manure storage structures or areas, nor does it specify required. manure
management practices. This management measure does, however, address the management of runoff from manure

2-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 2 1/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

E
D E D

(D Runoff kom enclosed confined facilities
Runoff from sflage@storage areas Accumulated,isolids
from foci ty
Runoff from open confined areas

Runoff from manure storage areas Manage stored runoff
MINIMIZE DISCHARGE OF CONTAMINANTS and accumulated
Facilities wastewater for up to & including a 25-yr, 24-hr frequency solids from facility
storm, using solids separation basins, through an
vegetative practices, Wor runoff.reduction. appropriate waste
1 Minimize contamination of grou util lzation systern

Figure 2-9. Management Measure for Facility Wastewater and Runoff from Confined Animal Facilities (Small
Units).

storage areas. Manure may be stacked in the confined lot or other appropriate area as long as the discharge is
minimized and any stored runoff is managed in accordance with this management measure. If manure is managed
as a solid, any drainage from the storage area or structure should be routed to the runoff control practices.

When applied to agricultural lands, manure, stored runoff water, stored facility wastewater, and accumulated solids
from the facility are to be applied in accordance with the nutrient mdnagement measure. An appropriate waste
utilization system to minimize impacts to surface water and protect ground water may be achieved through
implementation of the SCS Waste Utilization practice (633).

It is recognized that implementation of this measure may increase the potential for movement of water and soluble
pollutants through the soil profile to the ground water. It is not the intent of this measure to address a surface water
problem at the expense of ground water. Facility wastewater and runoff control systems can and should be designed
to protect against the contamination of ground water. Ground-water protection will also be provided by minimizing
seepage to ground water, if soil conditions require further protection, and by using the nutrient and pesticide
management measures to reduce and control the application of nutriePtS and pesticides. While a nutrient management
plan is not required to be implemented on the vegetative control practices themselves, ground water should be
protected by taking extreme care to not exceed the capacity of the practices to assimilate nutrients.

When storage structures are used to meet the requirements of this management measure, seepage to ground water
can be minimized by lining the runoff or manure storage structure with an earthen lining or plastic membrane lining,
by constructing with concrete, or by constructing a storage tank. This is not difficult to accomplish and should be
achieved in the initial design to reduce costs. For some soils and locations movement of pollutants to the ground

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-45

/L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

ROOF
GUTTERS
RUNOFF_....

'PASTURE
-oo
. . . . ...........

OF RUNO
OUTLET
BOX
ROOF G ER
TILE OUT ET STREAM
SETTLING SPREADER
BA21N CROSSING
GRA
H FILTER STAffi-P

-1A
000-

Figure 2.10. Typical barnyard runoff management system (Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection, 1�89).

water is not a concern, but each site must be evaluated and the appropriate action taken to protect the resources at
the site.

Operation and Maintenance of This Measure

Operation

Holding ponds and treatment lagoons should be operated such that the design storm volume is available for storage
of runoff. Facilities that have filled should be drawn down as soon as all site conditions permit the safe removal
and appropriate use of stored materials. Solids should be removed from solids separation basins as soon as possible
following storm events to ensure that needed solids storage volume is available for subsequent storms.

Maintenance

Channels must be free of trees and brush growth. Cleaning of debris basins, holding ponds, and lagoons will be
needed to ensure that design volumes are maintained. Clean water should be excluded from the storage structure
unless it is needed for further dilution in a liquid system.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected for smaller-sized animal production facilities based on an evaluation of
available information that documents the beneficial effects of improved management of confined livestock facilities.
Specifically, the management measure reduces the amount of pollutants leaving a facility by using practices that
reduce the amount of water that comes into contact with animal waste materials. It also uses solid removal and

2-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuavy 1993

Chapter 2 li. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

filtration of runoff water to remove a significant amount of the pollutants contained in the runoff waters. This can
be accomplished without the expense of constructing a runoff storage structure and purchasing the equipment
necessary to apply the stored water to the land.

This management measure also requires that stored runoff and accumulated solids from the facility are managed
through an appropriate waste utilization system. The size limitations that define a small unit are based on EPA's
analysis of the economic achievability of the management measure.

4. Effectiveness Information

The effectiveness information presented for large units (Tables 2-9 and 2-10) also applies, to this management
measure.

Pollutant loads from runoff caused by storms up to and including the 25-year,,24-hour frequency storm can be
reduced by decreasing the potential for runoff contamination (e.g., by keeping accumulations of manure off the open
lots), and by removing the contaminants to the fullest extent practicable through vegetative and structural practices
(e.g., solids separation devices, sediment basins, filter strips, and constructed wetlands). Pollutant loads can also be
reduced by storing and applying the runoff to the land with any manure and facility wastewater in accordance with
the nutrient management measure.

Table 2-12 shows reductions in pollutant concentrations that are achievable with solids separation basins that receive
runoff from barnyards and feedlots. Concentration reductions may differ from the load reductions presented in
Tables 2-9 and 2-10 since loads are determined by both concentration and'discharge volume. Solids separation
basins combined with drained infiltration beds and vegetated filter strips (VFS) provide additional reductions in
contaminant concentrations. The effectiveness of solids separation basins is highly dependent on site variables.
Solids separation; basin sizing and management (clean-out); characteristics of VFS areas such as soil type, land slope,
length, vegetation type, vegetation quality; and storm amounts and intensities all play important roles in the
performance of the system. Appropriate operation and maintenance are critical to success.

Table 2-12. Concentrated Reductions In BarnyarcLand Feedlot Runoff
Treated with Solids Separation

Constituent Reduction

Site Location TS COD Nitrogen TP
Ohio - basin onlya.b 49-54 51-56 35 21-41

Ohio - basin combined Winfiltration 82 85 - 80
bed'

VFSb 87 89 83 84

Canada - basin ony 56 38 14(TKN) -
Canada - basin wNFS' (High 90's in fall and spring)
Illinois - basin wNFSd 73 80(TKN) 78

a Edwards at al., 1986.
Edwards et al., 1983.
Adam et al., 1986.
dDickey, 1981.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-47

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

5. Confined Animal Facility Management Practices,

Na. Waste storage pond (425): An impoundment made by excavation or earth fill for temporarystorage
of animal or other agricultural waste.

This practice reduces the direct delivery of polluted water, which is the runofffrom manure stacking areas and
feedlots and barnyards, to the surface waters. This practice may reduce the organic, pathogen, and nutrient loading
to surface waters. This practice nuzy increase the dissolved pollutant loading to ground water by leakage through
the sidewalls and bottom

M b. Waste storage structure (313): A fabricated structure for temporary storage of animal waste or
other organic agricultural waste.

This practice may reduce the nutrient, pathogen, and organic loading to the surface waters. This is accomplished
by intercepting and storing the polluted runofffrom manure stacking areas, barnyards andjeedlots. Thispractice
will not eliminate the possibility of contaminating surface and ground water, however, it greatly reduces this
possibility.

M c. waste treatment lagoon (359): An impoundment made by excavation or earth fill for biological
treatment of animal or other agricultural waste.

This practice may reduce polluted surficial runoff and the loading of organics, pathogens, and nutrients into the
surface waters. It decreases the nitrogen content of the surface runofffrom feedlots by denitrification. Runoff is
retained long enough that the solids and insoluble phosphorus settle andform a sludge in the bottom of the lagoon.
There may be some seepage through the sidewalls and the bottom of the lagoon. Usually the long-term seepage rate
is low enough, so that the concentration of substances transported into the ground water does not reach an
unacceptable level.

M d. Sediment basin (350): A basin constructed to collect and store debris or sediment.

Me. Water and sediment control basin (636): An earth embankment or a combination fic@e and
channel generally constructed across the slope and minor water courses to form a sediment trap
and a water detention basin.

2-48 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 2 It. Management Measures to r Agricultural Sources

The practice traps and remoyes sediment and sediment-attached substances from runoff. Trap control efficiencies
for sediment and total ph'osphorus, that are transported by runoff, may exceed 90 percent in silt loam soils.
Dissolved substance, such as nitrates, may be removedfrom discharge to downstream areas because of the increased
infiltration. Where geologic condition permit, the practice will lead to increased loadings of dissolved substances
toward ground water. Water temperatures of surface runoff, released through underground outlets, may increase
slightly because of longer exposure to warming during its impoundment.

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

Filter strips for sediment and related pollutants meeting minimum requirements may trap the coarser grained
sediment. They may notfilter out soluble or suspended fine-grained materials. When a storm caused runoff in
excess of the design runoff, the filter may be flooded and may cause large loads of pollutants to be released to the
surface water. This type offilter requires high maintenance and has a relatively short service life and is effective
only as long as the flow through the filter is shallow sheet flow.

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

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

Filter strips trap solidsfrom the runoffflowing in sheetflow through thefilter. Coarse-grained andfibrous materials
arefiltered more efficiently than fine-grained and soluble substances. Filter strips workfor design conditions, but
when flooded or overloaded they may release a slug load of pollutants into the surface water.

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

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

M h. Constructed wedand (ASCS-999): A constructed aquatic ecosystem with rooted emergent
hydrophytes designed and managed to treat agricultural wastewater.

This is a conservation practice for which SCS has developed technical requirements under a trial program leading
to the development of a conservation practice standard.
0

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-49

U. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

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

Where dikes are used to prevent water from flowing onto the floodplain, the pollution dispersion effects of the
temporary wetlands and backwater are decreased. The sediment, sediment-attached, and soluble materials being
transported by the water are carriedfarther downstream. The flnal fate of these materials must be in vestigated on
site. Where dikes are used to retain runoff on thefloodplain or in wetlands the pollution dispersion effects cf these
areas may be enhanced. Sediment and related materials may be deposited, and the quality of the waterflowing into
the stream from this area will be improved

Dikes are used to prevent wetlands and to form wetlands. The formed areas may be fresh, brackish, or saltwater
wetlands. In tidal areas dikes are used to stop saltwater intrusion, and to increase the hydraulic head offresh water
which will force intruded salt water out the aquifer. During construction there is a potential of heavy sediment
loadings to the surface waters. When pesticides are used to control the brush on the dikes andjertilizers are used
for the establishment and maintenance of vegetation there is the possibility for these materials to be washed into the
surface waters.

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

This practice will assist in the stabilization of a watershed, resulting in the reduction of sheet and rill erosion by
reducing the length of slope. Sediment may be reduced by the elimination of ephemeral and large gullies. TWs may
reduce the amount of sediment and related pollutants delivered to the surface waters.

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

Paved areas installed for livestock use will increase organic, bacteria, and nutrient loading to surface waters.
Changes in ground water quality will be minor. Nitrate nitrogen applied asfertilizer in excess of vegetation needs
may move with infiltrating waters. The extent of the problem, if any, may depend on the actual amount (f water
percolating below the root zone.

Lined waterway or outlet (468): A waterway or outlet having an erosion-resistant lining of concrete,
stone, or other permanent material.

The lined section extends up the side slopes to a designed depth. The earth above the permanent lining may be
vegetated or otherwise protected.

This practice may reduce the erosion in concentrated flow areas resulting in the reduction of sediment and
substances delivered to the receiving waters.

When used as a stable outlet for another practice, lined waterways may increase the likelihood of dissolved and
suspended substances being transported to surface waters due to high flow velocities.

2-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 2 H. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

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

This practice may reduce erosion and the delivery of sediment and related substances to surface waters. It will
reduce the volume of water polluted by animal wastes. Loadings of organicwaste, nutrients, bacteria, and salts to
surface water are preventedfrom flowing across concentrated waste areas, barnyards, roads and alleys. Pollution
and erosion will be reduced. Flooding may be prevented and drainage may improve.

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

This practice reduces the slope length and the amount of surface runoff which passes over the area downslope from
an individual terrace. This may reduce the erosion rate and production of sediment within the terrace interval.
Terraces trap sediment and reduce the sediment and associated pollutant content in the runoff water which enhance
surface water quality. Terraces may intercept and conduct surface runoff at a, nonerosive velocity to stable outlets,
thus reducing the occurrence of ephemeral and classic gullies and the resulting sediment. Increases in infiltration
can cause a greater amount of soluble nutrients and pesticides to be leached into the soil. Underground outlets may
collect highly soluble nutrient and pesticide leachates and convey runoff and conveying it directly to an outlet,
terraces may increase the delivery of pollutants to surface waters. Terraces increase the opportunity to leach salts
below the root zone in the soil. Terraces may have a detrimental effect on water quality if they concentrate and
accelerate delivery of dissolved or suspended nutrient, salt, and pesticide pollutants to surface or ground waters.

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

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

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

M q. Commercial rendering or disposal services

M r. Incineration

M s. Approved burial site

6. Cost Information

The construction costs for large units (Table 2-11) also apply to this measure. The annual operation and maintenance
costs average 4 percent of construction costs for diversions, 3 percent of construction costs for settlement basins, and
5 percent of construction costs for retention ponds (DPRA, 1992). Annual costs for repairs, maintenance, taxes, and
insurance are estimated to be 5 percent of investment costs for irrigation systems (DPRA, 1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-51

I
/I. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

AR
C. Nutrient Management Measure

Develop, implement, and periodically update a nutrient management plan to:
(1) apply nutrients at rates necessary to achieve realistic crop yields, (2) improve the
timing of nutrient application, and (3) use agronomic crop production technology to
increase nutrient use efficiency. When the source of the nutrients is other than
commercial fertilizer, determine the nutrient value and the rate of availability of the
nutrients. Determine and credit the nitrogen contribution of any legume crop. Soil
and plant tissue testing should be used routinely. Nutrient management plans
contain the following core components:

(1) Farm and field maps showing acreage, crops, soils, and waterbodies.

(2) Realistic yield expectations for the crop(s) to be grown, based primarily on the
producer's actual yield history, State Land Grant University yield expectations
for the soil series, or SCS Soils-5 information for the soil series.

(3) A summary of the nutrient resources available to the producer, which alt a
minimum include:

� Soil test results for pH, phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium;
� Nutrient analysis of manure, sludge, mortality compost (birds, pigs, etc.), or
effluent (if applicable);
� Nitrogen contribution to the soil from legumes grown in the rotation (if
applicable); and
� Other significant nutrient sources (e.g., irrigation water).
(4) An evaluation of field limitations based on environmental hazards or concerns,
such as:

� Sinkholes, shallow soils over fractured bedrock, and soils with high leaching
potential,
� Lands near surface water,
� Highly erodible soils, and
� Shallow aquifers.
(5) Use of the limiting nutrient concept to establish the mix of nutrient sources cand
requirements for the crop based on a realistic yield expectation.

(6) Identification of timing and application methods for nutrients to: provide
nutrients at rates necessary to achieve realistic crop yields; reduce losses to the
environment; and avoid applications as much as possible to frozen soil and
during periods of leaching or runoff.

(7) Provisions for the proper calibration and operation of nutrient application
equipment.

2-52 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to activities associated with the application of nutrients
to agricultural lands. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint programs in conformity with this measure and will have
some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to minimize edge-of-field delivery of nutrients and minimize leaching of
nutrients from the root zone. Nutrient management is pollution prevention achieved by developing a nutrient budget
for the crop, applying nutrients at the proper time, applying only the types and amounts of nutrients necessary to
produce a crop, and considering the environmental hazards of the site. In cases where manure is used as a nutrient
source, manure holding areas may be needed to provide capability to avoid application to frozen soil.

This measure may result in some reduction in the amount of nutrients being applied to the land, thereby reducing
the cost of production as well as protecting both ground water and surface water quality. However, application of
the measure may in some cases cause more nutrients to be applied where there has not been a balanced use of
nutrients in the past. This will usually allow all the nutrients to be used- more efficiently, thereby reducing the
amount of nutrients that will be available for transport from the field during the non-growing season. While the use
of nutrient management should reduce the amount of nutrients lost with surface runoff to some degree, the primary
control for the transport of nutrients that are attached to soil particles will be accomplished through the
mplementation of erosion and sediment control practices (Section ILA of this chapter). For infori-nation regarding
the potential problems caused by nutrients see Section I.F. I of this chapter.
i

Operation and Maintenance for Nutrient Management

The use of a nutrient management plan requires accurate information on the nutrient resources available to the
producer. Management practices typically used to obtain this information include periodic soil testing for each field;
soil and/or tissue testing during the early growth stages of the crop; and testing of,manure, sludge, and irrigation
water if they are used. The plan may call for multiple applications of nutrients that require more than one field
operation to apply the total nutrients needed by the crop.

A nutrient management plan should be reviewed and updated at least once every 3 years, or whenever the crop
rotation is changed or the nutrient source is changed. Application equipment should be calibrated and inspected for
wear and damage periodically, and repaired when necessary. Records of nutrient use and sources should be
maintained along with other management records for each field. This information will be useful when it is necessa Iry
to update or modify the management plan.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected as a method (1) to minimize the amount of nutrients entering ground water
through root zone leaching and entering surface water from edge-of-field delivery and (2) to promote more efficient
use of all sources of nutrients that are available to the producer. The practices and concepts that can be used to
implement this measure on Ia given site are those commonly used and recommended by States and USDA for general
use on agricultural lands. By implementing the measure using the necessary mix of practices for a given site there
should not be a negative economic impact on the operator, and in most cases the impact will be positive, Many of
the practices that can be used to implement this measure may already be required by Federal, State, or local rules
(e.g., field borders along streams) or may otherwise be in use on agricultural fields. Since many producers may

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-53

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

already be using systems that satisfy or partly satisfy the intent of this management measure, the only action that
may be necessary will be to determine the effectiveness of the existing practices and add additional ractices, if
needed. Use of existing practices will reduce the time, effort, and cost of implementing this measure.

4. Effectiveness Information

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

The State of Maryland estimates that average reductions of 34 pounds of nitrogen and 41 pounds of phosphonis per
acre can be achieved through the implementation of nutrient management plans (Maryland Department of Agriculture,
1990). These average reductions may be high because they apply mostly to farms that use animal wastes; average
reductions for farms that use only commercial fertilizer may be lower. The reduction in the loading of these
nutrients to coastal waters is difficult to measure or predict. Field-scale and watershed models, however, can be used
to estimate the reduction in nutrients moving to the edges of fields and to 'ground water.

As of July 1990, the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin States of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia reported that
approximately 114,300 acres (1.4 percent of eligible cropland in the basin) had nutrient management plans in place
(USEPA, 1991a). The average nutrient reductions of total nitrogen and total phosphorus were 31.5 and 37.5 p-DUnds
per acre, respectively. The States initially focused nutrient management efforts on animal waste utilization. Because
initial planning was focused on animal wastes (which have a relative;ly high total nitrogen and phosphorus leading
factor), estimates of nutrient reductions attributed to nutrient management may decrease as more cropland using only
commercial fertilizer is enrolled in the program.

In Iowa, average com yields remained constant while nitrogen use dropped from 145 pounds per acre in 1985 lo less
than 130 pounds per acre in 1989 and 1990 as a result of improved nutrient management (Iowa State University,
1991b). In addition, data supplied from nitrate soil tests indicated that at least 32 percent of the soils sampl(A did
not need additional nitrogen for optimal yields (Iowa State University, 1991b).

In a pilot program in Butler County, Iowa, 48 farms operating 25,000 acres reduced fertilizer nitrogen use by 240,000
pounds through setting rdalistic yield goals by soils, giving appropriate crop rotation and manure credits, and some
use of the pre-sidedress soil nitrate test (Hallberg et al., 1991). Other data from Iowa showed that in some areas
fields have enough potassium and phosphorus to last for at least another decade (Iowa State University, 1991b);

In Garvin Brook, Minnesota, fertilizer management on corn resulted in 6 itrogen savings of 29 to 49 pounds per acre
from 1985 to 1988 (Wall et al., 1989). In this Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project, fertilizer management
consisted of split applications and rates based upon previous yields, manure application, previous crops, and soil test
results.

Berry and Hargett (1984) showed a 40 percent reduction in statewide nitrogen use over 8 years following introduction
of improved fertilizer recommendations in Pennsylvania. Findings from the RCWP project in Pennsylvania indicate
that, for 340 nutrient management plans, overall recommended reductions (com, hay, and other crops) were 27
percent for nitrogen, 14 percent for phosphorus, and 12 percent for potash (USDA-ASCS, 1992a). Producers
achieved 79 percent of the recommended nitrogen reductions and 45 percent of the recommended phosphorus
reductions.

In Vermont, research suggests that a newly introduced, late spring soil test results in about a 50 percent reduction
in the nitrogen recommendation compared to conventional technologies (Magdoff et al., 1984). Research in New
York and other areas of the Nation documents fertilizer use reductions of 30 to 50 percent for late spring versus
preplant and fall applications, with yields comparable to those of the preplant and fall applications (Bouldin et al.,
1971).

2-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 January,1993

Chapter 2 fl. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

USDA reports that improved nutrient management has resulted in nitrogen application reductions of 33.1 pounds/acre
treated for surface water protection, 28.4 pounds/acre treated for ground water protection, and 62.1 pounds of
phosphorus per acre treated for water quality protection in its 16 Water Quality Demonstration Projects and 74
Hydrologic Unit Areas (USDA, 1992). The Hydrologic Unit Areas begun in 1990 show the greatest reductions in
fertilizer use per acre (Table 2-13).

A summary of the effectiveness of nutrient management in controlling nitrogen and phosphorus is given in Table
2-14. This summary is based on an extensive search of the published literkure.

Table 2-13. Nutrient Reductions Achieved Under USDA's Water Ouality Program (USDA, 1992)

Cumulative
Pounds Reduced Acres Treated Average Reduction
in Pounds/Acre
Projects N P N P Treated

1990 Demos 284,339 SW 178,204 5,980 SW 5,184 47.5 N-SW
(8 projects) 556,437 GW 18,771 GW 29.6 N-GW
34.4 P

1991 Demos 34,672 SW 38,060 788 SW 692 44 N-SW
(B projects) 55 P

1990 HUAs 656,374 SW 1,344,260 13,761 SW 15,962 47.7 N-SW
(37 areas) 601,646 GW 16,808 GW 35.8 N-GW
84.2 P

1991 HUAs 156,552 SW 118,037 13,658 SW 5,188 1 1.@ N-SW
(37 areas) 366,890 GW 18,115 GW 20.2 N-GW
22.8 P

1990/1991 1, 131,937 SW 1,678,561 34,187 SW 27,026 33.1 N-SW
Demo/HUA Overall 1,524,973 GW 53,694 GW 28.4 N-GW
62.1 P

SW = surface water
GW = ground water

Table 2-14. Relative Effectiveness' of Nutrient Management
(Pennsylvania State University, 1992a)

Percent Change in Total Percent Change in Total
Practice Phosphorus Loads Nitrogen Loads
Nutrient Managementb -35 -15

, Most observations from reported computer modeling studies.
b An agronomic practice related to source management; actual change in contaminant load to surface and
ground water is highly variable.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-55

//. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

5. Nutrient Management Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are describA for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However,, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices sel. forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Following are practices, components, and sources of information that should be considered in the developm.-nt of
a nutrient management plan:

(1) Use of soil surveys in determining soil productivity and identifying environmentally sensitive sites.

(2) Use of producer-documented yield history and other relevant information to determine realistic cropr yield
expectations. Appropriate methods include averaging the three highest yields in five consecutive crop
years for the Olanning site,.or other methods based on criteria used in developing the State Land Grant
University's nutrient recommendations. In lieu of producer yield histories, university recommendations
based on interpretation of SCS Soils-5 data may be used. Increased yields due to the use of new and
improved varieties and hybrids should be considered when yield goals are set for a specific site.

(3) Soil testing for pH, phosphorus (Figure 2-11), potassium, and nitrogen (Figure 2-12).

(4) Plant tissue testing.

(5) Manure (Figure 2-13), sludge, mortality compost, and e.ffluent testing.

(6) Use of proper tihiing, formulation, and application methods for nutrients that maxin-Lize plant utilization
of nutrients and minimize the loss to the environment, including split applications and banding of the
nutrients, use of nitrification inhibitors and slow-release fertilizers, and incorporation or injection of
fertilizers, manures, and other organic sources.

(7) Use of small grain cover crops to scavenge nutrients remaining in the soil after harvest of the prbicipal
crop, particularly on highly leachable soils. Consideration should be given to establishing a cover crop
on land receiving sludge or animal waste if there is a high leaching potential. Sludge and animal waste
should be incorporated.

(8) Use of buffer areas or intensive nutrient management practices to manage field limitations based on
environmentally high risk areas such as:

Karst topographic areas containing sinkholes and shallow soils over fractured bedrock;
Lands near surface water;
High leaching index soils;
Irrigated land in humid regions;
Highly erodible soils;
Lands prone to surface loss of nutrients; and
Shallow aquifers.

(9) Control of phosphorus losses from fields through a combination of the Erosion and Sediment Control
Measure (Section II.A of this chapter) and the Nutrient Management Measure. Limit manure and sludge
applications to phosphorus crop needs when possible, supplying any additional nitrogen needs with
nitrogen fertilizers or legumes. If this is not practical, route excess phosphorus in manures or slud,ge to

2-56 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

07/31 64 0004 700234 1 SOMERSET 25 1 NPBUUI IRRADINGTON I
DATE LAD NO. I CE"RIAL NO. I COUNTY ACRES] -TIELD SOIL
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
XERKLE LABORATORY SOIL & 702J%GE TESTING
UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802

COPY SENT TOt

P.A. PENN ACXE FERTILIZER 00.
RD1 RAIN S
ANYTOWN, PA 10000 &MYTOWN, PA 10000

glitz"11UMUMLM LOW luau
Soil PH 6.2 V
Phosphate (P&Os@--114 1 b/A XMXXKM=
. ....... . . ..... ... . . . . . .
....................
....... ....
Potash (X,O) 178 lb/A XX-1MXK7-10=
..........
xagn*slum (Mgo) 230 lb/A xxxxxxxxxxx=.:::::,.:::.::::::::::::::::,::.*'.',

........ ........ .
........... . .....
341161771101THIMM PLANTING M@ FOR GRAIN (For ouw crops me ST 2 cokom 1 1 5" so*
YIELD GOA1 125.0 BUSHELS (PER ACRE) For Co"WIMOM
1.2
LIXESTONE: 3400 Calcium Carbonate Equtval*nt 3.4

PLANT NUTRIENT NITROGEN (XI PHOSPHATE (P,091 POTASH (K,01 NAGNESItu (N901
N=S3 1 70 1 b/^j go I EA] 'Ehl 6.11

Lau=

�USE A STARTER FERTILIZER 6.7

�Ll 41STO E INDATION. IF ANY. IS TO &RING THE SOIL PH TO 6.0 - 6.S.
14UILTIPLNV T::C0EXMCHAkaABL1 ACIDITY BY 1000 TO ESTIMATE THE LINE 49GUIREMENT FOR
PH 6. 5 - 7. 0.

�RECOMMENDED LIMESTONE CONTAINING .2% MGO WILL *91T THE We REQUIREMENT.

�IF MANURE WILL BE APPLIED. SEE ST-iO 'USE OF MANURE' 9

SaMi= &%=
6.2 so 1 4.1 0.19 0.6 7.0 12.6 1.5 4.7 61.5
SOIL PH - P lb/A ACIDITY K 99 C& CEC 9' No Ca
I EXCHANGEADI, :ATIONS (m*q/100 9) % SATURATION
OTHER TESTS: ORGANIC MATTER - 2.2 %

Figure 2-11. Example of soil test report (Pennsylvania State University, 1992b).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993 2-57

1/. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources Chapter 2

PENNSTATE
11111M
PRE-SIDEDRESS SOIL NITROGEN TEST FOR CORN
QUICKTEST EVALUATION PROJECT
- SOIL TEST INFORMATION AND REPORT FORM -

GROWER (PLEASE PRiNT) DAM:

TNAMET ANALYZED BY'

STREET OR R. D. NO. T

T C4TY, STATE, AND 23PT
T AREA CODE T T TELEPHONE NO. T
@@COUNTY Beat time to call (8 am - 4:30 pm):

Please answer all of the following questions about this field:
1. What is the field ID (name or number)? Com Height in.
2. What is the expected yield of the corn crop (bu/A or ton/A) in this field?
3. What was the previous crop?
If this was a forage legume what was the % stand?
(check one): [] 0-259/6 E] 25-50 % F1 50-100%
4. Was manure applied to this field? [:] Yes E] No If 'yes" answer the following questions:
When? Fall E] Spring Both Daily
Type? Cattle E] Poultry Swine Horse Sheep
Estimate manure rate: tons/acre - OPI- - gallonstacre
It incorporated how many days were there between spreading and incorporation?
5. What is the tillage program on this field? [] Conventional Tillage Minimum Tillage No-till
6. What would be your normal N fertilizer application rate for this field? lbs. N/acre
Donowob"-daWallobe .'by " &,*@W)
Quicktest Analysis Result & Recommendation
Individual Average Soil
Meter Readings Average meter Conversion standard Nltrate-N
reading factor reading (Ppm)

Sidedress N Fertilizer lbs. N/acre
Recommendation
(See table and guidelines on back of form)

If you have any questions about this test contact your Penn State Cooperative Extension Office

White copy- Grower
Yellow copy- Analyst
Pink copy- Agronomy Extension

Figure 2-12. Example of Penn State's soil quicktast form (Pennsylvania State University, 1992b).

2-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 2 H. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

WORKSHEXT FOR CALCULATING Prepared by:
APPLICATION RATES OF JOE CONSULTANT
ANIMAL MANURE ON CROPLAND Nut. Mgt- Consult.
CECIL
County

Name .............
Address .......... LIST FERTILIZER PRICES
Field N@@ G-1
Field Location ... N.... SO.25 /lb
Acres in Field ... 14.0 w P205. SO.25 lib
manure source .... BROILER 2 K20.. SO.12 /lb
Date/Time ........ 03/07/90 04:08 PM

ENTER MANURE ANALYSIS DATA AND SOIL TEST ZNrORMATION.

NAWRE COMPOSITION SOIL TEST I = RMATION

Total N ........... 3.70 % Texture ........ SILT
Amonium N ........ 0.43 % PH ............. 5.8
P205 .............. 3.70 % mg ............. Z78.0 lb/A
K20 ............... 3.10 % P20t ........... 112.0 lb/A
calcium ........... 1.40 % K20 ............ 123.0 lb/A
magnesium ......... 0.56 % Calclum ........ 1328.0 lb/A
Sulfur.... 0.59 % sulfur ......... 6.8 lb/A
Manganese.:--* 361.50 ppm Manganese ...... 18.0 lb/A
Zinc ........... 4.4 lb/A
@Inc .............. 380.60 ppm
Copper ............ 352.80 ppm Copper ......... 1.3 lb/A
Moisture .......... 13.10 % Org. Matter .... 2.5 %
Liquid Wt .........- lb/100gal (Leave blank if not liquid.)

Ir MANURE WAS APPLIED PREVIOUSLY TO THIS FIELD, ENTER DATA REQUESTED FOR
PRIOR YEARS. Ilr APPLIED. LEAVE BLANK.

Yr. 1-2 Yr. 2-3 Yr. 3-4
Total N ...........
Amonium N ........
Rate .............. - T/A T/A T/A

PHOSPHORUS NOTE
soil tests indicate that phosphorus levels are NOT EXCESSIVE.
Additional phosphorus may be applied in animal manure. For max-
im= economic and environmental benefits, phosphorus levels
should be monitored regularly by soil test and manure applica-
tions made ONLY to fields less than VERY HIGH in PHOSPHATE.

Figure 2-13. Example of work sheet for applying manure to cropland (University of Maryland, 1990).

EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993 2-59

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

fields that will,be rotated into legumes, to other fields that will not receive manure applications the
following year, or to sites with low runoff and low soil erosion potential.

(10) A narrative accounting of the nutrient management plan that explains the plan and its use.

6. Cost Information

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

In the South Dakota RCWP project, the total cost (1982-1991) for implementing fertilizer management on 46,571
acres was $50,109, or $1.08 per acre (USDA-ASCS, 1991a). In the Minnesota RCWP project, the average cost for
fertilizer management for 1982-1988 was $20 per acre (Wall et at., 1989). Assuming a cost of $0.15 per pound of
nitrogen, the savings in fertilizer cost due to improved nutrient management on Iowa com was about $2.25 per acre
as rates dropped from 145 pounds per acre in 1985 to about 130 pounds per acre in 1989 and 1990 (Iowa State
University, 1991a).

2-60 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 2 /L Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

D. Pesticide Management Measure ........... . . . ....... . .....

To reduce contamination of surface water and ground water from pesticides:

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

(2) Evaluate the soil and physical characteristics of the site including mixing,
loading, and storage areas for potential leaching or runoff of pesticides. If
leaching or runoff is found to occur, steps should be taken to prevent further
contamination;

(3) Use integrated pest management (IPM) strategies that:

(a) Apply pesticides only when an economic benefit to the producer will be
achieved (i.e., applications based on economic thresholds); and

(b) Apply pesticides efficiently and at times when runoff losses are unlikely;

(4) When pesticide applications are necessary and a choice of registered materials
exists, consider the persistence, toxicity, runoff potential, and leaching potential
of products in making a selection;

(5) Periodically calibrate pesticide spray equipment; and

(6) Use anti-backflow devices on hoses used for filling tank mixtures.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to activities associated with the application of
pesticides to agricultural lands. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject
to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint programs in conformity with this measure and will
have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to reduce contamination of surface water and ground water from pesticides.
The basic concept of the pesticide management measure is to foster effective and safe use of pesticides without
causing degradation to the environment. The most effective approach to reducing pesticide pollution of waters is,
*rst, to release fewer pesticides and/or less toxic pesticides into the environment and, second, to use practices that
minimize the movement of pesticides to surface water and ground water (Figure 2-14). In addition, pesticides should

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-61

/L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

toxicity, drift
persistence
soil absorption PESTICIDE
solubility')@ i
other chemical volatilization
properties

leaching SubZ
urlacL,
16 v,

GROUNDWATER LAKE
(receiving water) (receiving water)

Figure 2-14. Factors affecting the transport and water quality impact of a pesticide (USEPA, 1982).

be applied only when an economic benefit to the producer will be achieved. Such an approach emphasizes using
pesticides only when, and to the extent, necessary to control the target pest. This usually results in some reduction
in the amount of pesticides being applied to the land, plants, or animals, thereby enhancing the protection of water
quality and possibly reducing production costs as well.

The pesticide management measures identify a series of steps or thought processes that producers should use in
managing pesticides. First, the pest problems, previous pest control measures, and cropping history should be
evaluated. Then the physical characteristics of the soil and the site-including mixing, loading, and storage
areas-should be evaluated for potential leaching and/or runoff potential. Integrated pest management (EPM)
strategies should be used to minimize the amount of pesticides applied. It is understood that IPM practices aze not
available for some commodities or in certain regions. An effective EPM strategy should call for pesticide applications
only when an economic benefit to the producer will be achieved. In addition; pesticides should be applied efficiently
and at times when runoff losses are unlikely.

When pesticide applications are necessary and a choice of materials exists, producers are encouraged to choose the
most environmentally benign pesticide products. Users must apply pesticides in accordance with the instructions on
the label of each pesticide product. Labels include a number of requirements including allowable use rates; whether
the pesticide is classified as "restricted use" for application only by certified and trained applicators; safe handling,
storage, and disposal requirements; whether'the pesticide can be used only under the provisions of an approved
Pesticide State Management Plan; and other requirements. If label requirements include use only under an approved
Pesticide State Management Plan, pesticide management measures and practices under the State Coastal Noripoint
Pollution Control Program should be consistent with and/or complement those in EPA-approved Pesticide State
Management Plans.

Section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill requires users to maintain records of application of restricted use pesticid.-s for
a 2-year period after such use. Section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill also includes provisions for access to such
pesticide records by Federal and State agency staff.

2-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 2 /L Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources

Operation and Maintenance for Pesticide Management

At a minimum, effective pest management requires evaluating past and current pest problems and cropping history;
evaluating the physical characteristics of the site; applying pesticides only when an economic benefit to the producer
will be achieved; applying pesticides efficiently and at times when runoff losses are unlikely; selecting pesticides
(when a choice exists) that are the most environmentally benign; using anti-backflow devices on hoses used for filling
tank mixtures; and providing suitable mixing, loading, and storage areas.

Pest management practices should be updated whenever the crop rotation is changed, pest problems change, or the
type of pesticide used is changed. Application equipment should be calibrated and inspected for wear and damage
each spray season, and repaired when necessary. Anti-backflow devices should also be inspected each spray season
and repaired when necessary.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected as a method to reduce the amount of pesticides entering ground water and
surface water, and to fostef effective and safe use of pesticides. The practices and concepts that can be used to
implement this measure on a given site are those commonly used and recommended by States and USDA for general
use on agricultural lands. When this measure is implemented by using the necessary mix of practices for a given
site, there should be a relatively small negative economic impact on the operator's net costs and farm income, and
in some cases the impact will be positive (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). Many of the practices that
can be used to implement this measure may already be required by Federal, State, or local rules, or may otherwise
be in use on agricultural fields. Since many producers may already be using systems that satisfy or partly satisfy
the intent of this management measure, the only action that may be necessary will be to determine the effectiveness
of the existing practices and implement additional practices, if needed. Use of existing practices will reduce the time,
effort, and cost of implementing this measure.

4. Effectiveness Information

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

Use of IPM strategies is a key element of the pesticide management measures. Table 2-15 summarizes the findings
of several empirical IPM studies on a variety of crops (Virginia Cooperative Extension Service et al., 1987). The
summary table indicates that many studies have found IPM to reduce pestidide use. While all these studies indicate
a reduction or no change in pesticide use, it is understood that in a small percentage of cases IPM can result in an
increased use of pesticides as producers become more aware of what pests are present in the field and then take
action to control problems.

Table 2-16 summarizes estimates of reductions in pesticide loss using, various management practices and
combinations of practices for cotton (North Carolina State University, 1984). These estimates are made at the field
level as compared with a hypothetical field using cropping practices that were typical until the late 1970s. The
uncertainty of the estimates is a function of the rapid transitions in production methods coupled with the variance
among regions and seasons. Traditional sediment and erosion control practices are not as effective on cotton as on
corn and soybeans because much cotton is grown on relatively flat land with little or no water erosion problem
(Heimlich and Bills, 1984).

Table 2-17 summarizes the estimates of pesticide loss reductions from various management practices and
combinations of practices for corn (North Carolina State University, 1984). These estimates are also made at the
field level as compared with a hypothetical field using conventional, traditional, or typical cropping practices,
realizing that these practices may vary considerably between geographic regions.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-63

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Banding of herbicide applications is one of the more recent and promising methods of reducing herbicide applications
to com (NRDC, 1991). Instead of applying herbicides to the entire row, herbicides are applied in a band near to
the com plant. One 3-year study conducted in Iowa on two fields of com and one of soybeans monitored the effect
of different herbicide treatments on yields and herbicide concentrations in tile-drainage water. Over the 3-year
period, com acreage with banded treatments produced equal or slightly higher yields than acreage receiving brozdcast
herbicides (Baker, 1988). Analysis of water samples for herbicide residues in water beneath herbicide-treated areas
revealed that, during this 3-year period, atrazine was detected more often and at higher concentrations in the areas
where atrazine was broadcast. Banding of herbicides means, however, that farmers have to rely more extensively
on mechanical tillage and cultivation to control weeds.

Table 2-15. Results of IPM Evaluation Studies (Virginia Cooperative Extension Service at al., 1987:1

Pesticide Use and/or
Study Cost of Production Yield with Net Return Level of Risk
Author Object' with IpMb IPMC with IpMd with IPMG_
Sprott et al., 1976 C D I I

Condra at al., 1977 C D D I

Lacewell at al., 1977 C I

Clarke et al., 1980 C

Von Rumker et al.,. 1975 T D

Von Rumker et al., 1975 P D

Burrows, 1983 C'Ci D,D

Rajofte et al., 1984 S D
Thompson et al., 1980 A D C

Larson et al., 1975 C D

@@asucl et al., 1981 C D I I

Huffaker and Croft, 1978 C,A D,D I,-

Teage and Schulstad, 1981 C D
Weathers, 1979-1980 Co'S'P DAD I,I,D 1'i'l

Lacewell et al., 1974 C D I I

Lacewell et al., 1976 C D

Casey et al., 1975 C D I

Allen and Roberts, 1974 S D

Greene et al., 1985 S D

Lindsey et al., 1976 C

Frisbie et al., 1974 C D I

Frisbie, 1976 C D

Hoyt and Callagirone, 1971 M D

2-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures tor Agricuftural Sources

Table 2-15. (Continued)

Pesticide Use and/or
Study Cost of Production Yield with Net Return Level of Risk
Author Objecta with IpMb IPMC with IpMd with IPMG

Croft et al., 1975 M D

Howitt et al., 1966 A D

Batiste et al., 1973 A D

Eves et al., 1975 A D

Hall, 1977 C D N N D

Prokopy et al., 1973 A I

McGuckin, 1983 Al D I D

King and O'Rourke, 1977 A D
Cammell and Way, 1977 F D'

Liapis and Moff it, 1983 C D

Miranowski, 1974 C D

Huffaker, 1980 C D

Reichelderfer, 1979 Pe D

Carlson, 1969 PC D

Carlson,1979 C D

Lazarus and Swanson, 1983 CO'S I'l

Moffitt et al., 1982 S D

Hatcher et al., 1984 C,P,S l'I'l N,I,l

White and Thompson, 1982 A D

C = cotton; T = tobacco; P = peanut; Ci = citrus; S soybean; A apple; Co,= corn; M mite; Al alfalfa; F field
bean; Pe = pecan; PC = peach.
C = constant; D = decreased; I = increased; N = no impact; - = no information.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-65

1/. Management Measures for Agricuftural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-16. Estimates of Potential Reductions In Field Losses of Pesticides for
Cotton Compared to a Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field'
(North Carolina State University, 1984)

Range of
Transport Pesticide Loss
Management Practice Route(s) Reduction (%)b

SWCPS

Terracing SR and SL 0 - (20)v

Contouring SR and SL 0-(20)'

Reduced Tillage SR and SL -40 - +20 AB

Grassed Waterways SR and SL 0 - 10 AB

Sediment Basins SR 0 - 10 AB

Filter Strips SR 0 - 10 A

Cover Crops SR and SL -20 - +10 B
Optimal Application TechniqueSd All Routese 40 - 80 A
Nonchemical Methods Ail Routes
Scouting Economic Thresholds All Routes 40 - 65 A
0 - 30 B

Crop Rotations All Routes 0 - 20 A
10 - 30 B

Pest-Resistant Varieties All Routes 0 - 60 A
0 - 30 B

Alternative Pesticides All Routes 60 - 95 A
0 - 20 B

SR surface runoff
SL soil leaching
The hypothetical traditionally cropped comparison field uses the following management system:
(1) conventional tillage without other soil and water conservation practices;
(2) aerial application of all pesticides with timing based only on field operation convenience;
(3) ton insecticide treatments annually with a total application of 12 kg/ha based on a
prescribed schedule;
(4) cotton grown in 3 out of 4 years; and
(5) long-season cotton varieties.
b Assumes field loss reductions are proportional to application rate reductions.
A = insecticides (toxaphene, methylparathion, synthetic pyrethroids).
B = herbicides (trifluralin, fluometron).
Ranges allow for variation in production region, climate, slope and soils.
c Refers to estimated increases in movement through soil profile.
d Defined for cotton as ground application using optimal droplet or granular size ranges with
spraying restricted to calm periods in late afternoon or at night when precipitation is not
imminent.
e Particularly drift and volatilization.

2-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 2 fl. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-17. Estimates of Potential Reductions in Field Losses of Pesticides for Corn Compared to a
Conventionally and/or Traditionally Cropped Field' (North Carolina State University, 1984)

Range of Pesticide Loss Reduction
Management Practice Transport Route(s) Affected (%)b

SWCPS SR and/or SL(#)
Terracing SR and/or SL 40 - 75 AB (25@)

Contouring SR and/or SL 15 - 55 AB (20-)

No-till SR and/or SL -10 - +40 B
60 - +10 A (10c)

Other Reduced Tillage SR and/or SL -10 - +60 B
-40 - +20 A (15)

Grassed Waterways SR -10 - 20 AB

Sediment Basins SR 0 - 10 AB

Filter Strips SR 0 - 10 AB
Cover Crops SR and/or SL 0 - 20 B d
Optimal Application Techniquese All Routes' 10-20
20 - 40 B
Nonchemical Methois All Routes

Adequate Monitoring All Routes 40 - 65 A

Crop Rotations All Routes 40 - 70 A
10 - 30 B

SR = surface runoff
SL = soil leaching
a The hypothetical field used as the basis for comparison uses the following management system:
(1) conventional tillage without other soil and water conservation practices;
(2) ground application with timing based only on field operation convenience;
(3) little or no pest monitoring; spraying on prescribed schedule; and
(4) corn grown in 3 outof 4 years.
Assumes field loss reductions are proportional to application rate reductions.
A = insecticides (carbofuran and organophosphates)
B = herbicides (Triazine, Alachlor, Butylate, Parquat)
Ranges allow for variation in climate, slope, soils, and types of pesticides used. Ranges for no-till and reduced-till are
derived from a combination of increased application rates and decreased runoff losses.
Refers to estimated increases in movement through soil profile.
Cover crops will affect runoff and leaching losses only for pesticides persistent enough to be available over the non-
growing season. In the case of pes@cides used on corn only the triazine dnd anilide herbicides will generally meet this
criterion.
Defined here for corn as ground application using optimal droplet or granular size ranges, with spraying restricted to calm
periods in late afternoon or evening.
Particularly drift and volatilization.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-67

/L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

5. Pesticide Management Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices selt forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service practice number and
definition are provided for management practices, where available.

a. Inventoiy current and historical pest problems, cropping patterns, and use of pesticides for each
field.

This can be accomplished by using a farm and field map, and by compiling the following information for each field:

� Crops to be grown and a history of crop production;
� Information on soils types;
� The exact number of acres within each field; and
� Records on past pest problems, pesticide use, and other information for each field.

M b. Consider the soil and physical characteristics of the site including mixing, loading and storage
areas for potential for the leaching andlor runoff of pesticides.

In situations where the potential for loss is high, emphasis should be given to practices and/or management practices
that will minimize these potential losses. The physical characteristics to be considered should include limitations
based on environmental hazards or concerns such as:

� Sinkholes, wells , and other areas of direct access to ground water such as karst topography;
� Proximity to surface water;
� Runoff potential;
� Wind erosion and prevailing wind direction;
� Highly erodible soils;
� Soils with poor adsorptive capacity;
� Highly permeable soils;
� Shallow aquifers; and
� Wellhead protection areas.

M c. Use IPM strategies to minimize the amount of pesticides applied.

Following is a list of IPM strategies:

� Use of biological controls:
- introduction and fostering of natural enemies;
- preservation of predator habitats; and
- release of sterilized male insects;
� Use of pheromones:
- for monitoring populations;
- for mass trapping;
- for disrupting mating or other behaviors of pests; and
- to attract predators/parasites;
� Use of crop rotations to reduce pest problems;
� Use of improved tillage practices such as ridge tillage;

2-68 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy- 1993

Chaoter 2 /1. Management Measures for Agricultura'I Sources

Use of cover crops in the system to promote water use and reduce deep percolation of water that contributes
to leaching of pesticides into ground water;
Destruction of pest breeding, refuge, and overwintering sites (this may result in loss of crop residue cover
and an increased potential for erosion);'
Use of mechanical destruction of weed seed;'
Habitat diversification;
Use of allelopathy characteristics of crops;
Use of resistant crop strains;
� Pesticide appli C@ation based on economic thresholds, i.e., apply pesticides when an economic threshold level
has been reached as opposed to applying pesticides in anticipation of pest problems;
� Use of periodic scouting to determine when pest problems reach the economic threshold on each field;
� Use of less environmentally persistent, toxic, and/or mobile pesticides;
� Use of timing of field operations (planting, cultivating, irrigation, and harvesting) to minimize application
and/or runoff of pesticides; and
� Use of more efficient application methods, e.g., spot spraying and banding of pesticides.

d. When pesticide applications are necessary and a choice of materials exists, consider the
persistence, toxicity, and runoff and leaching potential of products along with other factors,
including curreqt label requirements, in making a selection.

Users must apply pesticides in accordance with the instructions on the label of each pesticide product and, when
required, must be trained and certified in the proper use of the pesticide. Labels include a number of requirements
including allowable use rates; classification of pesticides as "restricted use" for application only by certified
applicators; safe handling, storage, and disposal requirements; restrictions required by State Pesticide Managenient
Plans to protect ground water; and other requirements. If label requirements include use only under an approved
State Pesticide Management Plan, pesticide management measures and practices under the State Coastal Nonpoint
Program should be consistent with and/or complement those in approved State Pesticide Management Plans.

e. Maintain records of application of restricted use pesticides (product name, amount, approximate
date of application, and location of application of each such pesticide used) for a 2-year period
after such use, pursuant to the requirements in section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill.

Section 1491 requires that such pesticide records shall be made available to any Federal or State agency that deals
with pesticide use or any health or environmental issue related to the use of pesticides, on the request of such agency.
Section 1491 also provides that Federal or State agencies may conduct surveys and record the data from individual
applicators to facilitate statistical analysis for environmental and agronomic purposes, but in no case may a
government agency release data, including the location from which the data was derived, that would directly or
indirectly reveal the identity of individual producers. Section 1491 provides that in the case of Federal agencies,
access to records maintained under section 1491 shall be through the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Secretary's
designee. This section also provides that State agency requests for access to records maintained under section 1491
shall be through the lead State agency so designated by the State.

Section 1491 includes special access provisions for health care personnel. Specifically, when a health professional
determines that pesticide information maintained under this section is necessary to provide medical treatment or first
aid to an individual who may have been exposed to pesticides for which the information is maintained, upon request
persons required to maintain records under section 1491 shall promptly provide record and available label information
to that health professional. In the case of an emergency, such record information shall be provided immediately.

Several JPM strategies listed above emphasize the use of mechanical tillage and removal of crop residue cover. Such IPM strategies
may result in some producers being out of compliance with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's requirements for highly erodible land,
and such producers may need to consider other IPM strategies on such highly erodible land.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-69

1/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Operators may consideF maintaining records 'beyond those required by section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill. For
example, operators may want to maintain records of all pesticides used for each field, i.e., not just restricted use
pesticides. In addition, operators may want to maintain records of other pesticide management activities such as
scouting records or other IPM techniques used and procedures used for disposal of remaining pesticides after
application.

f, Use lower pesticide application rates than those called for by the label when the pest problem can
be adequately controlled using such lower rates.

Mg. Consider the use of organic farming techniques that do not rely on the use of synthetically
compounded pesticides.
I

Nh. Recalibrate spray equipment each spray season and use anti-backflow devices on hoses used for
filling tank mixtures.

Purchase new, more precise application equipment and other related farm equipment (including improved nozzles,
computer sensing to control flow rates, radar speed determination, electrostatic applicators, and precision equipment
for banding and cultivating) as replacement equipment is needed.

M i. Integrated crop management system (Pest Management 595): A total crop management system
that promotes the efficient use of pesticide and nutrients in an environmentally sound and
economically efficient manner.

6. Cost Information

In general, most of the costs of implementing the pesticide management measure are program costs associated with
providing additional educational programs and technical assistanc& to producers to evaluate pest management needs
and for field scouting during the growing season. Producers may actually save money by implementing IPM
strategies as indicated by the data in Table 2-15.

Table 2-15 summarizes the findings of several IPM studies on a variety of crops (Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service et al., 1987). This summary table indicates that, in general, IPM reduces pesticide use, increases yields,
increases net returns, and decreases economic risk.

Table 2-18 shows that IPM scouting costs vary by crop type and by region (USEPA, 1992). High and low scouting
costs are given for major crops in each of the coastal regions. These costs reflect variations-in the levelof service
provided by various crop consultants. For example, in the Great Lakes region, the relatively low cost of $4.95 per
acre is based on five visits per season at the request of the producer. Higher cost services include scouting and
weekly written reports during the growing seasons. Cost differences may also reflect differences in the size of farms
(i.e., number of acres) and distance between farms.

The variations in scouting costs between regions and within regions also occur because of differences in the provider
of the service. For example, in some States the Cooperative Extension Service provides scouting services at:no cost
or for a nominal fee. In other areas of the coastal zone, farmer cooperatives have formed crop management
associations to provide scouting and crop fertility/pest management recommendations.

Scouting costs also vary by crop type. For example, the data in Table 2-18 indicate that scouting costs for fresh
market vegetables are higher than for all other crop types. Scouting services for high-value cash crops, such as fruits
and vegetables, must be very intensive given that pest damage is permanent and may make the crop unmarketable.

Costs for erosion and sediment control and for irrigation management are discussed in Sections II.A and II.F,
respectively, of this chapter.

2-70 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 il. mar@agernent measures for Agricuftural Sources

Table 2-18. Estimated Scouting Costs (dollarstacre) by Coastal Region and Crop
In the Coastal Zone In 1992 (USEPA, 1992)

Crop

Fresh Market
Coastal Region Corn Soybean Wheat Rice Cotton Vegetables" Hayb

Northeast
Low 5.50 NA 3.75 25.00 2.50
High 6.25 NA 4.50 - - 28.00 2.75

Southeast
Low 5.00 3.25 3.00 8.00 6.00 30.00 2.00
High 6.00 4.00 3.50 12.00 8.00 35.00 3.00

Gulf Coast
Low 6.00 4.50 - 5.00 6.00 35.00 -
High 8.00 6.50 - 9.00 9.00 40.00 -

Great Lakes
Low 4.95 4.25 3.75 - - - 4.75
High 5.50 5.00 4.00 - - 5.25

West Coast
Low NA NA 3.50 NA 6.75 32.00 NA
High NA NA 5.50 NA 9.30 38.00 NA

NA = not available
- = not applicable
0 a Most fresh market vegetables are produced under a regular spraying schedule.
b Scouting costs for hay are based on alfalfa insect inspection. The higher cost in the Great Lakes region includes pesticide
and soil sampling.

7. Relationship of Pesticide Management Measure to Other Programs

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA registers pesticides on the basis of
evaluation of test data showing whether a pesticide has the potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects on
humans, animals, or the environment. Data requirements include environmental fate data showing how the pesticide
behaves in the environment, which are used to determine whether the pesticide poses a threat to ground water or
surface water. If the pesticide is registered, EPA imposes enforceable label requirements, which can include, among
other things, maximum rates of application, classification of the pesticide as a "restricted use" pesticide (which
restricts use to certified applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals), or restrictions on use practices, including
requiring compliance with EPA-approved Pesticide State Management Plans (described below). EPA and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service provide assistance for pesticide applicator and certification
training in each State.

FIFRA allows States to develop more stringent pesticide requirements than those required under FIFRA, and some
States have chosen to do this. At a minimum, management measures and practices under State Coastal Nonpoint
Source Programs must not be less stringent than FIFRA label requirements or any applicable State requirements.

EPA's Pesticides and Groundwater Strategy (USEPA, 199 1 b) describes the policies and regulatory approaches EPA
will use to protect the Nation's ground-water resources from risks of contamination by pesticides under FIFRA. The
objective of the strategy is the prevention of ground-water contamination by regulating the use of certain pesticides

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-71

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

(i.e., use according to EPA-approved labeling) in order to reduce and, if necessary, elin-dnate releases of the pesticide
in areas vulnerable to contamination. Priority for protection will be based on currently used and reasonably expected
sources of drinking water supplies, and ground water that is closely hydrogeologically connected to surface waters.
EPA will use Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act as "reference points" for
water resource protection efforts when the ground water in question is a current or reasonably expected source of
drinking water.

The Strategy describes a significant new role for States in managing the use of pesticides to protect ground water
from pesticides. In certain cases, when there is sufficient evidence that a particular use of a pesticide has the
potential for ground-water contamination to the extent that it might cause unreasonable adverse effects, EPA may
(through the use of existing statutory authority and regulations) limit legal use of the product to those States with
an acceptable Pesticide State

Management Plan, approved by EPA. Plans would tailor use to lQcal hydrologic conditions and would add[ress:

� State philosophy;
� Roles and responsibilities of State and local agencies;
� Legal and enforcement authority;
� Basis for assessment and planning;
� Prevention measures;
� Ground-water monitoring;
� Response to detections;
� Information dissemination; and
� Public participation.

In the absence of such an approved plan, affected pesticides could not be legally used in the State.

Since areas to be managed under Pesticide State Management Plans and Coastal Nonpoint Pollution C ontrol
Programs can overlap, State coastal zone and nonpoint source agencies should work with the State lead agency for
pesticides (or the State agency that has a lead role in developing and implementing the Pesticide State Management
Plan) in the development of pesticide management measures and practices under both programs. This is necessary
to avoid duplication of effort and conflicting pesticide requirements between programs. Further, ongoing coordination
will be necessary since both programs and management measures will evolve and change with increasing- technology
and data.

Section 1491 of the 1990 Farm Bill requires recordkeeping for restricted use pesticides for a 2-year period after such
use. Specifically, records of pesticide applications are to include product name, amount, approximate (late of
application, and location of application of each pesticide used. Section 1491 also specifies the limitations on access
to these records by governmental agencies and health care personnel (see practice "e" under "Pesticide Management
Practices" for additional information regarding access to such records).

2-72 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanuafY 1993

Chapter 2 /L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

.. ...... ..
ps,
E. Grazing Management Measure

Protect range, pasture and other grazing lands:

(1) By implementing one or more of the following to protect sensitive areas (such
as streambanks, wetlands, estuaries, ponds, lake shores, and riparian zones):

(a) Exclude livestock,
(b) Provide stream crossings or hardened watering access for drinking,
(c) Provide alternative drinking water locations,
(d) Locate salt and additional shade, if needed, away from sensitive areas, or
(e) Use improved grazing management (e.g., herding)

to reduce the physical disturbance and reduce direct loading of animal waste
and sediment caused by livestock; and

(2) By achieving either of the following on all range, pasture, and other grazing
lands not addressed under (1):

(a) Implement the range and pasture components of a Conservation
Management System (CMS) as defined in the Field Office Technical Guide of
the USDA-SCS (see Appendix 2A of this chapter) by applying the
progressive planning approach of the USDA-Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
to reduce erosion, or
(b) Maintain range, pasture, and other grazing lands in accordance with activity
plans established by either the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S.
Department of the Interior or the Forest Service of USDA.

1. Applicability

The management measure is intended to be applied by States to activities on range, irrigated and nonirrigated pasture,
and other grazing lands used by domestic livestock. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint programs in conformity with
this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is
described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval
Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Range is those lands on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential plant community) is predominantly
grasses, grasslike plants, forbs, or shrubs suitable for grazing or browsing use. Range includes natural grassland,
savannas, many wetlands, some deserts, tundra, and certain forb and shrub communities. Pastures are those lands
that are primarily used for the production of adapted, dornesticated forage plants for livestock. Other grazing lands
include woodlands, native pastures, and croplands producing forages.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 2-73

H. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

The major differences between range and pasture are the kind of vegetation and level of management that each land
area receives. In most cases, range supports native vegetation that is extensively managed through tile control of
livestock rather than by agronomy practices, such as fertilization, mowing, irrigation, etc. Range also include!; areas
that have been seeded to introduced species (e.g., crested wheatgrass), but which are extensively managed like native
range. Pastures are represented by those lands that have been seeded, usually to introduced species (e.g., tall fescue)
or in some cases to native plants (e.g., switchgrass), and which are intensively managed using agronomy practices
and control of livestock.

2. Description

The focus of the grazing management measure is on the riparian zone, yet the control of erosion from range, pasture,
and other grazing lands above the riparian zone is also encouraged. Application of this management measure win
reduce the physical disturbance to sensitive areas and reduce the discharge of sediment, animal waste, nutrients, and
chemicals to surface waters. For information regarding potential problems caused by grazing, see Sections I.F.2 and
I.F.6 of this chapter.

The key options to consider (all are not required by this management measure) when developing a comprehensive
grazing management approach at a particular location include the development of one or more of the following:

� Grazing management systems. These systems ensure proper grazing use through:

- Grazing frequency (includes complete rest);
- Livestock stocking rates;
- Livestock distribution;
- Timing (season of forage use) and duration of each rest and grazing period;
- Livestock kind and class; and
- Forage use allocation for livestock and wildlife.

� Proper water and salt supplement facilities.

� Livestock access control.

� Range or pasture rehabilitation.

For any grazing management system to work, it must be tailored to fit the needs of the vegetation, terrain, class or
kind of livestock, and particular operation involved.

For both pasture and range, areas should be provided for livestock watering, salting, and shade that are located away
from streambanks and riparian zones where necessary and practical. This will be accomplished by numaging
livestock grazing and providing facilities for water, salt, and shade as needed.

Special attention must be given to grazing management in riparian and wetland areas if management measure
objectives are to be met. For purposes of this guidance, riparian areas are defined (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986;
Lowrance et al., 1988) as:

The health of the riparian system, and thus the quality of water, is dependent on the use, management, and condition
of the related uplands. Therefore, the proper management of riparian and wetland ecosystems will involve the: correct
management of livestock grazing and other land uses in the total watershed.

2-74 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januavy 1993

Chapter 2 fl. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

The range and pasture components of a CMS address erosion control, proper grazing, adequate pasture stand density,
and range condition. National (minimum) criteria pertaining to range and pasture under an RMS are applied to
achieve environmental objectives, conserve natural resources, and prevent soil degradation.

The practical limits of resource protection under a CMS within any given area are determined through the application
of national social, cultural, and economic criteria. With respect to economics, landowners will not be required to
implement an RMS if the system is generally too costly for landowners. Instead, landowners may be required to
implement a less costly, and less protective, AMS. In some cases, landowner constraints may be such that an RMS
or AMS cannot be implemented quickly. In these situations, a "progressive planning approach" may be used to
ultimately achieve planning and application of an RMS or AMS. Progressive planning is the incremental process
of building a plan on part or all of the planning unit over a period of time. For additional details regarding CMS,
RMS, and AMS, see Appendix 2A of this chapter.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected based on an evaluation of available information that documents the beneficial
effects of improved grazing management (see "Effectiveness Information" below). Specifically, the available
information shows that (1) aquatic habitat conditions are improved with proper livestock management; (2) pollution
from livestock is decreased by reducing the amount of time spent in the stream through the provision of supplemental
water; and (3) sediment delivery is reduced through the proper use of vegetation, streambank protection, planned
grazing systems, and livestock management.

4. Effectiveness Information

Hubert et al. (1985) showed in plot studies in Wyoming that livestock exclusion and reductions in stocking rates can
result in improved habitat conditions for brook trout (Table 2-19) . In this study, the primary vegetation was willows,
Pete Creek stocking density was 7.88 ac/AUM (acres per animal unit month), and Cherry Creek stocking density
was 10 cows per acre.

Platts and Nelson (1989) used plot studies in Utah to evaluate the effects of livestock exclusion on riparian plant
communities and streambanks. Several streambank characteristics that are related to the quality of fish habitat were
measured, including bank stability, stream shore depth, streambank angle, undercut, overhang, and streambank
alteration. The results clearly show better fish habitat in the areas where livestock were excluded (Table 2-20).

Kauffman et al. (1983) showed that fall cattle grazing decreases the standing phytomass of some riparian plant
communities by as much as 21 percent versus areas where cattle are excluded, while causing increases for other plant
communities. This study, conducted in Oregon from 1978 to 1980, incorporated stocking rates of 3.2 to 4.2
ac/AUM.

Eckert and Spencer (1987) studied the effects of a three-pasture, rest-rotation management plan on the growth and
reproduction of heavily grazed native bunchgrasses in Wyorning. The results indicated that range improvement under
this otherwise appropriate rotation grazing system is hindered by heavy grazing. Stocking rates on the study plots
ranged from 525 to 742 cow-calf AUMs.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-75

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-19. Grazing Management Influences on Two Brook Trout Streams in Wyoming
(Hubert et al., 1985)

Pete Creek (n=3) Cherry Creek (n=4)

Heavily Lightly Outside Inside
Grazed Grazed Exclosure Exclosure
Parameter (mean) (mean) (mean) (rnean)

Width 2.9 2.2" 2.9 2.5"

Depth 0.07 0.1 ja 0.08 13.09,

Width/depth ratio 43 21 37 28a

Coefficient of variation in depth 47.3 66.6a 57 71
Percent greater than 22 cm deep 9.0 22.3b 6.7 21 .0a

Percent overhanging bank cover 2.7 30. 0a 24.0 15.3

Percent overhanging vegetation 0 11.7a 8.5 18.0

Percent shaded area 0.7 18.3" 23.5 28.0

Percent silt substrate 35 52 22 13a

Percent bare soil along banks 19.7 13.3 22.8 12.3a

Percent litter along banks 7.0 6.0 10.0 6.8a

" Indicates statistical significance at p<=0.05.
b Indicates statistical significance at p<=0.1.

In a literature review, Van Poollen and Lacey (1979) showed that herbage production was greater for managed
grazing versus continuous grazing, greater for moderate versus heavy intensity grazing, and greater for light- versus
moderate-intensity grazing.

McDougald et al. (1989) tested the effects of moving supplemental feeding locations on riparian areas of hardwood
range in California. With stocking rates of approximately I ac/AUM, they found that moving supplemental. feeding
locations away from water sources into areas with high amounts of forage greatly reduces the impacts of 'Cattle on
riparian areas (Table 2-21).

Table 2-20. Streambank Characteristics for Grazed Versus Rested Riparian Areas
(Platts and Nelson, 1989)

Streambank Characteristic (unit) Grazed Rested

Extent (m) 4.1 2.5

Bank stability 1(%) 32.0 88.5

Stream-short depth (cm) 6.4 14.9

Bank angle (0) 127.0 81.0

Undercut (cm) 6.4 16.5

Overhang (cm) 1.8 18.3

Streambank alteration (%) 72.0 19.0

2-76 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanVary 1993

Chapter 2 /L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-21. The Effects of Supplemental Feeding Location on Riparian Area Vegetation
(McDougald at al., 1989)

Percentage of riparian area with the following levels of
residual dry matter in early October

Practice Low Moderate High

Supplemental feeding located close to riparian areas:
1982-85 Range Unit 1 48 39 13
1982-85 Range Unit 8 59 29 12
1986-87 Range Unit 8 54 33 f3

Supplemental feeding moved away from riparian area:
1986-87 Range Unit 1 1 27 72

Miner et al. (1991) showed that the provision of supplemental water facilities reduced the time each cow spent in
the stream within 4 hours of feeding from 14.5 minutes to 0.17 minutes (8-day average). This pasture study in
Oregon showed that the 90 cows without supplemental water spent a daily average of 25.6 minutes per cow in the
stream. For the 60 cows that were provided a supplemental water tank, the average daily time in the stream was
1.6 minutes per cow, while 11.6 minutes were spent at the water tank. Based on this study, the authors expect that
decreased time spent in the stream will decrease bacterial loading from the cows.

Tiedemann et al. (1988) studied the effects of four grazing strategies on bacteria levels in 13 Oregon watersheds in
the summer of 1984. Results indicate that lower fecal coliform levels can be achieved at stocking rates of about
20 ac/AUM if management for livestock distribution, fencing, and water developments are used (Table 2-22). The
study also indicates that, even with various management practices, the highest fecal coliform levels were associated
with the higher stocking rates (6.9 ac/AUM) employed in strategy D.

Lugbill (1990) estimates that stream protection in the Potomac River Basin will reduce total nitrogen (TN) and total
phosphorus (TP) loads by 15 percent, while grazing land protection and permanent vegetation improvement will
reduce TN and TP loads by 60 percent. Owens et al. (1982) measured nitrogen losses from/an Ohio pasture under
a medium-fertility, 12-month pasture program from 1974 to 1979. The results included no measurable soil loss from
three watersheds under summer grazing only, and increased average TN concentrations and total soluble N loads
from watersheds under summer grazing and winter feeding versus watersheds under summer grazing only (Table
2-23).

Table 2-22. Bacterial Water Quality Response to Four Grazing Strategies
(Tiedemann at al., 1988)
Practice Geometric Mean Fecal
Coliform Count

Strategy A: Ungrazed. 40/1-

Strategy 13: Grazing without management for livestock distribution; 20.3
ac/AUM. 150/L

Strategy C: Grazing with management for livestock distribution: fencing
and water developments; 19.0 ac/AUM. 90/L
Strategy D: Intensive grazing management, including practices to attain
uniform livestock distribution and improve forage production
with cultural practices such as seeding, fertilizing, and forest
thinning; 6.9 ac/AUM. 920/L

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-77

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-23. Nitrogen Losses from Medium-Fertility, 12-Month Pasture Program
(Owens et al., 1982)

Soil Loss Total Sediment N Total N Concentration Total Soluble N
Practice (kg/ha) Transport (kg/ha) (mg/l)8 Transport (kg/ha)"

Summer Grazing Only
Growing season 3.7 0.4
Dormant season 1.8 0.1
Year - - 3.0 0.5

Summer Grazing - Winter Feeding
Growing season 251 1.4 4.9 2.5
Dormant season 1,104 6.6 14.6 11.3
Year 1,355 8.0 10.7 13.8

Five-year average (1974-1979)

Data from a comparison of the expected effectiveness of various grazing and streambank practices in controlling
sedimentation in the Molar Flats Pilot Study Area in Fresno County, California indicate that planned grazing gystems
are the most effective single practice for reducing sheet and rill erosion (Fresno Field Office, 1979). Streambank
protection is expected to be the most effective single practice for reducing streambank erosion. Other practices
evaluated are proper grazing use, deferred grazing, emergency seeding, and livestock exclusion.

5. Range and Pasture Management Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following -practices are. described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service practice number and definition are provided for each management practice, where
available. Also included in italics are SCS statements describing the effect each practice has on water quality
(USDA-SCS, 1988.)

Grazing Management System Practices

Appropriate grazing management systems ensure proper grazing use by adjusting grazing intensity and duration to
reflect the availability of forage and feed designated for livestock uses, and by controlling animal movement through
the operating unit of range or pasture. Proper grazing use will maintain enough live vegetation and litter cover to
protect the soil from erosion; will achieve riparian and other resource objectives; and will maintain or improve the
quality, quantity, and age distribution of desirable vegetation. Practices that accomplish this are:

N a. Deferred grazing (352): Postponing grazing or resting grazing land for prescribed periocl@

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

2-78 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanDary 1993

Chapter 2 A Management Measures for Agricultural Sourc@s

b. Planned grazing system (556): A practice in which two or more grazing units are alternately rested
and grazed in a planned sequence for a period of years, and rest periods may be throughout the
year or during the growing season of key plants.

Planned grazing systems normally reduce the system time livestock spend in each pasture. This increases quality
and quantity of vegetation. As vegetation quality increases, fiber content in manure decreases which speeds manure
decomposition and reduces pollution potential. Freeze-thaw, shrink-swell, and other natural soil mechanisms can
reduce compacted layers during the absence of grazing animals. This increases infiltration, increases vegetative
growth, slows runoff, and improves the nutrient and moisture filtering and trapping ability of the area.

Decreased runoff will reduce the rate of erosion and movement of sediment and dissolved and sediment-attached
substances to downstream water courses. No increase in ground waterpollution hazard would be anticipatedfrom
the use of this practice.

M c. Proper grazing use (528): Grazing at an intensity that will maintain enough cover to protect the
soil and maintain or improve the quantity and quality of desirable vegetation.

Increased vegetation slows runoff and acts as a sedimentfilterfor sediments and sediment attached substances, uses
more nutrients, and reduces raindrop splash. Adverse chemical effects should not be anticipatedfrom the use of this
practice.

d. Proper woodland grazing (530): Grazing wooded areas at an intensity that will maintain adequate
cover for soil protection and maintain or improve the quantity and quality of trees and forage
vegetation.

This practice is applicable'on wooded areas producing a significant amount offorage that can be harvested without
damage to other values. In these areas there should be no detrimental effects on the quality of surface and ground
water. Any time this practice is applied there must be a detailed management and grazing plan.

Me. Pasture and hayland management (510): Proper treatment and use of pasture or hayland.

With the reduced runoff there will be less erosion, less sediment and substances transported to the surface waters.
The increased infiltration increases the possibility of soluble substances leaching into the ground water.

Alternate Water Supply Practices

Providing water and salt supplement facilities away from streams will help keep livestock away from streambanks
and riparian zones. The establishment of alternate water supplies for livestock is an essential component of this
measure when problems related to the distribution of livestock occur in a grazing unit. In most western states,
securing water rights may be necessary. Access to a developed or natural water supply that is protective of
streambank and riparian zones can be provided by using the stream brossing (interim) technology to build a watering
site. In some locations, artificial shade may be constructed to encourage use of upland sites for shading and loafing.
Providing water can be accomplished through the following Soil Conservation Service practices and the stream
crossing (interim) practice (practice "m") of the following section. Descriptions have been modified to meet CZM
needs:

M f. Pipeline (516): Pipeline installed for conveying water for livestock or for recreation.

Pipelines may decrease sediment, nutrient, organic, and bacteria pollutionfrom livestock. Pipelines may afford the
opportunity for alternative water sources other than streams and lakes, possibly keeping the animals away from the
stream or impoundment. This will prevent bank destruction with resulting sedimentation, and will reduce animal

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-79

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

waste deposition directly in the water. The reduction of concentrated livestock areas will reduce manure solids,
nutrients, and bacteria that accompany surface runoff.

Mg. Pond (378): A water impoundment made by constructing a dam or an embankment or by
excavation of a pit or dugout.

Ponds may trap nutrients and sediment which wash into the basin. This removes these substancesfrom downs-tream.
Chemical concentrations in the pond may be higher during the summer months. By reducing the amount oj'water
that flows in the channel downstream, the frequency offlushing of the stream is reduced and there is a collection
of substances held temporarily within the channel. A pond may cause more leachable substance to be carried into
the ground water.

h. Trough or tank (614): A trough or tank, with needed devices for water control and waste water
disposal, installed to provide drinking water for livestock.

By the installation of a trough or tank, livestock may be better distributed over the pasture, grazing can be better
controlled, and surface runoff reducei4 thus reducing erosion. By itself this practice will have only a minor effect
on water quality; however when coupled with other conservation practices, the beneficial effects of the combined
practices may be large. Each site and application should be evaluated on their own merits.
i
i. Well (642): A we// constructed or improved to provide water for irrigation, livestock, wildlife, or
recreation.

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

Mj. Spring development (574): Improving springs and seeps by excavating, cleaning, capping, or
providing collection and storage facilities.

There will be negligible long-term water quality impacts with spring developments. Erosion and sedimentation may
occur from any disturbed areas during and immediately after construction, but should be short-lived. These
sediments will have minor amounts of adsorbed nutrients from soil organic matter.

Livestock Access Limitation Practices

It may be necessary to minimize livestock access to streambanks, ponds or lakeshores, and riparian zones to protect
these areas from physical disturbance. This could also be accomplished by establishing special use pastures to
manage livestock in areas of concentration. Practices include:

M k. Fencing (382): Enclosing or dividing an area of land with a suitable permanent structure that acts
as a barrier to livestock, big game, or people (does not include temporary fences).

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

2-80 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

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

0 1. Livestock exclusion (472): Excluding livestock from an area not intended for grazing.

Livestock exclusion may improve water quality by preventing livestockfrom being in the water or walking down the
banks, and by preventing manure deposition in the stream. The amount of sediment and manure may be reduced
in the surface water. This practice prevents compaction of the soil by livestock and prevents losses of vegetation
and undergrowth. This may maintain or increase evapotranspiration. Increased permeability may reduce erosion
and lower sediment and substance transportation to the surface waters. Shading along streams and channels
resulting from the application of this practice may reduce surface water temperature.

m. Stream crossing (interim): A stabilized area to provide access across a stream for livestock and
farm machineq.

The purpose is to provide a controlled crossing or watering access point for livestock along with access for farm
equipment, control bank and streambed erosion, reduce sediment and enhance water quality, and maintain or
improve wildlife habitat.

Vegetative Stabilization Practices

It may be necessary to improve or reestablish the vegetative c6er on range and pastures to reduce erosion rates.
The following practices can be used to reestablish vegetation:

n. Pasture and hayland planting (512): Establishing and reestablishing long-term stands of adapted
species of perennial, biannual, or reseeding forage plants. (includes pasture and hayland
renovation, Does not include grassed waterways or outlets or cropland.)

The long-term effect will be an increase in the quality of the surface water due to reduced erosion and sediment
delivery. Increased infiltration and subsequent percolation may cause more soluble substances to be carried to
ground water.

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

increased erosion and sediment yield may occur during the establishment of this practice. This is a temporary
situation and sediment yields decrease when reseeded area becomes established. If chemicals are used in the
reestablishment process, chances of chemical runoff into downstream water courses are reduced if application is
applied according to label instructions. After establishment of the grass cover, grass sod slows runoff, acts as a
filter to trap sediment, sediment attached substances, increases infiltration, and decreases sediment yields.

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

This. practice may reduce soil erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters. Plants may take up more of the
0 nutrients in the soil, reducing the amount that can be washed into surface waters or leached into ground water.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-81

/L Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

During grading, seedbed preparation, seeding, and mulching, large quantities of sediment and associated chemicals
may be washed into surface waters prior to plant establishment.

Wq. Brush (and weed) management (314): Managing and manipulating stands of brush (and weeds)
on range, pasture, and recreation and wildlife areas by mechanical, chemical, or biological means
or by prescribed burning. (Includes reducing excess brush (and weeds) to restore natural plant
community balance and manipulating stands of undesirable plants through selective and patterned
treatments to meet specific needs of the land and objectives of the land user.)

Improved vegetation quality and the decrease in runoff from the practice will reduce the amount of erosion and
sediment yield. Improved vegetative cover acts as a filter strip to trap the movement of dissolved and sediment
attached substances, such as nutrients and chemicals from entering downstream water courses. Mechanical brush
management may initially increase sediment yields because of soil disturbances and reduced vegetative cover. This
is temporary until revegetation occurs.

r. Prescribed burning (336): Applying fire to predetermined areas under conditions under which the
intensity and spread of the fire are controlled.

When the area is burned in accordance with the specifications of this practice the nitrates with the burned vegetation
will be released to the atmosphere. The ash will contain phosphorous and potassium which will be in a relatively
highly soluble form. If a runoff event occurs soon after the bum there is a probability that these two materials may
be transported into the ground water or into the surface water. When in a soluble state the phosphorous and
potassium will be more difficult to trap and hold in place. When done on range grasses the growth of the,grasses
is increased and there will be an increased tie-up of plant nutrients as the grasses' growth is accelerated

Selection of Practices

The selection of management practices for this measure should be based on an evaluation of current conditions,
problems identified, quality criteria, and management goals. Successful resource management on range and pasture
includes appropriate application of a combination of practices that will meet the needs of the range and pasture
ecosystem (i.e., the soil, water, air, plant, and animal (including fish and shellfish) resources) and the objectives of
the land user.

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

� Know the key factors of plant species management, their growth habits, and their response to @[ifferent
seasons and degrees of use by various kinds and classes of livestock.

� Know the demand for, and seasons of use of, forage and browse by wildlife species.

� Know the amount of plant residue or grazing height that should be left to protect grazing land so'ils from
wind and water erosion, provide for plant regrowth, and provide the riparian vegetation height desired to
trap sediment or other pollutants.

� Know the range site production capabilities and the pasture suitability group capabilities so ail initial
stocking rate can be established.

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

2-82 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Establish grazing unit sizes, watering, shade and salt locations, etc. to secure optimum livestock distribution
and proper vegetation use.

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

� Encourage proper wildlife harvesting to ensure proper population densities and forage balances.

� Know the livestock diet requirements in terms of quantity and quality to ensure that there are enough
grazing units to provide adequate livestock nutrition fbi the season and the kind and classes of animals on
the farm/ranch.
� Maintain a flexible grazing system to adjust for unexpected environmentally and economically generated
problems.

� Special requirements to protect threatened or endangered species.

6. Cost Information

Much of the cost associated with implementing grazing management practices is due to fencing installation, water
development, and system maintenance. Costs vary according to region and type of practice. Generally, the more
components or structures a practice requires, the more expensive it is. However, cost-share is usually available from
the USDA and other Federal agencies for most of these practices.

a. Grazing Facilities

Principal direct costs of providing grazing facilities vary from relatively low variable costs of dispersed salt blocks
to higher capital and maintenance costs of supplementary water supply improvements. Improving the distribution
of grazing pressure by herding or strategically locating grazing facilities to draw cattle away from strearnside areas
can result in improved utilization of existing forage.

The availability and feasibility of supplementary water development varies considerably between and western areas
and humid eastern areas, but costs for water development, including spring development and pipeline watering, are
similar (Table 2-24).

b. Livestock Exclusion

Principal direct costs of livestock exclusion are the capital and maintenance costs for fencing to restrict access to
strearnside areas or the cost of herders to achieve the same results. In addition, there may be an indirect cost of the
forage that is removed from grazing by exclusion.

There is considerable difference between multistrand barbed wire, chiefly used for perimeter fencing and permanent
stream exclusion and diversions, and single- or double-strand smoothwire electrified fencing used for stream
exclusion and temporary divisions within permanent pastures. The latter may be all that is needed to accomplish
most livestock exclusion in smaller, managed pastures in the East (Table 2-25).

c. ImprovementlReestablishment

Principal direct costs of improving or reestablishing grazing land include the costs of seed, fertilizer, and herbicides
needed to-establish the new forage stand and the labor and machinery costs required for preparation, planting,
cultivation, and weed control (Table 2-26). An indirect cost may be the forage that is removed from grazing during
the reestablishment work and rest for seeding establishment.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-83

fl. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-24. Cost of Water Development for Grazing Management

Constant Dollar

Reported Annualized
Capital Costs Capital Costs Costs
Location Year Type Unit $/Unit 1991 $/Unit 1991 $/Unii:
California b 1979 pipeline foot 0.28 0.35 0.05
Kansas' 1989 spring each 1,239.00 1,282.94 11911'.20
spring each 1,389.00 1,438.26 214.34
Maine' 1988 pipeline each 831.00 879.17 131.02

Alabama' 1990 spring each 1,500-00 1,520.83 226.65
pipeline foot 1.60 1.62 0.24
trough each 1,000.00 1,013.89 151.10
Nebraska! 1991 pipeline foot 1.31 1.31 0.20
tank each 370.00 370.00 55.14

Utahg 1968 spring each 200.00 389.33 58.02
Oregon' 1991 pipeline f cot 0.20 0.20 0.03
tank each 183.00 183.00 27.27

a Reported costs inflated to 1991 constant dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for building and fencing,
1977=100. Capital costs are annualized at 8 percent interest for 10 years.
b Fresno Field Office, 1979.
c Northup et al., 1989.
d Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District, undated.
Alabama Soil Conservation Service, 1990.
Hermsmeyer, 1991.
Workman and Hooper, 1968.
ASCS/SCS, 1991.

d. Overall Costs of the Grazing Management Measure

Since the exact combination of practices needed to implement the management measure depends on site-specific
conditions that are highly variable, the overall cost of the measure is best estimated from similar combinations of
practices applied under the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), Rural Clean Water Program (RCVVP), and
similar activities. Cost data from the ACP programs are summarized in Table 2-27.

2-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 li. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources
40 Table 2-25. Cost of Uvestock Exclusion for Grazing Management
Constant Dollar"

Reported Annualized
Capital Costs Capital Costs Costs
Location Year Type Unit $/Unit 1991 $/Unit 1991 $/Unit
California b 1979 permanent mile 2,000 2,474.58 368.78
Alabamac 1990 permanent mile 3,960 4,015.00 598.35
net wire mile 5,808 5,888.67 877.58
electric mile 2,640 2,676.67 398.90
Nebraska d 1991 permanent mile 2,478 2,478.00 369.30

Great Lakes' 1989 permanent mile 2,100- 2,174.47- 324.06-
2,400 2,485.11 370.35
Oregon' 1991 permanent mile 2,640 2,640.00 393.44

Reported costs inflated to 1991 constant dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for building and fencing,
1977=100. Capital costs are annualized at 8 percent interest for 10 years.
Fresno Field Office, 1979.
Alabama Soil Conservation Service, 1990.
d Hermsmeyer, 1991.
DPRA, 1989.
ASCS/SCS, 1991.

Table 2-26. Cost of Forage Improvement/Reestablishment for Grazing Management

Constant Dollar'

Reported Annualized
Capital Costs Capital Costs Costs
Location Year Type Unit $/Unit 1991 $/Unit 1991 $/Unit
Alabama' 1990 planting acre 84-197 83-195 12.37 - 29.00
(seed, lime &
fertilizer)

Nebraska' 1991 establishment 'acre 47 47 7.00
seeding acre 45 45 6.71
Oregon d 1991 establishment acre 27 27 4.02

Reported costs inflated to 1991 constant dollars by the ratio of indices of prices paid by farmers for seed, 1977=100.
Capital costs are annualized at 8 percent interest for 10 years.
b Alabama Soil Conservation Service, 1990.
c Hermsmeyer, 1991.
d ASCS/SCS, 1991.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-85

I/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-27. Summary of ACP Grazing Management Practice Costs, 1989
(US and 1990 (USDA-ASCS, 1990; USDA-ASCS, 1991)'
ASCS Practice Adjusted Cost/Acre Treated' ($/acre)
Region b Code' Average Low High

GL SL1 17.34 13.01 49.80

GL SI-2 16.18 11.53 24-82

GL SL6 27.76 17.32 - 37.92

GL SU 1 31.63 11.95 66-50

GL SP10 19.13 13.50 52.03

GL WP2 31.78 16.09 165-37

Gulf SL1 12.67 9.95 19.19

Gulf SL2 4.44 4.26 13.43

Gulf SI-6-range, 1.81 0.81 12-55

Gulf SI-6-pasture 24.00 9.68 219.45

Gulf SL1 1 47.92 27.53 109.98

Gulf WC3 0.78 0.69 0.98

Gulf WP2 58.44 38.14 72.84

NE SL1 23.92 17.18 45.76

NE SI-2 21.06 5.08 45.98

NE SI-6 34.70 19.38 42.20

NE SL1 1 109.11 17.62 374.48

NE SP10 106.53 52.03 1,023,61

NE WP2 72.75 31.08 1,543.97

Pacific SLI 9.75 7.92 24.39

Pacific SI-2 3.62 0.61 7.32

Pacific SI-6 1.06 0.51 2.22

Pacific SL1 1 12.61 7.20 20.86

Pacific SP110 100.19 19.59 132.36

Pacific WP2 14.22 7.53 190.51

SE SL1 19.54 15.49 24.05

SE SL2 10.68 5.20 15.81

SE SI-6 10.14 9.49 262.77

SE SL1 1 55.20 15.70 116.40

SE WP2 75.90 13.21 224.73

2-86 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 /1. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-27 Notes:

8Acreage-weighted average of 1989 and 1990 costs. SL1 1 - Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas
"GL=Great Lakes Region (IL, IN, MI, NY, OH, WI) Cover and green manure crop 340
GULF=Gulf States Region (AL, FL, LA, MS, TX) Critical area planting 342
NE=Northeast Region (CT, DE, MA, MID, ME, NH, NY, PA, Fencing 382
RI) Field borders 386
Pacific=Pacific Region (CA, OR, WA) Filter strip 393
SE=Southeast Region (FL, GA, NC, SC, VA) Forest land erosion control system 408
ASCS practices with description title and technical practice Mulching 484
code: Streambank and shoreline protection 580
SU - Permanent vegetative cover establishment Tree planting 612
Conservation tillage 329
Pasture and hayland planfing 512 SP10 - Streambank stabilization
Range seeding 550 Critical area planting 342
Cover and green manure crop Livestock exclusion 472
(orchard and vineyard only) 340 Mulching 484
Field borders 386 Streambank and shoreline protection 580
Filter strips 393 Tree planting 1 612
SL2 - Permanent vegetative cover improvement WC3 - Rangeland moisture conservation
Conservation tillage 329 Grazing land mechanical treatment 548
Pasture and hayland management 510
1 WP2 - Stream protection
Pasture and hayland Planting 512
Fencing 382 Filter strip 393
Range seeding 550 Channel vegetation 322
Deferred grazing 352 Fencing 382
Firebreak 394 Pipeline 516
Brush management 314 StreAmbank and shoreline protection 580
Field border 386
SL6 - Grazing land protection Tree planting 612
Critical area planting 342 Trough or tank 614
Pond 378 Stock trails or walkways 575
Fencing 382 Average annual cost, adjusted to 1990 constant dollars using
Pipeline 616 ratio of index of prices paid for production items 1989 to 1990
Spring development 674 (171/166). Source: USDA-ERS, 1991.
Stock trails arid walkways 675
Trough or tank 1 614
Water-harvesting catchment 636
Wells 642

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-87

U. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

F. Irrigation Water Management

To reduce nonpoint source pollution of surface waters caused by irrigation:

(1) Operate the irrigation system so that the timing and amount of irrigation water
applied match crop water needs. This will require, as a minimum: (a) the
accurate measurement of soil-water depletion volume and the volume cof
irrigation water applied, and (b) uniform application of water.

(2) When chernigation is used, include backflow preventers for wells, minimize the
harmful amounts of chernigated waters that disc 'harge from the edge of the field,
and control deep percolation. In cases where chemigation is performed with
furrow irrigation systems, a tailwater management system may be needed.

The following limitations and special conditions apply:

(1) In some locations, irrigation return flows are subject to other water rights or are
required to maintain stream flow. In these special cases, on-site reuse could be
precluded and would not be considered part of the management measure for
such locations.

(2) By increasing the water use efficiency, the discharge volume from the system
will usually be reduced. While the total pollutant load may be reduced
somewhat, there is the potential for an increase in the concentration of
pollutants in the discharge. In these special cases, where living resources or
human health may be adversely affected and where other management measures
(nutrients and pesticides) do not reduce concentrations in the discharge,
increasing water use efficiency would not be considered part of the management
measure.

(3) In some irrigation districts, the time interval between the order for and the
delivery of irrigation water to the farm may limit the irrigator's ability to achieve
the maximum on-farm application efficiencies that are otherwise possible.

(4) In some locations, leaching is necessary to control salt in the soil profile.
Leaching for salt control should be limited to the leaching requirement for the
root zone.

(5) Where leakage from delivery systems or return flows supports wetlands or
wildlife refuges, it may be preferable to modify the system to achieve a high level
of efficiency and then divert the "saved water" to the wetiand or wildlife refuge.
This will improve the quality of water delivered to wetlands or wildlife refuges
by preventing the introduction of pollutants from irrigated lands to such diverted
water.

(6) In some locations, sprinkler irrigation is used for frost or freeze protection, or
for crop cooling. In these special cases, applications should be limited to the
amount necessary for crop protection, and applied water should remain on-sitle.

2-88 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to activities on irrigated lands, including agricultural
crop and pasture land (except for isolated fields of less than 10 acres in size that are not contiguous to other irrigated
lands); orchard land; specialty cropland; and nursery cropland. Those landowners already practicing effective
irrigation management in conformity with the irrigation water management measure may not need to purchase
additional devices to measure soil-water depletion or the volume of irrigation water applied, and may not need to
expend additional labor resources to manage the irrigation system. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal noApoint programs in
conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures
by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and
Approval Guidance, published, jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to reduce nonpoint source pollution of surface waters caused by irrigation.
For the purposes of this management measure, "harmful amounts" are those amounts that pose a significant risk to
aquatic plant or animal life, ecosystem health, human health, or agricultural or industrial uses of the water.

A problem associated with irrigation is the movement of pollutants from the land into ground or surface water. This
movement of pollutants is affected by the pathways taken by applied water and precipitation (Figure 2-15); the
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the irrigated land; the type of irrigation system used; crop type;
the degree to which erosion and sediment control, nutrient management, and pesticide management are employed;
and the management of the irrigation system (Figure 2-16).

Return flows, ninoff, and leachate from irrigated lands may transport -the following types of pollutants:

� Sediment and particulate organic solids;

� Particulate-bound nutrients, chemicals, and
metals, such as phosphorus, organic nitrogen,
a portion of applied pesticides, and a portion TRANSPIRATION
of the metals applied with some organic
wastes; RAINFALL
IRRIGATION

� Soluble nutrients, such as nitrogen, soluble
phosphorus, a portion of the applied
pesticides, soluble metals, salts, and many
other major and minor nutrients; and
EVAPOIRAT11ON
� Bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. RUNOW

Transport of irrigation water from the source of supply
to the irrigated field via open canals and laterals can be
a source of water loss if the canals and laterals are not BOTTOM OF
lined. Water is also transported through the lower ends ROOTZONE
of canals and laterals because of the flow-through - - - - - - - - - - - - - AC'
requirements to maintain water levels in them. In 4@
many soils, unlined canals and laterals lose water via DEEP SEEPAGE OR DRAINAGE
ML
1@1!00,0n,l
seepage in bottom and side walls. Seepage water either
moves into the ground water through infiltration or Figure 2-15. Source and fate of water added to a soil
forms wet areas near the canal or lateral. This water system (Evans et al., 1991c).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-89

H. Management Measures for Agriculturai Sources Chapter 2

Uniformity of
Frequency of Irrigation Z Furrow Applications
Set Time

J@
1% Stream
40 Size ,
Leaching

Return
Flow

Figure 2-16. Variables influencing pollutant losses from irrigated fields (USEPA, 1982).

will carry with it any soluble pollutants in the soil, thereby creating the potential for pollution of ground or surface
water.

Since irrigation is a consumptive use of water, any pollutants in the source waters that are not consumed by the crop
(e.g., salts, pesticides, nutrients) can be concentrated in the soil, concentrated in the leachate or seepagg, or
concentrated in the runoff or return flow from the system. Salts that concentrate in the soil profile must be removed
for sustained crop production.

For additional information regarding the problems caused by these pollutants, see Section LF of this chapter.

Application of this management measure will reduce the waste of irrigation water, improve the water use efficiency,
and reduce the total pollutant discharge from an irrigation system. It is not the intent of this management measure
to require the replacement of major components of an irrigation system. Instead, the expectation is that components
to manage the timing and amount of water applied will be provided where needed, and that special precautions (i.e.,
backflow preventers, prevent tailwater, and control deep percolation) will be taken when chernigation is used.

Irrigation scheduling is the use of water management strategies to prevent over-application of water while minimizing
yield loss due to water shortage or drought stress (Evans et al., 1991d). Irrigation scheduling will ensure that water
is applied to the crop when needed and in the amount needed. Effective scheduling requires knowledge of the
following factors (Evans et al., 1991c; Evans et al., 1991d):

� Soil properties;
� Soil-water relationships and status;
� Type of crop and its sensitivity to drought stress;
� Ile stage of crop development;
� The status of crop stress;
� The potential yield reduction if the crop remains in a stressed condition;
� Availability of a water supply; and
� Climatic factors such as rainfall and temperature.

2-90 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januarjor 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Much of the above information can be found in Soil
Conservation Service soil surveys and Extension
Service literature. However, all information should be
site-specific and verified in the field.

There are three ways to determine when irrigation is CAP
needed (Evans et al., 1991d): P-ISERVOIM

STWPM
� Measuring soil water;
VACUUU
GAUG!E
� Estimating soil water using an accounting
approach; and

WATCM COLUrAN
� Measuring crop stress.

Soil water can be measured using a range of devices
(Evans et al., 1991b), including tensiometers, which POMOUZ TIP
measure soil water suction (Figure 2-17); electrical
resistance blocks (also called gypsum blocks or
moisture blocks), which measure electrical resistance Figure 2-17. Diagram of a tensiometer (Evans et al.,
that is related to soil water by a calibration curve 1991 b).
(Figure 2-18); neutron probes, which directly measure
soil water; Phene cells, which are used to estimate soil
water based on the relationship of heat conductance to soil water content; and time domain reflectometers, which
can be used to estimate soil water based on the time it takes for an electromagnetic pulse to pass through the soil.
The appropriate device for any given situation is a function of the acreage of ir7igated land, soils, cost, and other
site-specific factors.

Accounting approaches estimate
the quantity of soil water
remaining in the effective root
zone and can be simple or RE218YANCE METER
complex. In essence, daily
water inputs and outputs are
measured or estimated to
determine the depletion volume.
Irrigation is typically scheduled
when the allowable depletion
volume is nearly reached.

Once the decision to irrigate has
been made, it is important to
determine the amount of water
to apply. Irrigation needs are a
function of the soil water ELECTRODES LEAD WIRES
depletion volume in the effective
root zone, the rate at which the
crop uses water (Figure 2-19),
and climatic factors. Accurate GYPSUM BLOCK
measurements of the amount of
U

water applied are essential to
maximizing irrigation efficiency. Figure 2-18. Schematic of an electrical resistance block and meter (Evans et
The quantity of water applied al., 1991b).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-91

Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Z 0.3--

0.2--
01@
cl@

Z
ix 1.00
0 0-
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
DAYS AFTER PLANTING

Figure 2-19. Corn daily water use as influenced by stage of development (Evans et al., 1991c).

can be measured by such devices as a totalizing flow meter that is installed in the delivery pipe. If water is supplied
by ditch or canal, weirs or flumes in the ditch can be used to measure the rate of flow.

Deep percolation can be greatly reduced by limiting the amount of applied water to the amount that can be stored
in the plant root zone. The deep percolation that is necessary for salt management can be accomplished 'with a
sprinkler system by using longer sets or very slow pivot speeds or by applying water during the non-growing season.

Reducing overall water use in irrigation will allow more water for stream flow control and will increase flow for
diversion to marshes, wetlands, or other environmental uses. If the source is ground water, reducing overall use will
maintain higher ground-water levels, which could be important for maintaining base flow in nearby streams.
Reduced water diversion will reduce the salt or pollutant load brought into the irrigation system, thereby reducing
the volume of these pollutants that must be managed or discharged from the system.

Although this management measure does not require the replacement of major components of an irrigation system,
such changes can sometimes result in greater pollution prevention. Consequendy, the following is a broader
discussion of the types of design and operational aspects of the overall irrigation system that could be addressed to
provide additional control of nonpoint source pollution beyond that which is required by this management measure.
Overall, five basic aspects of the irrigation system can be addressed:

(1) Irrigation scheduling;
(2) Efficient application of irrigation water;
(3) Efficient transport of irrigation water;
(4) Use of runoff or tailwater; and
(5) Management of drainage water.

This management measure addresses irrigation scheduling, efficient application, and the control of tailwater when
chernigation is used. The efficient transport of irrigation water, the use of runoff or tailwater, and the management
of drainage water are additional considerations.

2-92 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai3o, 1993

Chapter 2 IL Management Measures for @griquftuml SourpBo
I

Although not a required element of this management measure, the seepage losses associated with canals and laterals
can be reduced by lining the canals and laterals, or can be eliminated by conversion from open canals and laterals
to pipelines. Flow-through losses will not be changed by canal or lateral lining, but can be eliminated or greatly
reduced by conversion to pipelines.

Surface irrigation systems are usually designed to have a percentage (up to 30 percent) of the applied water lost as
tailwater. This tailwater should be managed with a tailwater recovery system, but such a system is not required as
a component of this management measure unless chernigation is practiced. Tailwater recovery systems usually
include a system of ditches or berms to direct water from the end of the field to a small storage structure. Tailwater
is stored until it can be either pumped back to the head end of the field and reused or delivered to additional irrigated
land. In some locations, there may be downstream water rights that are dependent upon tailwater, or tailwater may
be used to maintain flow in streams. These requirements may take legal precedence over the reuse of tailwater.

Well-designed and managed irrigation systems remove runoff and leachate efficiently; control deep percolation; and
minimize erosion from applied water, thereby reducing adverse impacts on surface water and ground water. If a
tailwater recovery system is used, it should be designed to allow storm runoff to flow through the system without
damage. Additional surface drainage structures such as filter strips, field drainage ditches, subsurface drains, and
water table control may also be used to control runoff and leachate if site conditions warrant their use. Sprinkler
systems will usually require design and installation of a system to remove and manage storm runoff.

A properly designed and operated sprinkler irrigation system should have a uniform distribution pattern. The volume
of water applied can be changed by changing the total time the sprinkler runs; by changing the pressure at which
the sprinkler operates; or, in the case of a center pivot, by adjusting the speed of travel of the system. There should
be no irrigation runoff or tailwater from most well-designed and well-operated sprinkler systems.

The type of irrigation system used will dictate which practices can be employed to improve water use efficiency and
to obtain the most benefit from scheduling. Flood systems will generally infiltrate more water at the upper end of
the field than at the lower end because water is applied to the upper end of the field first and remains on that portion
of the field longer. This will cause the upper end of the field to have greater deep percolation losses than the lower
end. Although not required as a component of this management measure, this situation can sometimes be improved
by changing slope throughout the length of the field. This type of change may not be practical or affordable in many
cases. For example, furrow length can be reduced by cutting the field in half and applying water in the middle of
the field. This will require more pipe or ditches to distribute the water across the middle of the field.

3. Management Measure Selection
I
This management measure was selected based on an evaluation of available information that documents the beneficial
effects of improved irrigation management (see Section II.F.4 of this chapter). Specifically, the available information
shows that irrigation efficiencies can be improved with scheduling that is based on knowledge of water needs and
measurement of applied water. Improved irrigation efficiency can result in the reduction or elimination of runoff
and return flows, as well as the control of deep percolation. Secondly, backflow preventers can be used to protect
wells from chemicals used in chernigation. In addition, tailwater prevention, or tailwater management where
necessary, is effective in reducing the discharge of soluble and particulate pollutants to receiving waters.

By reducing the volume of water applied to agricultural lands, pollutant loads are also reduced. Less interaction
between irrigation water and agricultural land will generally result in less pollutant transport from the land and less
leaching of pollutants to ground water.

The practices that can be used to implement this measure on a given site are commonly used and are recommended
by SCS for general use on irrigated lands. By designing the measure using the appropriate mix of structural and
management practices for a given site, there is no undue economic impact on the operator. Many of the practices
that can be used to implement this measure (e.g., water-measuring devices, tailwater recovery systems, and backflow
preventers) may already be required by State or local rules or may otherwise be in use on irrigated fields. Since

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-93

-41--_Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

many irrigators may already be using systems that satisfy or partly satisfy the intent of the management measure,
the only action that may be necessary will be to determine the effectiveness of the existing practices and add
additional practices, if needed.

4. Effectiveness Information

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

In a review of a wide range of agricultural control practices, EPA (1982) determined that increased use of call
periods, on-demand water ordering, irrigation scheduling, and flow measurement and control would all result in
decreased losses of salts, sediment, and nutrients (Table 2-28). Various alterations to existing ftirrow irrigation
systems were also determined to be beneficial to water quality, as were tailwater management and seepage control.

Logan (1990) reported that chemical backsiphon devices are highly effective at preventing the introduction of
pesticides and nitrogen to ground water. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) specifiessafety
devices for chemigation that will prevent the pollution of a water supply used solely for irrigation (ASAE, 1989).

Properly designed sprinkler irrigation systems will have little runoff (Boyle Engineering Corp., 1986). Furrow
irrigation and border check or border strip irrigation systems typically produce tailwater, and tailwater recovery
systems may be needed to manage tailwater losses (Boyle Engineering Corp., 1986). Tailwater can be managed by
applying the water to additional fields, by treating and releasing the tailwater, or by reapplying the tailwater to
upslope cropland.

The Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project in Idaho is the source of much information regarding
the benefits of irrigation water management (USDA, 199 1). All crops in the Rock Creek watershed are irrigated with
water diverted from the Snake River and delivered through a network of canals and laterals. The conibined
implementation of irrigation management practices, sediment control practices, and conservation tillage has resulted
in measured reductions in suspended sediment loadings ranging from 61 percent to 95 percent at six stations in Rock
Creek (1981-1988). Similarly, 8 of 10 sub-basins showed reductions in suspended sediment loadings over the same
time period. The sediment removal efficiencies of selected practices used in the project are given in Table '2-29.

In California it is expected that drip irrigation will have the greatest irrigation efficiency of those irrigation systems
evaluated, whereas conventional furrow irrigation will have the lowest irrigation efficiency and greatest runoff
fraction (Table 2-30). Tailwater recovery irrigation systems are expected to have the greatest percolation rate, Plot
studies in California have shown that in-season irrigation efficiencies for drip irrigation and Low Energy Precision
Application (LEPA) are greater than those for improved furrow and conventional furrow systems (Table 2-31).
LEPA is a linear move sprinkler system in which the sprinkler heads have been removed and replaced with tubes
that supply water to individual furrows (Univ. Calif., 1988). Dikes are placed in the furrows to prevent wateir flow
and reduce soil effects on infiltrated water uniformity.

Mielke et al. (1981) studied the effects of tillage practice and type of center pivot irrigation on herbicide (avazine
and alachlor) losses in runoff and sediment. Study results clearly show that, for each of three tillage practices
studied, low-pressure spray hozzles result in much greater herbicide loss in runoff than either high-pressure oir low-
pressure impact heads.

5. Irrigation Water Management Practices

2-'94 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januar), 1993

Chapter 2 li. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-28. Summary of Pollutant Impacts @of Selected Irrigation Practices' (USEPA, 1982)

T- NA.. T- NA- A- NA-
Practice Description pb Pc Nd N' Pes' Pes' SaltSh Sed'

Call Period A minimum length of time allowed to - - - - - - - -
place an order.
On-Demand Water Maximizes scheduling flexibility; _/0 _/0 _/0 _/0 _/0 _/0 _/0 _/0
Ordering however, this encourages less
planning.

Irrigation Scheduling Uses meteorological information - - - - - - -
with soil moisture levels to forecast
future irrigations.

Conveyance Channel Keep canals free of silt deposits and
Improvements and vegetation to maintain capacity.
Maintenance Repair damaged canal banks.

Improved Management System water storage provides
of System Storage flexibility and efficiency, but it should
be minimized to reduce seepage
and evaporation.

Improved Management Canals should not be operated at
of capacity at all times with unneeded
Return Flows water spilled into return flows.
Seepage Control Lining canals, ditches, laterals, and
watercourses that have high
seepage losses with some
impermeable material.

Flow Measurement and Measure and control flow to ensure
Control adequate application of water while
preventing unnecessary and
wasteful diversions. To control the
@low of water in canals and ditches,
structures such as checks, drops,
culverts, and field inlet devices are
used. Notched weirs or small
fiberglass flumes are used to
measure the flow of water.

Cutback Irrigation Flow volume is adjusted by using a
head ditch or delivery pipe, which is
adjusted so that a flow is quickly
introduced to the end of the furrow
and then "cut backo to a 'soaking"
fl9w rate. Increases uniformity of
application and reduces tailwater,
but is only applicable if there is
sufficient cross slope.

Gated Pipe System Combines features of improved
furrow and cutback systems, and
can be automatically controlled and
coupled with on-demand water
availability.

EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993 2-95

11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-28. (continued)
T- NA- T- NA- A- NA- Silts
Practice Description pb Pc N d Ne Pes' Pesg Sed'

Multi-set Irrigation Combines features of improved furrow - - - - - - - -
System with a shorter length of run by using
lateral supply pipes across each field.

Tailwater Reuse Tile drainage allows collection of - - - - - - - -
System/Subsurface surface flows into a water drainage
Drainage system for control.

Sprinkler Irrigation This system includes side-roll, center- - - - - - - - -
pivot, tow-line, and solid-set
sprinklers. Sprinkler systems are
more efficient than surface irrigation.

Trickle Irrigation Water is delivered to individual plants - - - - - - - -
through lines or emitters in order to
provide crop plants with nearly optimal
poil moisture.

a+ = increases in application of control will increase pollutant losses; - increases in application of control will decrease
pollutant losses; 0 = no appreciable effect. Blanks indicate no information presented.
Absorbed phosphorus (total and labile).
Nonabsorbed phosphorus (soluble forms).
dAbsorbed nitrogen (totdl N and ammonium).
Nonabsorbed nitrogen (nitrate).
Absorbed pesticide.
Nonabsorbed pesticide.
hSalts.
Sediment.

Table 2-29. Sediment Removal Efficiencies and Comments on 13MPs Evaluated (USDA, 1991)

Sediment Removal Efficiency (%)
Practice Average Range Comment
Sediment basins: field, farm, 87 75-95 Cleaning costly.
subbasin

Mini-basins 86a 0-95 Controlled outlets essential. Many.
failed. Careful management required.

Buried pipe systems 83 75-95 High installation cost. Potential -for
(incorporating mini-basins with increased production to offset costs.
individual outlets into a buried Eliminates tailwater ditch. Good
drain) control of tailwater.
Vegetative filters 35-70 Simple. Proper installation and
management needed.
Placing straw in furrows 50 40-80 Labor-intensive without special
equipment. Careful management
required.

Mean of those that did not fail.

2-96 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-30. Expected Irrigation Efficiencies of Selected Irrigation Systems in California
(California SWRCB, 1987)

Irrigation System Irrigation Efficiency (%) Percolation Fraction Runoff Fraction (%)

Conventional Furrow 60 17.5 22.5

Gated Pipe 67.5 14.2 18.3

Shorter Run 70 13.3 16.7

Tail Water Recovery 73.2 21.3 5.5

Hand Move Sprinkler 80 8.75 11.3

Lateral Move Sprinkler 87.5 5.5 7.0

Drip 95 4.0 1.0

Table 2-31. Irrigation Efficiencies of Selected Irrigation Systems for Cotton (California SWRCB, 1991)

In-Season
Seasonal Distribution In-Season Irrigation In-Season Deep
System Year Irrigation (in.) Uniformity Efficiency Percolation (in.)

Drip Irrigation 1989 17.82 87 99 2.43
1990 19.24 81 82 3.98

LEPA (Low Energy 1989 14,21 92 97 2,88
Precision Application) 1990 23.19 92 78.6 6.13

Improved Furrow 1989 20.89 57.5 36 18.9
1990 16.35 86.5 75.3 6.15

Conventional Furrow 1989 21.26 59.3 36 19.4
1990 20.00 74 74 9.85

Irrigation Scheduling Practices

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

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

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

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-97

l/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Management of the irrigation system should provide the control needed to minimize losses of water, and yields of
sediment and sediment attached and dissolved substances, such as plant nutrients and herbicides, from the system.
Poor management may allow the loss of dissolved substancesfrom the irrigation system to surface or ground water.
Good management may reduce saline percolation from geologic origins. Returns to the surface watersystem would
increase downstream water temperature.

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

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

Tools to assist in achieving proper irrigation scheduling:

M b. Water-measuring device: An irrigation water meter, flume, weir, or other water-measuring device
installed in a pipeline or ditch.

The measuring device must be installed between the point of diversion and water distribution system used on the
field. The device should provide a means to measure the rate of flow. Total water volume used may then be
calculated using rate of flow and time, or read directly, if a totalizing meter is used.

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

M c. Soil and crop water use data: From soils information the available water-holding capacity of the
soil can be determined along with the amount of water that the plant can extract from the soil
before additional irrigation is needed.

Water use information for various crops can be obtained from various USDA publications.

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

Practices for Efficient Irrigation Water Application

Irrigation water should be applied in a manner that ensures efficient use and distribution, minimizes runoff or deep
percolation, and eliminates soil erosion.

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

d. Irrigation system, drip or trickle (44 1): A planned irrigation system in which all necessary facilities
are installed for efficiently applying water directly to the root zone of plants by means of applicators

2-98 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 U. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

(orifices, emitters, porous tubing, or perforated pipe) operated under low pressure (Figure 2-20).
The applicators can be placed on or below the surface of the ground (Figure 2-21).

Surface water qualit 'v may not be significantly affected by transported substances because runoff is largely controlled
by the system components (practices). Chemical applications may be applied through the system. Reduction of
runoff will result in less sediment and chemical losses from the field during irrigation. If excessive, local, deep
percolation should occur, a chemical hazard may exist to shallow ground water or to areas where geologic materials
provide easy access to the aquifer.

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

Proper irrigation management controls runoff and prevents downstream surface water deterioration from sediment
and sediment attached substances. Over irrigation through poor management can produce impaired water quality
in runoff as well as ground water through increased percolation. Chernigation with this system allows the operator
the opportunity to mange nutrients, wastewater and pesticides. For example, nutrients applied in several incremental
applications based on the plant needs may reduce ground water contamination considerably, compared to one
application during planting. Poor management may cause pollution of surface and ground water. Pesticide drift
from chemigation may also be hazardous to vegetation, animals, and surface water resources. Appropriate safety
equipment, operation and maintenance of the system is noeded with chemigation to prevent accidental environmental
pollution or backflows to water sources.

1111111f, Irrigation system, surface and subsurface (443): A planned irrigation system in which all necessary
water control structures have been installed for efficient distribution of irrigation water by surface
means, such as furrows, borders, contour levees, or contour ditches, or by subsurface means.

//_Primary Filter
Flow Control
Chemical Tank Control Head
condary Filter
Form
Water Flow Meter-,
Supply

Mainline

Eml"er

Lateral

Flow Control on/of
Manifold
Flow/Pressure Regulator

Figure 2-20. Basic components of a trickle irrigation system (USDA-SCS, 1984).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-99

/1. Management Measures for Agricuitural Sources Chapter 2

Float valve to
control flow
in pipe line
7 Alfalfa
valve

Alternate flow control
Risers and
----alfalfa valves Overflow stand
ff, to control head

Concrete pipe line

(a)

o!@o

(b) W

Figure 2-21. Methods of distribution of irrigation water from (a) low-pressure underground pipe, (b) multiple-outlet
risers, and (c) portable gatedpipe (Schwab et al., 1981).

Operation and management of the irrigation system in a manner which allows little or no runoff may allow small
yields of sediment or sediment-attached substances to downstream waters. Pollutants may increase if irrigation
water management is not adequate. Ground water quality from mobile, dissolved chemicals may also be a hazard
if irrigation water management does not prevent deep percolation. Subsurface irrigation that requires the drainage
and removal of excess water from the field may discharge increased amounts of dissolved substances such as
nutrients or other salts to surface water. Temperatures of downstream water courses that receive runoff waters may
be increased Temperatures of downstream waters might be decreased with subsurface systems when excess water
is being pumped from the field to lower the water table. Downstream temperatures should not be affeeted by
subsurface irrigation during summer months if lowering the water table is not required Improved aquatic habitat
may occur if runoff or seepage occurs from surface systems orfrom pumping to lower the water table in subsurface
systems.

Mg. Irrigation field ditch (388): A permanent irrigation ditch constructed to convey water from the
source of supply to a field or fields in a farm distribution system.
The standard for this practice applies to open channels and elevated ditches of @5 ft/second or less capacity formed
in and with earth materials.

2-100 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 1/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Irrigation field ditches typically carry irrigation water from the source of supplying to a field or fields. Salinity
changes may occur in both the soil and water. This will depend on the irrigation water quality, the level of water
management, and the geologic materials of the area. The quality of ground and surface water may be altered
depending on environmental conditions. Water lost from the irrigation system to downstream runoff may contain
dissolved substances, sediment, and sediment-attached substances that may degrade water quality and increase water
temperature. This practice may make water available for wildlife, but may not significantly increase habitat.

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

The effects of this practice depend on the level of irrigation water management. If plant root zone soil water is
properly managett then quality decreases of surface and ground water may be avoided Under poor management,
ground and surface water quality may deteriorate. Deep percolation and recharge with poor quality water may
lower aquifer quality. Land leveling may minimize erosion and when runoff occurs concurrent sediment yield
reduction. Poor management may cause an increase in salinity of soil, ground and surface waters. High efficiency
surface irrigation is more probable when earth moving elevations are laser controlled

Practices for Efficient Irrigation Water Transport

Irrigation water transportation systems that move water from the source of supply to the irrigation system should be
designed and managed in a manner that minimizes evaporation, seepage, and flow-through water losses from canals
and ditches. Delivery and timing need to be flexible enough to meet varying plant water needs throughout the
growing season.

Transporting irrigation water from the source of supply to the field irrigation system can be a significant source of
water loss and cause of degradation of both surface water and ground water. Losses during transmission include
seepage from canals and ditches, evaporation from canals and ditches, and flow-through water.9 The primary water
quality concern is the development of saline seeps below the canals and ditches and the discharge of saline waters.
Another water quality concern is the potential for erosion caused by the discharge of flow-through water. Practices
that are used to ensure proper transportation of irrigation water from the source of supply to the field irrigation
system can befound in the USDA-SCS Handbook of Practices, and include: irrigation water conveyance, ditch and
canal lining (428); irrigation water conveyance, pipeline (430); and structure for water control (587).

Practices for Utilization of Runoff Water or Tailwater

The utilization of runoff water to provide additional irrigation or to reduce the amount of water diverted increases
the efficiency of use of irrigation water. For surface irrigation systems that require runoff or tailwater as part of the
design and operation, a tailwater management practice needs to be installed and used. The practice is described as
follows:

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

The reservoir will trap sediment and sediment attached substances from runoff waters: Sediment and chemicals will
accumulate in the collection facility by entrapping which would decrease downstream yields of these substances.

9 Flow-through water is water that is never applied to the land but is needed to maintain hydraulic head in the ditch. Flow-through
water is also water transported in excess of delivery requirements, carried to reduce, the level of management necessary to adjust
flows in the ditch for changed delivery locations and amounts. Typically this water (10 - 35 percent of delivery requirements) is
applied to fields as excess flow above the requested or billed amount, or returned to the supply stream as delivery system tailwater.
Often credit is given by the regulatory agency for this returned water.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-101

//. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Salts, soluble nutrients, and soluble pesticides will be collected with the runoff and will not be released to surface
waters. Recovered irrigation water with high salt an&or metal content will ultimately have to be disposed oj'in an
environmentally safe manner and location. Disposal of these waters should be part of the overall managemen r plan.
Although some ground water recharge may occur, little if any pollution hazard is usually expected.

Practices for Drainage Water Management

Drainage water from an irrigation system should be managed to reduce deep percolation, move tailwater to the: reuse
system, reduce erosion, and help control adverse impacts on surface water and groundwater, A total drainage system
should be an integral part of the planning and design of an efficient irrigation system. This may not be necessary
for those soils that have sufficient natural drainage abilities.

There are several practices to. accomplish this:

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

Filter strips for sediment and related pollutants meeting minimum requirements may trap the coarser grained
sediment. They may notfilter out soluble or suspendedfine-grained materials. When a storm causes runoff inexcess
of the design runoff, the filter may be flooded and may cause large loads of pollutants to be released to the surface
water. This type offilter requires high maintenance and has a relative short service life and is effective only as long
as the flow through the filter is shallow sheet flow.

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

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

All types offilters may reduce erosion on the area on which they are constructed Filter strips trap solidsfrom the
runoffflowing in sheet flow through the filter. Coarse-grained and fibrous materials are filtered more efficiently
than fine-grained and soluble substances. Filter strips workfor design conditions, but when flooded or overloaded
they may release a slug load of pollutants into the surface water.
I

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

From erosive fields, this practice may increase the yields of sediment and sediment-attached substances to
downstream water courses because of an increase in runoff. In otherfields, the location of the ditches may cause
a reduction in sheet and rill erosion and ephemeral gully erosion. Drainage of high salinity areas may raise salinity
levels temporarily in receiving waters. Areas of soils with high salinity that are drained by the ditches may increase
receiving waters. Phosphorus loads, resulting from this practice may increase eutrophication problems in ponded
receiving waters. Water temperature changes will probably not be significant. Upland wildlife habitat may be
improved or increased although the habitatformed by standing waier and wet areas may be decreased

L Subsurface drain (606): A conduit, such as corrugated plastic tile, or pipe, installed beneath the
ground surface to collect andlor convey drainage water.

Soil water outletted to surface water courses by this practice may be low in concentrations of sediment and sediment-
adsorbed substances and that may improve stream water quality. Sometimes the drained soil water is high in the

2-102 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

concentration of nitrates and other dissolved substances and drinking water standards may be exceeded. If drainage
water that is high in dissolved substances is able to recharge ground water, the aquifer quality may become
impaired. Stream water temperatures may be reduced by water drainage discharge. Aquatic habitat may be altered
or enhanced with the increased cooler water temperatures.

m. Water table control (64 1): Water table control through proper use of subsurface drains, water
control structures, and water conveyance facilities for the efficient removal of drainage water and
distribution of irrigation water.

The water table control practice reduces runoff, therefore downstream sediment and sediment-attached substances
yields will be reduced. When drainage is increased, the dissolved substances in the soil water will be discharged
to receiving water and the quality of water reduced. Maintaining a high water table, especially during the
nongrowing season, will,allow denitrification to occur and reduce the nitrate content of surface and ground by as
much as 75 percent. The use of this practice for salinity control can increase the dissolved substance loading of
downstream waters while decreasing the salinity of the soil. Installation of this practice may create temporary
erosion and sediment yield hazards but the completed practice will lower erosion and sedimentation levels. The
effect of the water table control of this practice on downstream wildlife. communities may vary with the purpose and
management of the water in the system.

M n. Controlled drainage (335): Control of surface and subsurface water through use of drainage
facilities and water control structures.

The purpose is to conserve water and maintain optimum soil moisture to (1) store and manage infiltrated rainfall for
more efficient crop production; (2) improve surface water quality by increasing infiltration, thereby reducing runoff,
which may carry sediment and undesirable chemicals; (3) reduce nitrates in the drainage water by enhancing
conditions for denitrificatibn; (4) reduce subsidence and wind erosion of organic soils; (5) hold water in channels
in forest areas to act as ground fire breaks; and (6) provide water for wildlife and a resting and feeding place for
waterfowl.

Practices for Backflow Prevention

M o. The American Society of Agricultural Engineers recommends, in standard EP409, safety devices
to prevent backflow when injecting liquid chemicals into irrigation systems (ASAE Standards, 1989).

The process of supplying fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nernaticides, and other chemicals through
irrigation systems is known @s chemigation. A backflow prevention system will "prevent chemical backflow to the
water source" in cases when the irrigation pump shuts down (ASAE, 1989).

Three factors an operator must take into account when selecting a backflow prevention system are the characteristics
of the chemical that can backflow, the water source, and the geometry of the irrigation system. Areas of concem
include whether injected material is toxic and whether there can be backpressure or backsiphonage (ASAE, 1989;
USEPA, 1989b).

Several different systems used as backflow preventers are:

(1) Air gap. A physical separation in the pipeline resulting in a loss of water pressure. Effective at end of
line service where reservoirs or storage tanks are desired.

(2) Check valve with vacuum relief and low pressure drain. Primarily used as an antisiphon device
(Figure 2-22).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 2-103

Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

(3) Double check valve. Consists of two single check valves coupled within one body and can handle both
backsiphonage and backpressure.

(4) Reduced pressure principle backflow preventer. This device can be used for both backsiphonage and
backpressure. It consists of a pressure differential relief valve located between two independently acting
check valves.

(5) Atmospheric vacuum breaker. Used mainly in lawn and turf irrigation systems that are connected to
potable water supplies. This system cannot be installed where backpressure persists and can be used only
to prevent backsiphonage.

6. Cost Information

A cost of $10 per irrigated acre is estimated to cover investments in flow meters, tensiometers, and soil moisture
probes (USEPA, 1992; Evans, 1992). Information from North Carolina indicates that the cost of devices to measure
soil water ranges from $3 to $4,500 (Table 2-32). Gypsum blocks and tensiometers are the two most commonly used
devices.

For quarter-section center pivot systems, backflow prevention devices cost about $416 per well (Stolzenburg, 1992).
This cost (1992 dollars) is for (1) an 8-inch, 2-foot-long unit with a check valve inside ($386) and (2) a one-way
injection point valve ($30). Assuming that each well will provide about 800- 1,000 gallons per minute, approximately
130 acres will be served by each well. The cost for backflow prevention for center pivot systems then becomes
approximately $3.20 per acre. In South Dakota, the cost for an 8-inch standard check valve is about $300, while
an 8-inch check valve with inspection points and vacuum release costs about $800 (Goodman, 1992). The latter are
required by State law. For quarter-section center pivot systems, the cost for standard check valves ranges from about
$1.88 per acre (comers irrigated, covering 160 acres) to $2.31 per acre (circular pattern, covering about 130 acres).

Tailwater can be prevented in sprinkler irrigation systems through effective irrigation scheduling, but may need to
be managed in furrow systems. The reuse of tailwater downslope on adjacent fields is a low-cost alternative to
tailwater recovery and upslope reuse (Boyle Engineering Corp., 1986). Tailwater recovery systems require a suitable

Figure 2-22. Backflow prevention device using check valve with vacuum relief
and low pressure drain (ASAE, 1989).

2-104 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 11. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources

Table 2-32. Cost of Soil Water Measuring Devices

Device Approximate Cost

Flow meterso $35 to $300, depending on size

Tensiometers' $35 and up, depending on size
Gypsum blocks' $3-4, $200-400 for meter

Neutron Probea $4,000-4,500

Phene Cell' $4,000-4,500
Flow meters, tensiometers, and soil moisture probesb $10 per irrigated acre

aSneed,1992.
t' Evans, 1992.

drainage water receiving facility such as a sump or a holding pond, and a pump and pipelines to return the tailwater
for reapplication (Boyle Engineering Corp., 1986). The cost to install a tailwater recovery system was about
$125/acre in California (California State Water Resources Control Board, 1987) and $97.00/acre in the Long Pine
Creek, Nebraska, RCWP (Hermsmeyer, 1991).

The cost to install irrigation water conservation systems (ASCS practice WC4) for the primary purpose of water
conservation in the 33 States that used the practice was about $86.00 per acre served in 1991 (USDA-ASCS, 1992b).
Practice WC4 increased the average irrigation system efficiency from 48 percent to 64 percent at an amortized cost
of $9.47 per acre foot of water conserved. Ibe components of practice WC4 are critical area planting, canal or
lateral, structure for water control, field ditch, sediment basin, grassed waterway or outlet, land leveling, water
conveyance ditch and canal lining, water conveyance pipeline, trickle (drip) system, sprinkler system, surface and
subsurface system, tailwater recovery, land smoothing, pit or regulation reservoir, subsurface drainage for salinity,
and toxic salt reduction. When installed for the primary purpose of water quality, the average installation cost for
WC4 was about $52 per acre served. For erosion control, practice WC4 averaged approximately $57 per acre served.
Specific cost data for each component of WC4 are not available. .

Water management systems for pollution control, practice SP35, cost about $26 per acre served when installed for
the primary purpose of water quality (USDA-ASCS, 1992b). When installed for erosion control, SP35 costs about
$19 per acre served. The components of SP35 are grass and legumes in rotation, underground outlets, land
smoothing, structures for water control, subsurface drains, field ditches, mains or laterals, and toxic salt reduction.

The design lifetimes for a range of salt load reduction measures are presented in Table 2-33 (USDA-ASCS, 1988).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1,993 2-105

I/. Management Measures for Agricultural Sources Chapter 2

Table 2-33. Design Lifetime for Selected Salt Load Reduction Measures
(USDA-ASCS, 1988)

Practice/Structure Design Life (years)
lrrigation,Land Leveling 10
Irrigation Pipelines - Aluminum Pipe 20

Irrigation Pipelines - Rigid Gated Pipe 15

Irrigation Canal and Ditch Lining 20

Irrigation Field Ditches 1

Water Control Structure 20

Trickle Irrigation System 10

Sprinkler Irrigation System 15

Surface Irrigation System 15

Irrigation Pit or Regulation Reservoir 20

Subsurface Drain 20

Toxic Salt Reduction 1

Irrigation Tailwater Recovery System 20

Irrigation Water Management 1

Underground Outlet 20
Pump Plant for Water Control 15

2-106 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januajy 1993

Chapter 2 Ill. Glossary

Ill. GLOSSARY

10-year, 24-hour storm: A rainfall event of 24-hour duration and 10-year frequency that is used to calculate the
runoff volume and peak discharge rate to a BMP.

25-year, 24-hour storm: A rainfall event of 24-hour duration and 25-year frequency that is used to calculate the
runoff volume and peak discharge rate to a BMP.

Acceptable Management System (AMS): A combination of conservation practices and management that meets
resource quality criteria established in the FOTG by the State Conservationist that is feasible within the social,
cultural, or economic constraints identified for the resource conditions. It is expected that some degradation may
continue to occur for the resource after the AMS is applied (Part 506, Glossary, SCS General Manual).

Adsorption: The adhesion of one substance to the surface of another.

Agronomic practices: Soil and crop activities employed in the production of farm crops, such as selecting seed,
seedbed preparation, fertilizing, liming, manuring, seeding, cultivation, harvesting, curing, crop sequence, crop
rotations, cover crops, strip-cropping, pasture development, and others (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Aquifer: A geologic formation or structure that transmits water in sufficient quantity to supply the needs for a water
development; usually saturated sands, gravel, fractures, and cavernous and vesicular rock (Soil Conservation Society
of America, 1982).

ASCS: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service of USDA.

Animal unit: A unit of measurement for any animal feeding operation calculated by adding the following numbers:
the number of slaughter and feeder cattle multiplied by 1.0, plus the number of mature dairy cattle multiplied by 1.4,
plus the number of swine weighing over 25 kilograms (approximately 55 pounds) multiplied by 0.4, plus the number
of sheep multiplied by 0. 1, plus the number of horses multiplied by 2.0 (40 CFR Part 122, Appendix B).

AUM: Animal unit month. A measure of average monthly stocking rate that is the tenure of one animal unit for
a period of I month. With respect to the literature reviewed for the grazing management measure, an animal unit
is a mature, 1,000-pound cow or the equivalent based on average daily forage consumption of 26 pounds of dry
matter per day (Platts, 1990). Alternatively, an AUM is the amount of forage that is required to maintain a mature,
1,000-pound cow or the equivalent for a one-month period. See animal unit for the NPDES definition.

Backflow prevention device: A safety device used to prevent water pollution or contamination by preventing flow
of water and/or chemicals in the opposite direction of that intended (ASAE, 1989).

Best Management Practice (BMP): A practice or combination of practices that are determined to be the most
effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of controlling
point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with environmental quality goals (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Broiler. Bird that is raised for its meat production; usually produced in a 7-week period.

Center pivot: Automated sprinkler irrigation achieved by automatically rotating the sprinkler pipe or boom, supplying
water to the sprinkler head or nozzle, as a radius from the center of the field to be irrigated (Soil Conservation
Society of America, 1982).

Chemigation: The addition of one or more chemicals to the irrigation water.

Chemigated water: Water to which fertilizers or pesticides have been added.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-107

11L Glossary Chapter 2

Check valve: A device to provide positive closure that effectively prohibits the flow of material in the opposite
direction of normal flow when operation of the irrigation system pumping plant or injection unit fails or is shut down
(ASAE, 1989).

Composting: A controlled process of degrading organic matter by microorganisms (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Conservation management system (CMS): A generic term that includes any combination of conservation practices
and management that achieves a level of treatment of the five natural resources that satisfies criteria contained in
the Field Office Training Guide (FOTG), such as a resource management system or an acceptable management
system (Part 506, Glossary, SCS General Manual).

Cover crop: A close-growing crop grown primarily for the purpose of protecting and improving soil between periods
of regular crop production or between trees and vines in orchards and vineyards (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Crop residue: The portion of a plant or crop left in the field after harvest (Soil Conservation Society of America,
1982).

Crop rotation: The growing of different crops in recurring succession on the same land (Soil Conservation Society
of America, 1982).

Defoliant: A herbicide that removes leaves from trees and growing plants (USEPA, 1989a).

Denitrification: The chemical or biochemical reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular
nitrogen or as an oxide of nitrogen (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Deposition: The accumulation of material dropped because of a slackening movement of the transporting
material-water or wind (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Desiccant: A chemical agent used to remove moisture from a material or object (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Dike: An embankment to confine or control water, especially one built along the banks of a river to Prevent
overflow of lowlands; a levee (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Diversion: A channel, embankment, or other man-made structure constructed to divert water from one area to
another (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Effluent: Solid, liquid, or gaseous wastes that enter the environment as a by-product of man-oriented processes (Soil
Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Empirical: Originating in or relying or based on factual information, observation, or direct sense experience.

EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Erosion: Wearing away of the land surface by running water, glaciers, winds, and waves. The term erosion is
usually preceded by a definitive term denoting the type or source of erosion such as gully erosion, sheet erosion, or
bank erosion (Brakensiek et al., 1979).

ES: Extension Service of USDA.

2-108 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 1/1, Glossary

Evaporation: The process by which a liquid is changed to a vapor or gas (Soil Conservation Society of America,
1982).

Fallow: Allowing cropland to lie idle, either tilled or untilled, during the whole or greater portion of the growing
season (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Fertilizer: Any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic origin that is added to a soil to supply elements
essential to plant growth (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Field capacity: The soil-water content after the force of gravity has drained or removed all the water it can, usually
I to 3 days after rainfall (Evans et al., 1991c).

Flume: An open conduit on a prepared grade, trestle, or bridge -for the purpose of carrying water across creeks,
gullies, ravines, or other obstructions; also used in reference to calibrated devices used to measure the flow of water
in open conduits (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Forb: A broad-leaf herbaceous plant that is not a grass, sedge, or rush.

FOTG: USDA-SCS's Field Office Technical Guide.

Grade: (1) The slope of a road, channel, or natural ground. (2) To finish the surface of a canal bed, roadbed, top
of embankment, or bottom of excavation (Soil Conservation Society of America).

Grazing unit: An area of public or private pasture, range, grazed woodland, or other land that is grazed as an entity.

Herbaceous: A vascular plant that does not develop woody tissue (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Herbicide: A chemical substance designed to kill or inhibit the growth of plants, especially weeds (Soil Conservation
Society of America, 1982).

Herding: The guiding of a livestock herd to desired areas or density of distribution.

Holding pond: A reservoir, pit, or pond, usually made of earth, used to retain polluted runoff water for disposal on
land (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Hybrid: A plant resulting from a cross between parents of different species, subspecies, or cultivar (Soil
Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Hydrophyte: A plant that grows in water or in wet or saturated soils (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Incineration: The controlled process by which solids, liquid, or gaseous combustible wastes are burned and changed
into gases; the residue produced contains little or no combustible material (Soil Conservation Society of America,
1982).

Inert: A substance that does not react with other substances under ordinary conditions.

Infiltration: The penetration of water through the ground surface into subsurface soil or the penetration of water
from the soil into sewer or other pipes through defective joints, connections, or manhole walls (USEPA, 1989a).

Insecticide: A pesticide compound specifically used to kill or control the growth of insects (USEPA, 1989a).

Integrated Pest Management (IPM): A pest population management system that anticipates and prevents pests from
reaching damaging levels by using all suitable tactics including natural enemies, pest-resistant plants, cultural

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-109

1/1 Glossary Chapter 2

management, and the judicious use of pesticides, leading to an economically sound and environmentally safe,
agriculture.

Irrigation: Application of water to lands for agricultural purposes (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Irrigation scheduling: The time and amount of irrigation water to be applied to an area.

Karst: A type of topography characterized by closed depressions, sinkholes, underground caverns, and solution
channels. See sinkhole (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Lagoon: A reservoir or pond built to contain water and animal wastes until they can be decomposed either by
aerobic or anaerobic action (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Lateral: Secondary or side channel, ditch, or conduit (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Layer. Bird that is used to produce eggs for broilers, new layers, or consumption.

Leachate: Liquids that have percolated through a soil and that contain substancesin solution or suspension (Soil
Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Leaching: The removal from the soil in solution of the more soluble materials by percolating waters (Soil--
Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Legume: A member of a large family that includes many valuable food and forage species,. such as peas., beansi
peanuts, clovers, alfalfas, sweet clovers, lespedezas, vetches, and kudzu (Soil Conservation Society of America,
1982).

Levee: See dike.

Limiting nutrient concept: The application of nutrient sources such that no nutrient (e.g., N, P, K) is applied at
greater than the recommended rate.

Livestock: Domestic animals.

Load: The quantity (i.e., mass) of a material that enters a waterbody over a given time interval (soil Conservation
Society of America, 1982).

Manure: The fecal and urinary defecations of livestock and poultry; may include spilled feed, bedding litter, or soil
(Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Micronutrient: A chemical element necessary in only extremely small amounts (less than I part per million) for the
growth of plants (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

NOAA: United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Nutrients: Elements, or compounds, essential as raw materials for organism growth and development,, such as
carbon, nitrogen, phospholds, etc. (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982). %

Parasites: An organism that lives on or in'a host organism during all or part of its existence. ,Nourishment is
obtained at the expense of the host (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).,

2-110 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 2 /A Glossaty

Pasture: Grazing lands planted primarily to introduced or domesticated native forage species that receives periodic
renovation and/or cultural treatments such as tillage, fertilization, mowing, weed control, and irrigation. Not in
rotation with crops.

Percolation: The downward movement of water through the soil (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Perennial plant: A plant that has a life span of 3 or more years (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Permanent witting point: The soil water content at which healthy plants can no longer extract water from the soil
at a rate fast enough to recover from wilting. The permanent wilting point is considered the lower limit of plant-
available water (Evans et al., 1991c).

Permeability: The quality of a soil horizon that enables water or air to move through it; may be limited by the
presence of one nearly impermeable horizon even though the others are permeable (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Pesticide: Any chemical agent used for control of plant or animal pests. Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, nematocides, and rodenticides.

Pheromone: A substance secreted by an insect or an animal that influences the behavior or morphological
development, or both, of other insects or animals of the same species (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Plant-available water. The amount of water held in the soil that is available to plants; the difference between field
capacity and the permanent wilting point (Evans et al,., 1991c).

Pollutant: Dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water (Section 502(6) of The Clean Water Act as
amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4).

Range: Land on which the native vegetation (climax or natural potential) is predominantly grasses, grass-like plants,
forbs, or shrubs. Includes lands revegetated naturally or artificially when routine management of that vegetation is
accomplished mainly through manipulation of grazing. Range includes natural grasslands, savannas, shrublands, most
deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, wet meadows, and riparian areas.

Reduced-till: A system in which the primary tillage operation is performed in conjunction with special planting
procedures to reduce or eliminate secondary tillage operations (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Residue: See crop residue.
Resource Management System (RMS): A combination of conservation practices and management identified by land
or water uses that, when installed, will prevent resource degradation and permit sustained use by meeting criteria
established in the FOTG for treatment of soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources (Part 506, Glossary, SCS
General Manual).

Return flow: That portion of the water diverted from a stream that finds its way back to the stream channel either
as surface or underground flow (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-111

/A Glossary Chapter 2

Root zone: The part of the soil that is, or can be, penetrated by plant roots (Soil Conservation Society of America,
1982). 40

Runoff. That part of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface
water. It can carry pollutants from the air and land into the receiving waters (USEPA, 1989a).

Salinity: The concentration of dissolved solids or salt in water (Soil Conservation Society of America, 198' 2).

Savannas: A grassland with scattered trees, either as individuals or clumps; often a transitional type between true
grasslands and woodland.

SCS: Soil Conservation Service of USDA.

SCS Soils-5 Infonnation: SCS Soil Interpretation Records data base, which contains a wide variety of soil
characteristics and interprbtations. Available through the Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Sediment: The product of erosion processes; the solid material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension, is
being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by air, water, gravity, or ice (USDA-SCS, 1991.).

Sedimentation: The process or act of depositing sediment (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Seepage: Water escaping through or emerging from the ground along an extensive line or surface as contrasted with
a spring, where the water emerges from a localized spot (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Settleable solids: Solids in,a liquid that can be removed by stilling a liquid. Settling times of I hour
(APHA/AWWA/WPFC, 1975) or more are generally used (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Sheetflow:, Water, usua Ily storm runoff, flowing in a thin layer over the ground surface (Soil Conservation Society
of America, 1982).

Silage: A fodder crop- that has been preserved in a moist, succulent condition by partial fermentation; such crops
include corn, sorghums, legumes, and grasses (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Sinkhole: A depression in the earth's surface caused by dissolving of underlying limestone, salt, or gypsum; drainage
is through underground channels; may be enlarged by collapse of a cavern roof (Soil Conservation Society of
America, 1982).

Slope: The degree of deviation of a surface from horizontal, measured as a percentage, as a numerical ratio, or in
degrees (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Sludge: The material resulting from chemical treatment of water, coagulation, or sedimentation (Soil Conservation
Society of America, 1982).

Soil profile: A vertical section of the soil from the surface through all its horizons, including C horizons (Soil
Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Soil survey: A general term for the systematic examination of soils in the field and in laboratories; their description
and classification; the mapping of kinds of soil; the interpretation of soils according to their adaptability for various
crops, grasses, and trees; their behavior under use or treatment for plant production or for other purposes; and their
productivity under different management systems (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Soil water depletion volume: The amount of plant-available water removed from the soil by plants and evaporation
from the soil surface (Evans et al., 1991c).

2-112 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993

Chapter 2 /it Glossary

Surface water: All water whose surface is exposed to the atmosphere (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Suspended sediment: The very fine soil particles that remain in suspension in water for a considerable period of time
(Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Tailwater: Irrigation water that reaches the lower end of a field (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Tillage: The operation of implements through the soil to prepare seedbeds and rootbeds, control weeds and brush,
aerate the soil, and cause faster breakdown of organic matter and minerais to release plant foods (Soil Conservation
Society of America, 1982).

Tilth: The physical condition of the soil as related to its ease of tillage, its fitness as a seedbed, and its impedance
to seedling emergence and root penetration (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

Topography: The relative positions and elevations of the natural or man-made features of an area that describe the
configuration of its surface (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.

Waste: Material that has no original value or no value for the ordinary or main purpose of manufacture or use;
damaged or defective articles of manufacture; or superfluous or rejected matter or refuse (Soil Conservation Society
of America, 1982).

Watershed: A drainage area or basin in which all land and water areas drain or flow toward a central collector such
as a stream, river, or lake at a lower elevation.

Water table: The upper surface of the ground water or that level below which the soil is saturated with water; locus
of points in soil water at which the hydraulic pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure (Soil Conservation Society
of America, 1982).

Weir: Device for measuring or regulating the flow of water (Soil Conservation Society of America, 1982).

EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993 2-113

IV. References Chapter 2

IV. REFERENCES

Adam, Real, et al. 1986. Evaluation of Beef Feedlot Runoff Treatment by a Vegetative Filter Strip. ASAE North
Atlantic Regional Meeting. Paper No. NAR 86-208.
1

USDA. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices: Special ACP Water Quality Project, Sand Mountaim'Lake
Guntersville. In USDA Technical Guide, Section V. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Alabama Soil Conservation
Service.

APHA, AWWA, and WPCF. 1975. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington,
DC, pp. 95-96.

ASAE, 1989. Standards, Engineering Practices and Data Developed and Adopted by the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers. Standard EP409. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.

USDA, ASCS/SCS, Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, and Oregon State University, 1991. Tillamook Bay
Rural Clean Water Project, 10-year Progress Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture; Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service, and Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Baker, J.L. 1988. Potential Water Quality and Production Efficiency Benefits from Reduced Herbicide Inputs through
Banding. In Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Program: 1988 progress report. Iowa State University,
Ames.

Barbarika, A. Jr. 1987. Costs of Soil Conservation Practices. In Optimum Erosion Control at Least Cost: Proceedings
of the National Symposium on Conservation Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers St. Joseph, MI,
pp. 187-195.

Berry, J.T., and N. Hargett. 1984. Fertilizer Summary Data. Tennessee Valley Authority, National Fertilizer
Development Center, Mussel Shoals, AL.

Bouldin, D., W. Reid, and D. Lathwell. 1971. Fertilizer Practices Which Minimize Nutrient Loss. In Proceedings
of Cornell University Conference on Agricultural Waste ManagementAgricultural Wastes: Principles and Guidelines
for Practical Solutions, Syracuse, NY.

Boyle Engineering Corp. 1986. Evaluation of On-Farm Management Alternatives. Prepared for the San Joaquin
Valley Drainage Program, Sacramento, CA.

Brakensiek, D.L., H.B. Osborn, and W.J. Rawls. 1979. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology.
Agriculture Handbook No. 224. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Beltsville,
MD.

California SWRCB 1987. Regulation of Agricultural Drainage to the San Joaquin River: Executive Summary.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Doc. No. WQ-85-1.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 1991. Demonstration of Emerging Technologies. California State
Water Resources Control Board. Doc. No. 91-20-WQ.

Camacho, R. 1991. Financial Cost Effectiveness of Point and Nonpoint Source Nutrient Reduction Technologies in
the Chesapeake Bay Basin. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, Maryland. Unpublished
draft.

2-114 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 IV. References

Cumberland County (Maine) Soil and Water Conservation District. undated. Innovative Livestock Watering System
and Improving Pasture Profits.

Dickey, E.C. 1981. Performance and Design of Vegetative Filters for Feedlot Runoff Treatment. In Proceedings of
the Fourth International Symposium on Livestock Wastes, Livestock Waste: A Renewable Resource.

DPRA. 1986. An Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural Best Management Practices and Publicly
Owned Treatment Works is Controlling Phosphorus Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. Prepared by DPRA Inc. for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

DPRA. 1989. Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural Best Management Practices and Publicly Owned
Treatment Works in Controlling Phosphorus Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin. Prepared by DPRA Inc. for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under contract no. 68-01-7947, Manhattan, KS.

DPRA. 1992. Draft Economic Impact Analysis of Coastal Zone Management Measures Affecting Confined Animal
Facilities. Prepared by DPRA Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract no. 68-C99-0009,
Manhattan, KS.

Eckert, R.E., and J.S. Spencer. 1987. Growth and Reproduction of Grasses Heavily Grazed under Rest-Rotation
Management. Journal of Range Management, 40(2):156-159.

Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, R.K. White, and N.R. Fausey. 1986. Managing Feedlot Runoff with a Settling Basin
Plus Tiled Infiltration Bed. Transactions of the ASAE, 29(l):243-247.

Edwards, W.M., L.B. Owens, and R.K. White. 1983. Managing Runoff from a Small, Paved Beef Feedlot. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 1212).

Evans, R.O. 1992. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC, personal communication.

Evans, R.O., D.K. Cassel, and R.E. Sneed. 1991a. Calibrating Soil-Water Measuring Devices. North Csarolina
Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. AG-452-3.

Evans, R.O., D.K. Cassel, and R.E. Sneed. 1991b. Measuring Soil Waterfor Irrigation Scheduling: Monitoring
Methods and Devices. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. AG-452-2.

Evans, R.O., D.K. Cassel, and R.E. Sneed. 1991c. Soil, Water and Crop Characteristics Important to Irrigation
Scheduling. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. AG-452-1.

Evans, R.O., R.E. Sneed, and D.K. Cassel. 1991d. Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water- and Energy-Use
Efficiencies. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Raleigh, NC. AG-452-4.

Fresno Field Office and River Basin Planning Staff. 1979. Comparison of Alternative Management Practices, Molar
Flats Pilot Study Area, Fresno County, California, Mini-Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Davis, CA.

Goodman, J. 1992. South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Pierre, SD, personal
communication.

Hallberg, G.R., et at. 1991. A Progress Review of Iowa's Agricultural-Energy-EnvironmentaI Initiatives: Nitrogen
Management in Iowa, Technical Information Series 22, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Iowa City, IA.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-115

IV. References Chapter 2

Heimlich, R.E., and N.L. Bills. 1984. An improved soil erosion classification for conservation policy. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 39(4):261-267.

Hermsmeyer, B. 199 Ia. Nebraska Long Pine Creek Rural Clean Water Program 10-year Report 1981-1991. Brown
County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Ainsworth, NE.

Hermsmeyer, B. 1991b. Pre-publication Charts for the Long Pine RCWP 10-year Report. Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, Ainsworth, NE.

Hubert, W.A., R.P. Lanka, T.A. Wesch, and F. Stabler. 1985. Grazing Management Influences on Two Brook Trout
Streams in Wyorning. In Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses. U.S.Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-
120, pp.290-294.

Iowa State University. 199 Ia. Ag Programs Bring Economic, Environmental Benefits. In Extension News. Extension
Communications, Ames, IA.

Iowa State University. 1991b. Nitrogen Use in Iowa. Prepared for the nitrogen use press conference Dec. 5, 1991,
University Extension, Ames, IA.

Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983. Effects of Late Season Cattle Grazing on Riparian Plant
Communities. Journal of Range Management, 36(6):685-691.

Killorn, R. 1990. Trends in Soil Test P and K in Iowa, Paper Presented at the 20th North Central Extension-Industry
Soil Fertility Workshop, 14-15 November, Bridgeton, MO.

Logan, T.J. 1990. Agricultural Best Management Practices and Groundwater Protection. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation. 45(2):201-206.

Lowrance, R.R., S. McIntyre, and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and Deposition in a Field/Forest System Estimated Using
Cesium- 137 Activity, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2):195-199.

Lugbill, J. 1990. Potomac River Basin Nutrient Inventory. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC.

Magdoff, F.R., D. Ross, and J. Amadon. 1984. A Soil Test for Nitrogen Availability to Corn. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 48:1301-1304.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1990. Nutrient Management Program. Maryland Department of Agriculture,
Annapolis, MD.

McDougald, N.K., W.E. Frost, and D.E. Jones. 1989. Use of Supplemental Feeding Locations to Manage Cattle Use
on Riparian Areas of Hardwood Rangelands. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. General Technical
Report PSW- I 10, pp 124-126.

Mielke, L.N., and J.R.C. Leavitt. 198 1. Herbicide Loss in Runoff Water and Sediment as Affected by Center Pivot
Irrigation and Tillage Treatments. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology. Report
A-062-NEB.

Miner, J.R., J.C. Buckhouse, and J.A. Moore. 1991. Evaluation of Off-Stream Water Source to Reduce Impact of
Winter Fed Range Cattleon Stream Water Quality. In Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Unfinished Agenda for the
Protection of Our Water Quality, 20-21 March, 199 1, Tacoma, WA. Washington Water Research Center, Report 78,
pp. 65-75.

2-116 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanuaAy 1993

Chapter 2 IV. References

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

NRDC. 1991. Harvest of Hope: The PotentialforAlternative Agriculture to Reduce Pesticide Use. Natural Resources
Defense Council, New York.

Nelson, D. 1985. Minimizing Nitrogen Losses in Non-irrigated Eastern Areas. In Proceedings of the Plant Nutrient
Use and the Environment Symposium, Plant Nutrient Use and the Environment, 21-23 October, 1985, Kansas City,
MO, pp. 173-209. The Fertilizer Institute.

North Carolina State University. 1984. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control: IV.
Pesticides. North Carolina State University, National Water Quality Evaluation Project, Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. 1982. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Control III: Sediment. In cooperation with USEPA and USDA. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Northup, B.K., D.T. Goerend, D.M Hays, and R.A. Nicholson. 1989. Low Volume Spring Developments.
Rangelands, 11(l):39-41.

Novais, R., and E.J, Karnprath. 1978. Phosphorus Supplying Capacities of Previously Heavily Fertilized Soils. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 42:931-935.

Owens, L.B., R.W. Van Keuren, and W.M. Edwards. 1982. Environmental Effects of a Medium-Fertility 12-Month
Pasture Program: 11. Nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Quality, 11(2):241-246.

Pennsylvania State University. 1992a. Nonpoint Source Database. Pennsylvania State University, Dept. of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University Park, PA. (see Appendix 2-B for list of references.)

Pennsylvania State University. 1992b. College of Ariculture, Merkle Laboratory - Soil & Forage Testing, University
Park, PA.

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing Fisheries and Wildlife on Rangelands Grazed by Livestock, A Guidance and Reference
Document for Biologists. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV.

Platts, W.S., and R.L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of Riparian Plant Communities and Streambanks with Respect
to Grazing in Northeastern Utah. In Practical Approaches to Riparian Resource Management - An Educational
Workshop, ed. R.E. Gressell, B.A. Barton, and J.L. Kershner, pp.73-81. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management.

Reed, A.D., J.L. Meyer, F.K. Aljibury, and A.W. Marsh. 1980. Irrigation Costs. University of California, Division
of Agricultural Sciences, Lqaflet 2875 (as reported by Boyle Engineering Corp., 1986).

Robillard, P.D., and M.F. Walter. 1986. Nonpoint Source Control of Phosphorus - A Watershed Evaluation. Vol. 2.
Development of Manure Spreading Schedules to Decrease Delivery of Phosphorus to Surface Waters. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. Internal report.,

Russell, J.R., and L. A. Christensen. 1984. Use and Cost of Soil ConserIvation and Water Quality Practices in the
Southeast. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.

Sanders, J.H., D. Valentine, E. Schaeffer, D. Greene, and J. McCoy. 1991. Double Pipe Creek RCWP: Ten Year
Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland
Department of the Environment, and Carroll County Soil Conservation District.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-117

IV. References Chapter 2

Schwab, G.O., R.K. Frevert, T.W. Edminster and K.K. Barnes. 1981. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.
3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Sims, J.T. 1992. Environmental management of phosphorus in agricultural and municipal wastes. In Future
Directions for Agricultural Pollution Research, ed. F.J. Sikora. Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, AL.
Bulletin Y-224.

Smolen, M.D., and F.J. Hurnenik. 1989. National Water Quality Evaluation Project 1988 Annual Report: Status of
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department ofAgriculture,
Washington, DC. EPA-50619-89/002.

Sneed, R. 1992. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University,'Raleigh, NC,
personal communication.

Soil Conservation Society of America. 1982. Resource Conservation Glossary, 3rd ed.

Stolzenburg, B. 1992. University of Nebraska, Cherry County Cooperative Extension Service, Valentine, NE, lX-rsonal
communication.

Sutton, A.L. 1990. Animal Agriculture's Effect on Water Quality: Pastures & Feedlots. Purdue University
Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, IN. Doc. No. WQ7.

Tiedemann, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigley, H.R. Sanderson, and C.C. Bohn. 1988. Bacterial Water Quality
Responses to Four Grazing Strategies - Comparison with Oregon Standards.

USDA. 1991. An Interagency Report: Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program Final Report 1981-1991.
U.S.Department of Agriculture, Twin Falls, ID.

USDA. 1992. Educational, Technical, and Financial Assistance for Water Quality, Report of Fiscal Year 1991
Operations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Extension Service,
and Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC.

USDA-ARS. 1987. User Requirements. USDA-Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP). Draft 63. U.S.
Deptartment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD.

USDA-ASCS. 1988. Moapa Valley, Colorado River Salinity Control Program, Project Implementation Plan (PIP).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDA-ASCS. 1990. Agricultural Conservation Program - 1989 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDA-ASCS. 1991a. Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Project 20 Rural Clean Water Program Ten Year Repon'. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Brookings, SD.

USDA-ASCS. 1991b. Agricultural Conservation Program - 1990 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDA-ASCS. 1992a. Conestoga Headwaters Project Pennsylvania Rural Clean Water Program 10-Year iRepor,
1981-1991. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Harrisburg, PA.

USDA-ASCS. 1992b. Agricultural Conservation Program - 1991 Fiscal Year Statistical Summary. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Washington, DC. - 0

2-118 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 2 IV. References

USDA-ERS. 1991. Agricultural Outlook, AO-183, March 1991. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Washington, DC.

USDA-SCS. 1983. Water Quality Field Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC. SCS-TP-160.

USDA-SCS. 1984. Engineering Field Manual. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC.

USDA-SCS. 1988.1-4 Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Quantity and Quality. In Water Quali4 'Workshop,
Integrating Water Quality and Quantity into Conservation Planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDA-SCS, Michigan. 1988. Flat Rate Schedule - Costs of Conservation Practices. In Technical Guide Section
V-A-3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, MI.

USDA-SCS. 1991. Water Quality Field Guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC. SCS-TP-160.

USEPA. 1981. ANSWERS - Users Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program
Office, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/9-82-001.

USEPA. 1982. Planning Guide for Evaluating Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Quality Controls. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
GA. EPA-600/3-82-021.

USEPA. 1989a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards;
Proposed Rule. 40 CFR Parts 141, 142, and 143.

USEPA. 1989b. Glossary of Environmental Terms AndAcronym List. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Communications and Public Policy. Washington, DC. 19K-1002.

USEPA. 1989c. Cross-Connection Control Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991 a. 1990 Annual Progress Report for the Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA. 1991b. Pesticides and Groundwater Strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992. Preliminary Economic Achievability Analysis: Agricultural Management Measures. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington, DC.

University of California Committee of Consultants on Drainage Water Reduction. 1988. Associated Costs of Drainage
Water Reduction.

University of Maryland. 1990. Example Nutrient Management Plan. University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension
Service, University Park, MD.

Van Poollen, H.W., and LR, Lace,. 1919, Herbage Response to Grazing Systems and Stocking Intensities, Journal
of Range Management, 32(4):250-253.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 2-119

IV. References Chapter 2

Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Tech Virginia State, and U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Extension Service. 1987. The National Evaluation of Extension's Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs.
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Tech, Virginia State University, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 491-010.

Wall, D. B., S.A. McGuire, and J.A. Magner. 1989. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment in the Garvin Brook
Rural Clean Water Project Area. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.

Westerman, P.W., L.M. Safley, J.C. Barker, and G.M. Chescheir. 1985. Available Nutrients in Livestock Waste. In
Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes, Agricultural Waste Utilization and
Management, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml, pp. 295-307.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. 1989. Nutrient and Pesticid? Best
Management Practices for Wisconsin Farms. Prepared by University of Wisconsin-Extension and Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Workman, J.P., and J.F. Hooper. 1968. Preliminary Economic Evaluation of Cattle Distribution Practices on
Mountain Rangelands. Journal of Range Management, 21(3):301-304.

2-120 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Appendix 2A

SCS Field Office Technical Guide Policy
is

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993 2-121

4
zo=;,@ United States soil P.O. Box 2890
,UW-1 Department of Conservation Washington, D.C.
MV, Agriculture Service 20013
Q,

February 12, 1990

GENERAL MANUAL
450-TCH
AMENDMENT - 4 (PART 401)

SUBJECT: TCH - SCS TECHNICAL GUIDE POLICY

Purpose. To transmit revised Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
F-ie-IT--office Technical Guide (FOTG) policy.
Effective Date. This policy is effective when received.
Background. SCS Field Office Technical Guide policy was revised
By- 450-GM, Amendment 3, February 1987. As a result of numerous
comments received on that policy, the National Technical Guide
Committee (NTGC) prepared a draft revision for review by selected
states and by.technical guide committees at the National
Technical Centers. Amendment 4 is the result of comments on the
draft.

Explanation. Policy transmitted by this amendment contains
guidance by which FOTG are established, changed and maintained.
Following are the more important changes from Amendment 3:

1. State and NTC responsibilities in Section 401.01 for
maintaining up-to-date information in technical guides have been
amplified.
2. The descriptions of the six resource concerns in Section
401.03(b)(3)(iii) have been replaced with descriptions of the
five resources: soil, water, air, plants, and animals.

3. Criteria for treatment required to achieve an RMS for each of
the five resources have been clearly stated in Section
4 01. 0 3 (b) (iv) .
4. The process for developing criteria for treatment required to
achieve an Acceptable Management System (AMS), a new concept, has
been stated in section 401.03(b)(3)(v).
5. Explanation of the content of the National Handbook for
Conservation Practices (NHCP) in Subpart B has been revised to
remove redundant statements and clearly states resp?nsibilities
for changes in NHCP and for issuance and review of interim
standards.

6. Section V of the FOTG, described in section 401.03(b)(5), has
been totally revised and is now named "Conservation Effects."
Guidance on effects is provided to aid in conservation planning
activities.

DIST: GM

The Soil Conservation service WO-AS-1
is an agency of the 10-79
Department of Agriculture

Filing Instructions:

1. Remove and discard existing GM 450, Part 401, dated
February 1987. (Amendment 3)
2. Replace with the enclosed GM 450, Part 401, dated
January 1990.

Directives Cancelled:

1. Remove and discard National Instruction No. 450-301,
dated October 5, 1979.

WILSON SCALING
Chief

Enclosures

PART 401 - TECHNICAL GUIDES

SUBPART A - POLICY AND RESPONSIBILITIES

401-00(d)(5)

401.00 General.

(a) This part states policy for establishing, changing, and maintaining technical guides.
It also establishes supporting committees for maintaining those guides.

(b) The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is responsible for providing national leader-
ship and administration of programs to conserve soil, water, and related resources on the
private lands of the Nation. A primary goal is to provide technical assistance to decision-
makers for the planning and implementation of a system of conservation practices and man-
agement which achieves a level of natural resource protection that prevents degradation and
permits sustainable use. In cases where degradation has already occurred, the goal is to re-
store the resource to the degree practical to permit sustainable use. Technical guides provide
procedures and criteria for the formulation and evaluation of resource management systems
which achieve these goals and, when needed, for the formulation and evaluation of acceptable
management systems which achieve these goals to the extent feasible.

(c) Technical guides are primary technical references for SCS. They contain technical
information about conservation of soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources.
Technical guides used in any office are to be localized so that they apply specifically to the
geographic area for which they are prepared. These documents are referred to as Field Office
Technical Guides (FOTGs). Appropriate parts of FOTG will be systematically automated as
data bases, computer programs, and other electronic-based materials compatible with the
Computer Assisted Management and Planning System (CAMPS) are developed.

(d) Technical guides provide:

(1) Soil interpretations and potential productivity within alternative levels of man-
agement intensity and conservation treatment;

(2) Technical information for achieving SCS's and the decisionmaker's objectives;

(3) Information for interdisciplinary planning for the conservation of soil, water, and
related resources;

(4) A basis for identifying resource management system (RMS) options and, when
needed, acceptable management system (AMS) options and components thereof;

(5) Information on effects of resource management systems, acceptable management
(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401-

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.00(d)(6)

systems, and their component practices;

(6) Criteria to evaluate the quality of RMS options, AMS options, and components,
thereof;

(7) Standards and specifications for conservation practices;

(8) Information for evaluating the economic feasibility of conservation practices and
resource management system options;

(9) Information for locating and identifying cultural resources and methods toac-
count for their significance; and

(10) Technical material for training employees.

401.01 Responsibilities.

(a) National Headquarters (NHQ).

(1) The Deputy Chief for Technology has national leadership for policy and proce-
dures for developing and using the FOTG.

(2) The Director, Ecological Sciences Division (ECS), chairs the National Technical
Guide Committee (NTGC).

(3) The NTGC makes recommendations to the Deputy Chief for Technology regard-
ing technical guide policy and procedure.

(b) National Technical Centers (NTCs).

(1) NTC directors are responsible for establishing a Technical Guide Committee
(TGC) at each NTC.

(2) The TGC provides guidance to states in developing FOTGs.

(3) NTC directors establish procedures to coordinate NTC technical review and
concurrence of state developed material that affect either policy or technical aspects
in all sections of the FOTG-

(4) The TGC coordinates NTC technical review and concurrence of state developed
material as described in (3). The NTC director will inform the state conservationist
(STC) of NTC action and comments.

(5) The TGC refers proposed changes in the National Handbook of Conservati.on
Practices (NHCP) to NTGC for action.

401-2 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.01(d)(1)(i)

(6) NTC provide states with examples of guidance documents for RMS and AMS
options, displays of conservation effects, and guidance documents developed to meet
specific program requirements. NTC has primary technical oversight.

(7) NTC directors are responsible for coordination and consistency among NTC
regions.

(1) The state conservationist (STC) is responsible for the development, quality,
coordination, use, and maintenance of FOTG in his/her state.

(2) The STC will:

(i) Coordinate FOTG contents across state lines where Major Land Resource
Areas are shared to achieve reasonable uniformity between and among states-,

(ii) Request appropriate assistance from the NTC director to prepare, revise, and
maintain the FOTG and to correlate FOTG contents with adjoining states;

(iii) Submit to the NTC for review and concurrence all state developed materials
that affect either policy or technical aspects in all FOTG sections prior to issu-
ance;

(iv) Propose interim standards, variances, or changes in national standards to the
NTC director for action;

(v) Establish a state TGC and appoint membership;

(vi) Establish criteria for RMS and AMS with concurrence by the NTC; and

(vii) Establish procedures for maintaining up-to-date data in FOTG. All FOTG
material is to be reviewed by the designated state discipline specialist at least once
every two years. Material is to be updated as necessary to maintain technical
adequacy. Each technical guide subsection described in section 401.03(b) is to
contain a table of contents showing the issue date and the date of the last review.

(d) Area offlices.

(1) The area conservationist (AC) will:

(i) Coordinate the development, use, and maintenance of FOTG in the field
offices supervised;
(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 3

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.01(d)(1)(ii)
(ii) Work with the specialists in the state offices to achieve high-quality FOTG;
and

(iii) Establish an area-level TGC if necessary.

(e) Field offices.

(1) District conservationists (DC) will:

(i) Take the lead to develop and assemble the FOTG;

(ii) Use and maintain the FOTG in the oftice(s) they supervise;

(iii) Ensure that all field office technical assistance is based on FOTG contents;
(iv) Identify needed changes and/or additions; and

(v) Request specialist help to make improvements.

(2) All field office employees are responsible for identifying the need for improve-
ments and for informing the DC of those needs.

401.02 National Technical Guide Committee (NTGC).

(a) Membership. The members of the NTGC are:

(1) Director, Ecological Sciences Division (chairperson);
(2) Director, Engineering Division;
(3) Director, Economics and Social Sciences Division;
(4) Director, Soil Survey Division;
(5) Director, Land Treatment Program Division;
(6) Director, Conservation Planning Division;
(7) Director, Watershed Projects Division;
(8) Director, Basin and Area Planning Division;
(9) Director of an NTC (on a I -year rotation);
(10) Executive Secretary (appointed by the chairperson); and
(11) Chair of National Conservation Practice Standards Subcommittee (NCPSS)
(appoint6d by the NTGC chairperson).
(12) A representative from the Extension Service will be invited to participate in
all NTGC meetings.

(b) Responsibilities.

(1) Keep national FOTG policy and procedures current by recommending policy
changes to the Deputy Chief for Technology.
401-4 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(1)(i)
(2) Respond to requests for FOTG policy and procedure clarification.
(3) Designate members of the National Conservation Practice Standards Subcom-
mittee.
(4) Act upon recommendations from NCPSS.
(5) Coordinate policy and procedures established to automate FOTG contents and
functions in SCS operations.
(6) Create ad hoc subcommittees as necessary.
(7) Receive and act upon requests, recommendations, referrals, and suggestions
from the NTC TGC.

(1) NTGC wW meet quarterly and otherwise as convened by the chairperson.
(2) Materials for consideration by the NTGC will be sent to the chairperson.
(3) Minutes of each meeting will be sent to each member, the Deputy Chiefs for
Technology and Programs, and NTC directors.
(4) Matters requiring action will be acted upon within 45 days of receipt.

401.03 Content of technical guides.

(a) Technical guides contain Sections I through V and appropriate subsections. Those
sections are:

(1) Section I - General Resource References;

(2) Section 11 - Soil and Site Information;

(3) Section III - Conservation Management Systems;

(4) Section IV - Practice Standards and Specifications; and

(5) Section V - Conservation Effects.

(b) The following are descriptions of technical guide sections and subsections:

(1) Section I - General Resource References.

This section lists references and other information for use in understanding the field office working
area or in making decisions about resource use and management systems. 'Me actual references
listed are to be filed to the extent possible in the same location as the FOTG. References kept in
other locations will be cross-referenced. The following are subsections of Section I of the FOTG.

W Reference lists. These include handbooks, manuals, and reports commonly used in
0 resource conservation planning and implementation activities such as irrigation and drain-
age guides; the National List of Scientific Plant Names (NLSPN); the National Register of

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 5

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(1)(i)

Historic Places; published soil surveys; basic water resources information on ground, water
quality, surface water quality, and water quantity; recreation potential appraisals; nararal
resource inventories; reports that identify such items as areas susceptible to flooding; river
basin reports; seismic zones; and documentation of useful computer models.

(ii) Cost data. General reference data on costs, such as cost lists for practice components.

(iii) Maps. Ile SCS National Planning Manual (NPM), Part 507, Exhibits 507.09, con-
tains a list of resource maps that should be included. Water quality problem areas ud
areas with a potential water quality problem are to be included here.

OV) Erosion prediction. Guidance, data, and SCS approved techniques for predicting soil
erosion are to be included here, or appropriately referenced.

(v) Climatic data.. This subsection contains local climatic data needed for planning
conservation management systems and installing conservation practices, such as record low
and high temperatures; averages for such items as rainfall, length of growing season,
temperatures, wind velocities, hail incidence, and snowfall; water supply data; probability
of receiving selected amounts of precipitation by months; and frost-free periods. Refer-
ences should be made to other climatic data in other field office documents.

(vi) Cultural (archaeological and historic) resource information. This subsection
contains general locational data and documentation suitable for inventory, checking @md
recording, and conservation planning. The law states that specific locational information,
such as site maps, is not to be available to the general public; therefore they should only be
referenced in this subsection.

(vii) Threatened and endangered species list. This subsection contains information on
species of plants and animals that are threatened and endangered and are to be accounted
for in conservation planning.

(viii) Laws. List of state and local laws, ordinances, or regulations that impact Conserva-
tion Management System development and other technical applications such as conserva-
tion practice appfication.

(2) Section 11 - Soil and Site Information.

Information from the State Soil Survey Database (3SD) will be used as the basis of this section.
The 3SD contains current information on soils and their basic interpretations as tailored from the
Soil Interpretations Records (SCS-SOI-5). Detailed interpretations of soils will be provided in
Section 11 by state and area specialists.

Interpretations are specific to the soils identified and mapped in the area. Map units to which the

401-6 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(2)(iii)(A)

interpretations apply are clearly identified by name, symbol(s), or both. New map unit names and
symbols resulting from reclassification of soils are cross-referenced to old names and symbols and
shown on a list.

Soils are to be described and interpreted to help make decisions about use and manage-
ment of land. Soil characteristics that limit or affect land use and management are to be identified,
and soils are to be rated according to limitations, capability, suitability, and/or potential.

This information may be available in published soil surveys or in the State Soil Survey Database
(M). A copy of the appropriate sections of soil surveys can be included in the applicable subsec-
tions, or reference can be,made to the source document maintained in the field office.

Ile following are subsections of Section II of the FOTG.

(i) Soils legend. This list includes the names of the soil map units and, for each unit, the identifica-
tion of interpretive groups (if any) of importance in the field office. For map units having two or
more soils in their name, interpretive groups are identified for each soil. Where appropriate, the
map unit is placed in a group that generally controls the use and management of the area.

If soil surveys of more than one vintage are used, the symbols used in each are to be identified
along with appropriate interpretive groups. For remapped areas, only the legend for the most recent
mapping is to be used.

(ii) Soil descriptions.

(A) Nontechnical soil descriptions for use with individuals, groups, and units of government
are included. Brief references to major limitations e.g., erosion or wetness, and soil potential
are a part of each description. Basic information needed to develop these descriptions is in
the soil map unit descriptions and in the State Soil Survey Database (M).

(B) Technical descriptions of each soil series and of each soil map unit are provided in this
section or available in the field office. If such descriptions are maintained as separate mate-
rial, the source document should be listed here as a reference.

(iii) Detailed soil interpretations. These will be supplied by appropriate technical specialists for
all land uses in the field office area. Examples follow:

(A) Cropland interpretations. These include soil interpretive information needed for plant
adaptations, yield estimates, and the lists of soil map units that meet the soil requirements for
prime farmland and highly erodible land. Interpretations are presented by land capability
units, erodibility index, and soil map uni *ts in narrative or tabular form as appropriate. Where
land capability unit or erodibility index is used, a list of all soil map units in each capability
unit or erodibility index is included.

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 7

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(2)(iii)(B)

(B) Rangeland, grazed forest land, and native pasture interpretations. The requir&I
content of range and native pasture interpretive groupings is outlined in the National Range
Handbook. All soils used as rangeland are to be placed in appropriate range sites. Range site
descriptions and condition guides for rangeland are included. Grazed forest land and nadve
pasture groupings include references to individual soils, grazing groups, or woodland suJita-
bility groups. Interpretations may be presented by individual soil map units or by groups of
soil map units.

(C) Forest land interpretations. These are presented by individual soils or by woodland
suitability groups (WSG). These interpretations include the woodland class symbol that.
denotes potential productivity for the indicator species in wood per cubic meters per hectare.
Site index and annual productivity estimates in cubic feet per acre, board feet per acre, and/or
cords per acre may also be provided for important tree species. The subclass indicates the
primary soil or physiographic characteristic that contributes to important hazards or limita-
tions in management. Site index information is also provided for important tree species.

(D) Nonagricultural interpretations. Nonagricultural uses include commercial develop-
ment, subdivision development, industrial related development, roads and other transporta-
tion and transmission systems, and other land uses important to the area.

(E) Recreation interpretations. These include the ratings of soils for recreation uses.

(F) Wildlife interpretations. These are presented by wildlife habitat elements with descrip-
tions of each element.

(G) Pastureland and hayland interpretations. These are arranged by pastureland and,
hayland suitability groups, capability units, other groupings, or soil map units.

(H) Mined land interpretations. These include interpretations which dictate the limitittion
to reclamation, revegetation, and maintenance for the different types of mined land.

(1) Windbreak interpretations. These interpretations are made by individual soils or by
windbreak suitability groups (WISG). Interpretations provided by the WISG include the
soil-adapted species recommended, the predicted height growth in 20 years, and the soil.-
related limitations.

(J) Engineering interpretations. These include engineering properties, indices, and soil
interpretations for engineering uses and practices.
(K) Waste disposal interpretations. These are interpretations related to the suitability Df
soils for disposal of organic and inorganic wastes.

(L) Water quality and quantity interpretations. These are interpretations related to soil
properties affecting water quantity and quality problems and treatments. Included are soil-
pesticide interactive ratings and soil ratings for nitrates and soluble nutrients.

401-9 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(3)(iii)(A)[Ij

(M) Hydric soils interpretations. These are interpretations related to the identification and
use of wetlands.

(3) Section M - Conservation Management Systems.

The function of SCS is to provide technical assistance to decisionmakers to protect, maintain, and
improve soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources. This section provides guidance for
developing resource management systems (RMS) and acceptable management systems (AMS) for a
resource area to prevent or treat problems and take advantage of opportunities associated with these
resources. This section includes a description of considerations important in conservation planning
of soil, water, air, and related plant and animal resources.

(i) An RMS achieves the goal of preventing resource degradation and permitting sustainable
use as stated in 401.00 (b). An RMS is achieved if criteria for soil, water, air, and related plant and
animal resources are met as defined in Section 401.03(b)(3)(iv). This section describes either na-
ti.onal criteria or considerations that must be addressed in developing state criteria for achieving an
RMS that solve identified onsite and offsite resource problems using best available technology. The
concept and use of RMS is defined in the SCS National Planning Manual (NPM). RMS are not to be
confused with "conservation systems," as defined in 7 CFR Section 12.2 for treatment of highly
erodible land. A conservation system for Food Security Act purposes is an erosion reduction com-
ponent of an RMS for cropland.

(ii) SCS helps decisionmakers plan and apply conservation management systems to prevent
and/or solve identified onsite and offsite resource problems or conditions and to achieve the
decisionmaker's and public objectives. SCS identifies and documents decisionmaker's objectives,
consistent with land capability and sound environmental principles, as part of element 3 (Determin-
ing objectives) of the planning process (reference: National Planning Manual). SCS identifies and
documents resource problems or conditions as part of element 4 (Providing resource inventory data)
of the planning process. As part of element 6 (Developing and evaluating conservation alternatives),
information on conservation effects is used to provide suitable options for addressing the
decisionmaker's and public objectives.

(iii) The rive resources are soil, water, air, plants, and animals. Each resource has several
considerations important in conservation planning. Additional considerations in a specific state may
need to be added to account for wide variations in soils, climate, or topography. A description of the
main considerations for each resource follows:

(A) Soil. Considerations for the soil resource are erosion, condition, and deposition.

[11 Erosion. This consideration deals with one or more of the following types or
locations of erosion: sheet and rill, wind, concentrated flow (ephemeral gully and
0 classic gully), streambank, soil mass movement (land slips or slides), road bank,
construction site, and irrigation-induced. All of these forms of erosion that are idend
fied on the site to be planned need to be dealt with in developing treatment options.
(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 9

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(3)(iii)(A)[1]

[2] Condition. This consideration deals with the chemical and physical charactcris-
tics of soil-as related to its ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and ability to absorb,
store, and release water and nutrients for plants. Aspects of this consideration will
improve soil tilth, which reduces soil crusting and compacting; optimize water infil-
tration; optimize soil organic material; enhance beneficial soil organisms and biologi-
cal activity; reduce subsidence; and minimize effects of excess natural and applicd
chemicals and elements such as salt, selenium, boron, and heavy metals. This consid-
eration also deals with the proper and safe land application and utilization of animal
wastes, other organics, nutrients, and pesticides.

[3] Deposition. This consideration deals with onsite or offsite deposition of products
of erosion, which includes sediment causing damages to land, crops, and properry,
such as structures and machinery. This consideration also deals with safety hazards
and decreased long-term productivity.

(B) Water. Considerations for the water resource are quantity and quality.

[11 Quantity includes:
� proper disposal of water from overland flows or seeps, both natural and man-made;
� management of water accumulations on soil surfaces or in soil profiles and vadose
zones;
� optimization of irrigation and precipitation water use;
� dealing with other problems relating to irrigation - water mounding, water supply
and distribution, increasing or decreasing water tables;
� management of deep percolation, runoff, and evaporation;
� water storage;
� management of water for wetland protection; and
� sediment deposition in lakes, ponds, streams and reservoirs, and restricted water
conveyance capacity.

[21 Quality includes:
� reducing the effects of salinity and sodicity;
� minimizing deep percolation of contaminated water which will lead to unacceptable
levels of pollutants in the underlying ground water;
� maintaining acceptable water quality;
� minimizing offsite effects including ground water contamination by pesticides,
nutrients, salts, organics, metals and other inorganics, and pathogens; contamination
of surface water (streams and lakes) by sediment, pesticides, nutrients, salts, orgimics,
metals and other inorganics; pathogens; fecal coliform; and high temperature;
� reducing the quantity of sediment;
� improving the quality of sediment;
� ensuring that all waters will be free from substances attributable to man-caused.
nonpoint source discharges in concentrations that:
*settle to form objectionable deposits;
*float as debris, scum, oil or other matter to form nuisances;

401-10 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(A)

*produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
*injure, are toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavior
responses in humans, animals, or plants; or
*produce undesirable aquatic life or result in the dominance of nuisance
species.

(C) Air. 17his resource deals with onsite and offsite airborne effects of undesirable odors,
windblown particulates, chemical drift, temperature, and wind.

(D) Plants. T'he considerations for the plant resource are suitability, condition, and manage-
ment.

[11 Suitability includes:
� plant adaptation to site; and
� plant suitability for intended use.

[21 Condition includes:
� productivity, kinds, amounts, and distribution of plants; and
� health and vigor of plants.

[31 Management includes:
- establishment, growth, and harvest (including grazing) of plants;
* agricultural chemical management (pesticides and nutrients); and
- pest management (brush, weeds, insects, and diseases).

(E) Animals. This includes wild and domestic animals, both terrestrial and aquatic. Ile
considerations for the animal resource are habitat and management.

[11 Habitat includes:
� food;
� cover or shelter, and
,, water.

[21 Management includes:
� population and resource balance; and
� animal health.

(iv) Criteria for treatment required to achieve an RMS will be established by SCS. They are to
be stated in either qualitative or quantitative terms for each resource consideration. Where national
criteria have not been established, the state conservationist will establish criteria with concurrence by
the NTC. Where state and/or local regulations establish more restrictive criteria, these must be used
in developing criteria for state and local programs. For example, some state and/or local regulations
have established criteria for offsite control of water quality.

(A) Soil. Following are the criteria for this resource:
(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401-

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(A)[1]

[11 Erosion.

- Esdmated sheet and rill or wind erosion rates are reduced to the level that long term
soil degradation is prevented and a high level of crop productivity can be sustained
economically and indefinitely.

- Erosion from ephemeral or similar gullies is reduced to a level which permits
efficient farming operations and sustains long term productivity.

� Irrigation-induced erosion is reduced to a level that sustains long term productivity.

� Other forms of erosion, such as classic gullies, streambank, roadbank, and land-
slides, that are identified as needing treatment (and are within the ability of the deci-
sionmaker to treat), are reduced to the degree necessary to protect the resources or
threatened man-made improvements.

[2) Condition.

� Soil tilth is maintained or improved;

� Crop production practices return adequate residue within the rotation cycle;

� Soil compaction by machinery, livestock, or other traffic is n-Linimized:

� Water infiltration is opdrnized so as not to increase sheet and rill erosion;

� Wind forces and soil blowing are controlled below the crop tolerance level of young
seedlings;

0 Toxic chernicals affecting soil and plants are controlled to levels sufficient to pre-
vent soil degradation and are below the tolerance of adapted crops;

- Application and utilization of animal wastes and other organics are at a rate that the
soil, soil microbes and bacteria, and the plant community can assimilate, degrade, or
retain the various materials.

[3] Deposition.

- Where existing or potential onsite or offlite deposition problem(s) are identified, the
practices applied to the contributing land resolve the identified deposition probleim(s).

- State and/or local governments may establish criteria in response to identified
deposition problems. These criteria will be used to determine the'adequacy of an.
RMS with regard to offsite effects. This may require the establishment of more
401-12 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(B)[2]

restrictive criteria for one or more of the resources to alleviate the problem. Local
public perception of an acceptable level could be used where no standards have been
established.

- When disposal of.animal wastes and other organics is needed, it shall be done in a
manner that maintains or enhances the natural resources.

(B) Water. In developing criteria for this resource, the state conservationist is to address:

[1) Quantity.

Overland flows and subsurface water conveyed by conservation practices are safely
conducted and disposed of through acceptable outlets.

- Water system discharges going from one ownership to another ownership are not
changed from natural flow pathways unless needed land and/or water lights have
been obtained consistent with local, state, and Federal regulations.

Water quality aspects associated with outlets are accounted for.

Appropriate water storage requirements are in accordance with the needs of the
planned use.

� Drainage activities are consistent with SCS policy regarding wedand protection.

� For irrigated land, a minimum percentage ievel of efficiency is achieved or ex-
ceeded for each type of irrigation system and management, as stated in the SCS state
irrigation guide.

- For land under supplemental irrigation where adequate water supplies exist, or for
land under partial irrigation because of water deficiency or lack of seasonal availabil-
ity or frequency of availability of water, water is applied in the most effective man-
ner, so that the infiltration rate of the soil, the plant needs, and the soil water-holding
capacity are not exceeded.

Vegetation, cropping sequences, and cultural operations are managed for efficient
use of precipitation by minimizing water losses to runoff and evaporation, thereby
inducing positive effects on the plant-soil moisture relationship, on ground water
recharge, and on water yield downstream.

[2) Quality.

-Sediment movement is controlled to minimize contamination of receiving waters.

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 13

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(B)[2]

- Percolation below the root zone is managed to minimize contamination of the
percolating water and to minimize the negative effects on production.

- Water used for salt leaching and plant temperature modification is applied to mini-
mize adverse effects.

� Acceptable water temperature is maintained.

� Irrigation water and natural precipitation are managed to minimize the movement of
nutrients, pesticides, sediment, salts, and animal wastes to offsite surface and ground
water.

0 Water-based uses, such as aquaculture enterprises and water-based recreation
facilities maintain or improve environmental quality.

Where surface or ground water nutrient and/or pesticide problems or potential
problems exist, the selection of appropriate nutrients or pesticides and the timing,
chemical forms, and rate and method of application reduce adverse effects. The use
of pesticides and nutrients with high potential for polluting water are avoided where
site limitations, such as slope, depth to ground water, soil, and material in the vadose
zone or aquifer could allow that potential to be realized. Soil-pesticide interactive
ratings to identify potential problem situations from surface runoff and/or leaching
are used according to FOTG guidelines. Alternative practices or other pest control
methods (mechanical, cultural, or biological) or integrated methods are recommended
where site limitations exist that increase the probability of degrading water supplies,
either below the surface or downstream.

Agricultfiral cherrAcal containers and chemicals (including waste oil, fuel, and
detergents) are used, handled, and disposed of in compliance with Federal, state., and
local laws.

(C) Air. Criteria established by the state conservationist are to address the following onsite
and offsite considerations:

Airborne particulates from agricultural sources do not cause safety, health, ma,',-hin-
ery, vehicular, or structure problems.

- Local and state regulations are followed in minimizing undesirable odors from.
agricultural sources.

- Air movement and temperatures are modified when necessary using appropriate
vegetative or mechanical means.

- Chemical drift from the ap plication of agricultural chemicals is controlled by adher-
ence to local and state application recommendations and product labels.
401-14 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(D)
(D) Plant& Criteria established by the state conservationist are to address the following
considerations:

- Plants on all land uses are used, maintained and improved to achieve acceptable
production levels to meet conservation, environmental, decisionmaker, and public
objectives.

- Nutrient applications for any land use are based on plant nutrient requirements,
production requirements, soil test recommendations, soil fertility, soil potential
limitations, water budget, and the types of practices planned. Nutrients from all
sources (animal waste, crop residue, soil residual, commercial fertilizer, atmospheric-
fixed) are considered when calculating the amount of nutrients to apply. Timing,
method, and rate of application, and chemical forms of nutrients to be applied are
taken into consideration in planning practices.

- Pesticide applications for any land use are applied according to the label recommen-
dation and federal, state, andlocal regulations.

- On Cropland, crops are grown in a planned sequence that meets conservation,
preduction, and decisionmaker objectives; and weeds, insects, other pests, and dis-
eases are adequately treated.

On Hayland, dominant native or introduced plant species are appropriate for the
forage, agronomic, or commercial use; well adapted to the site; and their stand den-
sity is maintained or improved.

- On Native Pasture, herbaceous plants are properly grazed, forage value rating is
medium or better, vigor is strong and is commensurate with overstory canopy.

- On Pastureland, dominant plant species are appropriate for the use, adapted to the
site, and their st?md density is adequate and productivity is maintained or improved.

- On Rangeland, the plant community is managed to meet the needs of the plants and
animals in a manner to conserve the natural resources and meet the objectives of the
decisionmaker. As a general rule, rangeland in poor or fair ecological range condi-
tion is managed for an upward range trend, and rangeland in good or excellent eco-
logical range condition will be managed for a static or upward range trend. In some
special situations, poor or fair ecological range condition could be managed for a
static range trend to meet special objectives of the decisionmaker as long as there is
no degradation of the soil resource.

- On Forest Land, trees are well distributed, vigorous, relatively free of insects,
disease, and other damage, and the density of the stand is within 25% of forest stand
density guide spacing on a stems-per-acre basis for the particular forest types. Forest
Land shall Ua protected from wildfires and erosion. Forest Land that is grazed shall

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 15

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(3)(iv)(D)

also be managed to meet the needs of the forage plants, the animals, and the objec-
tives of the decisionmaker.

- On Wildlife Land, Recreation Land, and Other Land, adapted or native plants are of
sufficient quantity and quality to improve or protect the defined resource.

On Urban Land uses, soil cover is maintained using suitable plants or other cover to
keep soil erosion within acceptable limits, minimize runoff, and manage infiltration.

(E) Animals. Criteria established by the state conservationist are to address the following
considerations:

The ada@tation, kinds, amounts, distribution, health, and vigor of livestock and
wildlife are appropriate for the site.

- Adequate quality, quantity and distribution of food are provided for the species of
concern.

- Adequate quantity, quality and distribution of wildlife cover for the species of
concern are provided. Domestic animals are provided adequate shelter as needed.

- Adequate iluantity, quality and distribution of water are provided for the species of
concern.

- The decisionmaker's enterprise and the balance between forage production and.
livestock needs are appropriate.

- Domestic livestock are managed in a manner that meets the needs of the ecosystem,
the animal, and that accomplishes the goals and objectives of the decisionmaker,

- Animal wastes and other organic wastes are managed according to an animal waste
management plan developed according to SCS standards. Minimum quality crittria
are met when the animal waste management plan is applied. Where surface and
ground water problems exist from organic wa ste, bacteria, pathogens, microorgan-
isms, or nutrients, special design considerations for each component will be necessary
to eliminate further contamination of runoff or leachates.

(v) An AMS will be established for a resource area in the event that social, cultural, or eco-
nomic characteristics of the area prevent the feasible achievement of an RMS. An AMS is
achieved when soil, water, air, and related plant and animal criteria for the related resource use are
established at the level which is achievable in view of the social, cultural, and economic characteris-
tics of the resource area involved.

(A) Social, cultural, and economic considerations are used to establish the level of natural
resource protection obtainable and may constrain the resource criteria used in formulating an

401-16 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(3)(vii)(A)

RMS. Criteria for treammt required to achieve an AMS will be established by SCS. 1"hey
am to be stated in either qualitative or quantitative terms for each resoume consideration .
7U state conservationist will establish criteria with concurrence by the NTC. Some of these
critaia am pretcribed by law or statute; e.g., the National Flistoric Preservation Act. Others
are developed through an onsitc assessment of social, cultural, and econornic factors which
derine the reasonable and practical degree to which the resource criteria can be achieved.
Where regional, stm and/or local regulations establish, mom restrictive criteria. these must
be used.

(B) The following criteria are applied to determine the practical limits of resource protection
within a resource area and temper the resource criteria to be used in the formulation of an
AMS.

(1) social
� Public health is maintained or improved.
� Treatment level is compatible with corrimunity characteristics.
� Treatment level is compatible with clientele characteristics.

(2) Cultural
- Protection of cultural resources is consistent with GM 420, Part 401.

(3) Economic
� Treatment level reflects the ability to pay that is representative of the area.
� Inputs required for conservation treatment are readily available.
� Conservation treatment is consistent with government PTOgMM participation.

(vi) Additional -considerations useful in the planning process to screen or select suitable con-
servation treatments for individual decisionmakers ntay include legal, social, cultural, eco-
non-ic, aesthetic, nunageTnent, and other factors. These ue integral to the planning process and
are discussed in the National Planning Manual and are displayed in Section V.

(vii) Applications of RMS and AMS Criteria

(A) Several factors may affect the actual level or degree of treatment achieved at a point in
or that is required to be achieved by the decisionmaker. Without legal constraints, the
differing cultural, social or econon-dc situation of a decisiontrukeTusually determines the
degree of treatment plartned or attained at any point in time. Where an RMS or AMS is not
attainable during the present planning effort. the progressive planning approach in NPM
501.04 (d) may be used to ultimately achieve planning and application of an RMS or AMS.
Progressive planning is the incremental process of building a plan on part or all of the plan-
ning unit consistent with the decisionmaker's ability to make decisions over a period of time
The progression on individual planning units is always toward the planning and implcmenta-
tion of. an RMS.

(450-GM, Amend. 4. February 1990) 401- 17

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(3)(vfii)(B)

(B) Legislated programs usually have varying authorities and qualifying criteria that may
require more or less treatment than RMS or AMS criteria. An example is legislated practices
for improving water quality. In this case, the related program manual will establish the
criteria to be achieied. 17hese applications must be coordinated across county and state lines
and should be for the period of time specified in the law or in the related policies and proce-
dures.

(C) Ile opportunity for establishing an RMS to achieve. the non-degradation and sustainable
use goal should be evaluated when ownership, land use, or cropping system changes, or
when new technology becomes available.

(D) Decisionmakers may desire to plan treatment in addition to that required to meet RMS
or AMS criteria to enhance resource conditions or to serve secondary or tertiary uses or
objectives. This additional treatment may include conservation practices or management that
contribute to further improvement of water quality; increased production, drainage, or @mga-
tion; enhancement of cultural and environmental values, wildlife habitat, or aesthetics; or
improved health and safety.

(viii) RMS, AMS, or other guidance documents will be developed by major land use in the
field office area and placed in Section IH of each FOTG.

(A) Only enough guidance documents to show examples of the RMS and AMS options to
treat the most common identified resource problems for each locally applicable major land
use will be developed. NTC will provide specific examples of format for guidance to states
in the preparation of guidance documents. Guidance documents are to be developed by
states for each FOTG using the NTC format. Guidance documents are to have concurrence of
the NTC. NTC directors are to coordinate formats across NTC boundaries.

(B) Guidance documents will present a reasonable number of alternative combinations of
practices and management that will meet the criteria for solving resource problems common
to that land use.

(C) In developing guidance documents, the effects that alternative practices and combina-
tions of practices and management have on the rive resources and on the social, econon.,iic,
and cultural considerations are to be used. For each guidance document developed, a display
of effects of the conservation system should be included in Section V. Guidance on the
development and display of effects is provided in Section 401.03(b)(5).

(D) Guidance documents may need to be developed to meet specific prograyp requirements,
in which case they are to be clearly labeled to show the program(s) or provision(s) of law to
which they apply. These guidance documents may describe management actions in addidon
to conservation practices that can be carried out to achieve these program purposes.

(ix) Conservation practices are to be installed according to SCS practice standards and
specifications. Practice standards and specifications are the same for both RMS and AMS.
401-18 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(5)(ii)
(4) Section IV - Practice Standards and Specifications

(i) This section of FOTG contains conservation practice standards and specifications.

(ii) The first item of Section IV is an alphabetical list of conservation practices used by the field
office, followed by the practice standards and specifications in the same order. This list will include
the date of preparation or revision of each standard, supplement, specification, and interim standard
in effect. This list will also show the date of the last review. This list will be revised and reissued
each time a change is made in a conservation practice standard, supplement, or specification. See
section 401.01(c)(2)(vii).

(iii) Practice standards establish the minimum level of acceptable quality for planning, designing,
installing, operating, and maintaining conservation practices. Standards from the National Handbook
of Conservation Practices (NHCP) and interim standards are to be used, and wW be supplemented by
states as needed.

(iv) Practice specifications describe requirements necessary to install a conservation practice so that
it functions properly. For most practices in the NHCP, it is necessary to prepare state specifications
to fit local soil and climatic conditions. Specifications include some or all of the following: major
elements of work to be done; kind, quality, and quantity of materials to be used; essential details of
installation; and other technical instructions necessary for instafling and maintaining the practice.

(v) See Part 401 - Subpart B for policy and procedural details for standards and specifications.

(5) Section V - Conservation Effects

(i) The purpose of this section is twofold:

(A) Ile first purpose is to provide a repository of data on the effects of conservation activi-
ties. Such data are an important part of technical reference material used by SCS and deci-
sionmakers in planning conservation actions. SCS determines the effects of conservation
treatments in order to help formulate and facilitate the identification of suitable conservation
management systems to protect the resource base and to address the decisionmaker's and
society's social, cultural, and economic objectives. The concept of using conservation effects
in the decisionmaking process (CED) is elaborated in the National Planning Manual.

(B) Ile second purpose of this section is to serve as a source of appropriate procedures and
methods for collecting, analyzing, and displaying conservation effects data.

0i) Conservation effects information will typically include the resource setting (i.e., soil, slope,
etc.), the specific conservation treatments applied, the kinds, amounts, and timing of actions under-
taken by decisionmakers in their operations, and the expected outcome in terms of solvingtesource
problems and meeting social, cultural, and economic objectives.

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 19

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(5)(ii)(A)

(A) Effects of conservation may be expressed in either narrative or quantitative terms that
represent factual data on experienced or expected results of the specified conservation tmat-
ment as applied to the resource setting. Effects of conservation will normally be expressed as
a condition or stage of the factors associated with a specified conservation action. For
example, typical effects could be: a corn yield of 110 bushels per acre; a USLE erosion
of 4 tons per acre; irrigation efficiency of 60%; or "a significant reduction in ephemeral @pffly
erosion will occur with this treatment." "Impacts" is a closely related term. An impact is a
measure of the change between the stage or condition of one treatment alternative to another.
Guidance on the use of effects information in the conservation planning process is contained
in the National Planning Manual.

(B) To the extent possible, conservation effects information will include conservation treat-
ments on the five resources and their considerations as described in Section III[ above.

[11 Examples of effects of conservation treatment on the five resources include but
are not limited to:

- Expected effect on sheet and rill, wind, or ephemeral gully erosion.

- Indicators or measures of soil conditions, such as tilth, compaction, and infiltration.

- Where applicable, indicators of soil deposition.

0 Measures or indicators of effects on quality and quantity of surface or subsurface
waters, such as chemical runoff as influenced by the conservation system.

- Effects on plant conditions and management, such as expected status of range
conditions with the indicated range conservation actions. .

- Measures of cons ervation effects on wild and domestic animals, including aninial
waste uses and effects on the resource base.

- Indicators of effects on air, such as airborne particulates, odors, and chemical drift.

[2] Effects information will also include management, social, cultural, and economic
information. Factors such as cost, client acceptability, and physical changes to cul-
tural resource sites associated with the specific conservation treatment componerit are
to be identified. Included, for example, would be:

Tillage requirements, labor inputs, quantity and costs of inputs, net economic
returns, experienced yields, risk management requirements, operation and maintr,-
nance reqiiirenients, time requirements, cultural resources (archaeological and historic
properties), length of life of practices, health and safety, aesthetics, and community
effects.

401-20 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart A - Policy and Responsibilities
401.03(b)(5)(iv)(B)
(C) Information developed on conservation effects -will vary significantly in scope
and detail depending on the resource conditions in the local arta as well as upon the
needs for technical reference materials to carry out conservation activities in that
location.

(iii) Section V of the FOTG should contain summaries of effects data relevant to the field office
area. As a minimum, Section V should contain a display of the important effects for decisionmaking
for each of the RMS and AMS developed and inserted in Section III. Ile display should be cross
referenced with cropping system, soil map units, and other descriptions of the resource setting and
conditions (e.g., precipitation, slope, etc.) that the RMS or AMS was formulated to address in that
field office. The format of the display should be easily understandable so as to make the information
valuable as ready reference material for the conservation planner and decisiotimaker to facilitate
planning and decisionmaking. The display will show the degree of resource protection achieved.

(A) Options may be evaluated by simply comparing the differences in the effects of the
options.

(B) NTC will provide specific examples of format guidance to states for recording and
displaying conservation effects data.

(C) Collection of data on conservation effects is a long term effort to be undertaken as part of
the followup element in the planning process. Initial efforts may provide effect information
for only the most common situations. Over time, additional resource situations and treatment
altematives will be examined to add depth and breadth to the available conservation, effect
information.

(D) Information on conservation effects may be refined or updated over time as needed in the
local area. The data on conservation effects should be useful to field office personnel in
identifying suitable conservation treatment applicable to the area, and serves as technical
reference materials when working with decisionmakers in the conservation planning process.
(See National Planning Manual Section 508.01).

(iv) Data on conservation effects may be developed by following two geneml approaches:

(A) 'Me observation and documentation of the experiences of coopemtors. Typically, con-
servationists will make observations of conservation treatments applied by one or more
decisionmakers in the first or second year following the application and record the effects ex-
perienced. This data can be recorded in conservation field notes and be entered into CAMPS
databases. Effects information may also be available from conservation field trials, univer-
sity research plots, or other trials in the area.

(B) Models of processes impacted by conservation actions can be used to simulate the physi-
cal, agronomic, or other effects of treatment systems. Actual results or graphs summarizing
results could be developed by state staffs and provided to field offices for inclusion in FOTG.
Appropriate models or references to the appropriate models may be stored in FOTG Section
V to facilitate use in collecting and analyzing conservation effects data.
(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 21

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.03(b)(5)(v)

(v) Data relating effects of conservation practices on the.five resources may be displayed in tabular,
narrative, or matrix form. This will be useful in developing RMS or AMS for inclusion in FOT3
Section III.

401-22 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

StJBPART B -NATIONAL HANDBOOK
OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES

401.10 Purpose. 401.12

This subpart sets forth SCS policy for establishing and maintaining a National Handbook of Conser-
vation Practices (NHCP). It also includes directions for variances, changes, interim standards, and
adaptations of standards to state and local conditions.

401.11 Content.

(a) The NHCP establishes a national standard for each conservation practice, including:

(1) The official name, definition, code identity, and unit of measurement for the
practice;

(2) A concise statement of the scope, purposes (including secondary purposes),
conditions where the practice applies, and planning considerations for the practice;
and

(3) Criteria for the practice.

W For some conservation practices, the NHCP also establishes items for inclusion in
state-developed specifications.

(1) The practice name and unit.

(2) The SCS technical discipline leader responsible for each practice.

(3) The date of the current standard.

(4) The code number of the standard.

401.12 National Conservation Practice Standards Subcommittee (NCPSS) of
National Technical Guide Committee (NTGQ.

The National Conservation Practice Standards Subcommittee (NCPSS) of NTGC coordinates and
updates the NHCP. The NTGC designates subcommittee members and acts on recommendations
from NCPSS.
0

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 23

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.13(a)(1)

401-13 Practice standards and specifications.

(a) Practice standards establish the minimum level of acceptable quality of planning,
designing, installing, operating and maintaining conservation practices.

(1) NHCP standards are to be used directly within a state, or state supplements can
be added as necessary. Because of wide variations in soils, climate, and topography,
state conservationists may need to add special provisions or provide more detail in the
standards. State laws and local ordinances or regulations may dictate more stringent
criteria.

(2) Ile official practice name, definition, code identity, and unit of measurement are
established nationally and are not to be changed. Generally, the statement of scope,
purpose, and conditions where a practice applies can be used directly.

(b) Practice specifications establish the technical details and workmanship for the
various operations required to install the practice and the quality and extent of the materials
to be used.

(1) Specifications enumerate items that apply when adapting the standard to site
specific locations, such as considerations of site preparation and protection; instruc-
tions for use of materials described in the standard; or guidance for performing
installation operations not directly addressed in the standard. Statements in the
specifications are not to conflict with the requirements of the standard.

(2) Items to be included in state-developed specifications for a limited number of
conservation practices are contained in the NHCP. Specifications for practices are to
be developed by states or NTCs and are to consider the wide variations in soils, cli-
mate, and topography present in the various states. State developed specifications
must be approved by the appropriate discipline specialist and the state conservation-
ist. Specifications are to meet the requirements of state laws and local ordinances or
regulations.

(c) National Technical Centers (NTCs) review and concur in supplements to NHC'P
standards and specifications prepared by a state for use within that state to ensure confor-
mance with NHCP and consistency among states.

401-24 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Subpart B-National Handbook of Conservation Practices
401.14 Variances. 401.16(c)

Only the directors of the Engineering and/or Ecological Sciences Divisions can approve variances
from requirements stated in the NHCP except that approval authority for variations in channel
stability requirements has been delegated to the heads of engineering staffs at the NTC (see NEM
210 Section 501.32). Any other request for a variance is to be submitted to the NTUC and is to
include recommendations of the appropriate NTC Director. The NTGC will refer the request to the
appropriate division for action. Variances, when granted, are for a specific period of time or until
the practice standard to which they pertain is revised, whichever is shorter. Variances wW include
any requirements for monitoring, evaluation, andTeporting needed to determine whether or not
changes in practice standards are necessary.

401.15 Changes in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices (NHCP).

(a) The NTGC will consider and recommend proposed changes in the NHCP to the
Deputy Chief for Technology. Changes will be made by numbered handbook notices issued
by the Deputy Chief for Technology.

M Each NHCP standard is to be formally reviewed by the NCPSS at least once every
rive years from the date of issuance or revision to determine if the standard is needed and up-
to-date. If revisions are needed, the revised standard will establish the current minimum level
of acceptable quality for planning, designing, installing, operating, and maintaining conserva-
tion practices.

(c) The NTC reviews all state proposed changes to NHCP and sends recommendations
for approval or disapproval to NTGC. Review and approval of technical content of proposed
changes is to be made by the Director, Engineering Division, or the Director, Ecological Sci-
ences Division. Review and approval of fornmt with respect to inclusion of items listed in
Section 401.11 are to be performed by NTGC.

401.16 Interim standards.

(a) Interim standards are prepared by states or NTC to address problems for which
there is no existing standard.

(b) Interim standards are to be approved by the NTC Director.

(c) Interim standards are to be issued for a period not to exceed 3 years. The NTC
director can extend the period for further evaluation at the end of this period, and after an
analysis of practice performance using the interim standard.

(450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990) 401- 25

Part 401-Technical Guides
401.16(d)

(d) Interim standards will be evaluated by NTC Technical Guide Committees at the
end of the 3-year period and, if appropriate, recommendations made to the NTGC for inclu-
sion in the National Handbook of Conservation Practices.

(e) The notice of approval of each interim standard will provide instructions tostates
regarding evaluation of practice performance.

(f) NTC directors are to send information copies of all interim standards and evalu-
ation reports to NTGC.

401-26 (450-GM, Amend. 4, February 1990)

Appendix 2B

List of References for Nonpoint Source Database -
Pennsylvania State University
0

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 2-151

Articles Entered into NPSDB Listed in Order by SAN

Current as of 05/27/92

SAN Applic. First Authors Article Tide
Clasis
2 Confined Dickey, E.C. Performance and Design of Vegetable Filters for Feedlot
Livestock Runoff Treatment,
Livestock Waste, A Renewable Resource

3 Confined Livestock in Confinement - Section 10.0
Livestock
10 Confined Westerman, P.W., Swine Manure and Lagoon Effluent Applied to a
Livestock et al. Temperate Forage Mixture: 11 Rainfall Runoff and
Manure Soil Chemical Properties,
Spreading JourrW of Environmental Quality, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1987

13 Conf. Livstk Quisenberry, V.L., Management Aspects of Applying Poultry or Dairy
Manure et al. Manures to Grassland in die Piedmant Region,
Spreading. Livestock Waste, A Renewable Resource

15 Manure Doyle, R.C., et al Effectiveness of Forest Buffer Strip in Improving the
Spreading Water Quality of Manure Polluted Runoff

16 Manure Mueller, D.H., et al. Phosphorus I.,osses as Affected by Tillage and Manure
Spreading Application,
Soil Science Society Journal, Vol. 48, 1984

21 Manure Gerhart, James M., Ground Watet Recharge and Its Effects on Nitrate
Spreading Concentration -Beneath a Manured Field Site in
Pennsylvania,
Ground Water, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1986

22 Manure Hubbard, R.K., Surface Runoff and Shallow Ground Water Quality as Affects by
Spreading et al. Center Pivot Applied Dairy Cattle Wastes,
Transactions of the ASAE, 1987

23 Manum Watters, S.P. Water Quality Impacts on Animal Waste Application in a
Spreading Noirtheasterti Oklahoma Watershed

_25 Manure Clausen, John C. Water Quality Achievable with Agncultural Best
Spreading Management Practices,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1989

26 Manure Deiyman, Marcia M., A Model for Evaluating the Impact of Land Application
Spreading Saied Mostaghimi of Organic Wastes on Runoff Water Quality,
Research Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1991

30 Cropland Naderman, George C. Surface Water Management for Crop Production on Highly
Erosion Erodible Land

31 Cropland Impact of LandJreatment on the Restoration of Skinner
Erosion Lake Noble County Indiana

34 Cropland McGregor, K.C., Effects of TillageFwith Different Crop Residues on Runoff
Erosion et al. and Soil 1A=

36 Cropland Sporner, R.G. Concentrated Flow Erosion on Conventional and
Erosion (duplicate Conservation TWed Watershed

41 Cropland Smith, SJ. Water Quality Impects Associated with Wheat Culaire in the
Erosion Southern Plains
Journal of Envirorunental Quality, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1991

42 Croplancl Rayavian, Daryoush Hydrok)& Responses of an Agricuianal Watershed to
Exosion Various Hydrologic and Management Conditions

45 Cropland Baldwin, P.L., et al. Effects of Tillage on Quality of Runoff Water
Erosion
46 Cropland Mutchler, C.K., Erosion from Reduced-Till Cotton
Erosion et al.
51 Cropland Unger. P.W. Conservation Tillage Systems
Erosion
53 Cropland Mostaghimi, S., et al. Influence of Tillage Systems and Residue Levels on
Erosion Runoff, Sediment and Phosphorus Losses
Transactions of the AS AE, Vol. 3 1, No. 1, 1988

54 Cropland McDowell, L. L. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses in Runoff from No-TiU
Erosion Soybeans

56 Cropland Meek, B.D. Infiltration Rate as Affected by an Alfalfa and No-TiH
Erosion Cotton Cropping System

15 8 Cropland Cogo, N.P. Soil LAns Reductions from Conservation Tillage Practices
Erosion
59 Cropland Zhu, J.C. Runoff Soil and Dissolved Nutrients Losses from No-Till
Erosion Soybeans with Winter Cover Crops

60 Cropland Berg, W.A. Management Effects on Runoff, Soil and Nutnent Losses
Erosion from HigbAy Erodible Soils in the Southern Plains

62 Cropiand Dick. W.A., et al. Surface Hydrologic Response of Soils to No-Till
Erosion
63 Cropland Beasley, D.B., et al. Using Simulation to Amess the Impacts of Conservadon
Erosion Tilhge, on Movement of Sediment and Phosphom im
Lake Erie,
Winter Meeting of the ASAE, 1986

64 Croplazw Baker. J.L. Water Quality Consequences of Conservation Tillage
Erosion
67 Confined Lorimor. J.C., et al. Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater Beneath a Beef Cattle
Llvestock Feedlot
Water Resource Bulletin, Vol. 8. No. 5, 1972

68 Cropland Rousseau, A., et al. Evaluation of Best Management Practices to Control
Erosion Phospbonn Nonpoint Source Poflution

69 Cropland Scott, R., Sediment and Water Yields from Managed Forests on Flu
Erosion Alfredo B. Granillo Coastal Plaln Sites

70 Cropland Landale, G.W. Conservation Practici Effects on Phosphorus Losses from
Erosion Southern Piedmont Watersheds,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1985

84 Cropland Dillaha, T.A., et al. Vegetative Filter Strips for Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Erosion Pollution Control.
Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1989

93 Nutrient Gold, Arthur I., et al. Runoff Water Quality from Conservation and Conventional
Management Tillage

94 Nutriou Staver, K. Set al. Nitrogen Export ftorn Atlantic Coastal Plan Smis,
Management International Summer Meeting of the ASAE, 1988

96 Nutrient Baker, J I. et al Effect of TWage on Infiltradon and Anion Leaching,
Management Winter Meeting of the ASAE, 1986

98 Nutrient Mueller, D.H., eE al. Effect of Conservation Tillage on Runoff Water Quality:
Management Total, Dissolved and Algai-Avadable Phosphorus
Losses,
Winter Meeting of die ASAE, 1983

100 Nutrient Alberts, E.E., Dissolved Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Runoff from
Management R.G. Spomer Watersheds in Conservation and Conventional Tillage,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1985

106 Nutrient Angle, J.S., et al. Nutrient Losses in Runoff from Conventional and
Management No-Till Corn Watersheds,
Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 13, No. 3

107 Nutrient Mostaghimi, Saied, Phosphorus I.Ames fnxn Cropland as Affected by Tillage
Management et al. System and Fendizer Application Method,
Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1988

ilo Nutrient Kanwar, R.S., et al. Tillage and N-Fertilizer Management Effects on
Management Groundwater Quality,
Summer Meeting of the ASAE, 1987

167 Cropland E4wwds, w.m., Contribution of Macroporosity to Infiltration into a
Erosion et al. Continuous Corn No-TW Watershed. Implications for
Conumfinant Movement

183 Cropland Deizman, M.M., et al. Size Distribution of Eroded Sediment from Two Tillage
Erosion Systems

184 Cropland Khan, MJ., et al. Mulch Cover and Canopy Effect of Soil Loss
Erosion
185 Cropland McGregor, K.C., et al. Effect of Incorporating Straw Residues on Interrill Soil
Erosion Erosion

212 Cropland Mostaghimi, S., Runoff, Sediment and Phosphorus Losses from
Erosion T.A- DWaha, Agricuffin-al Lands as Affected by Tillage and
V.0. Shanholtz Residue Levels

221 Cropland - U@Te@ny J. Overview of Conservation Tillage, from
Erosion Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality
Nitrates and Pesticides -

226 Conf. Lvstk. Texas Tech Univ. Characteristics of Water from Southeastern Cattle
Feedlots

235 Confined Livestock Waste Management with Pollution Control
Livestock North Central Regional Research Publication 222,
June 1975

236 Mumm GiJbenson, C.B., Animal Waste Utilization on Cropland and Pastureland
Spreading et al. A Manual for Evaluating Agronomic and
Environmental Effects,
USDA, USEPA; EPA-600/2-79-059,1979

238 Manure Klausner, S.D., et al. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Losses from Winter Disposal of
Spreading Dairy Manure
Journal of Environmental Quality, V. 5. No. 1, 1976

-23 9 Mamm Fleming, R-J. Impact of Agricultural Practices on Tile Water Quality
Spreading ASAE Summer Meeting, 1990

240 Confined Elliom L.F., et al. Ammonia, Nitrate, and Total Nitrogen in the Soil Water
Livestock of Feedlot and Field Soil Profiles
Applied Microbiology, April 1972, V. 28, No. 9

242 Confined Coote. D.R. Runoff from Feedlots and Manure Storage in Southern
Livestock F.R. Hore Ohio
Canadian Agricultural Engineering, V. 19, No. 2
1977

-243 Confined Gilberson, C.B., et al. Physical and Chemical Properties of Outdoor Beef Cattle
Livestock Feedlot Runoff,

245 Confined Westerman, Philip W., Dairy Open Lot and Lagoon Irrigation Pasture Runo-'.f
Livestock Michael R. Ovarash Quantity and Quality
Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 23, No. 5, 1980

246 Mumm PWlips, P.A., et al. Pollution PotentW and Corn Yields Erorn Selected Rates
Spreading and Timing of Liquid Manure Application
1979 Summer Meeting of ASAE and CSAE

248 Manure Adam, Real, et al. Evaluation of Beef Feedlot Runoff Treatment by a
Spreading Vegetative Filter Strip
Confined ASAE North Atlantic Regional Meeting, 1986
Livestock
249 Confined Evans, R.O.,-et aL Drainage Wata Quality from Land Application of Swine
Liveaftock Lagoon Effluent
Manure ASAE Summer Meeting, 1981
Spreading
250 Manure Mueller, D.H., et al. Soil and Water Loss as Affected by Tillage and Manure
S preading Application
Soil Scienc&,Society of America Journal, Vol 48, 1984
1

252 Manure Long, F.L., et al. Effects of Sod Incorl@xated Dairy Cattle Manure on
Spreading Runoff Water Quality and Soil Properties
Journal of EnvironmentaJ Quality, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1975

253 Confined Koelliker, I.K., et al. Performance of Feedlot Runoff Control Facilities ui
Livestock Kansas
ASAE Summer Meeting, 1974

254 Confined Larson, C.L., et al. Performance of Feedlot Runoff Control Systems in
Livestock Minnesota
ASAE Summer Meeting. 1974

255 Manure Mather, A.C., et al. Manure Effec- in Water Intake and Runoff Quality from
Spreading Irrigated Grain Sorghum Plots
Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 41, 1977

257 Manure Walter, Jack N. Phosphate and Nitrate Removal by a Grass Filtration
Spreading System for Final Treatment of Municipal Waste
M.S. Thesis, Agricultural Engineering Dept, The
Pennsylvania State University, 1974

258 Marture Converse. J.C., et al. Nutrient Losses ui Surface Runotf from Winter Spread
Spreading Manure
Transactions of the ASAE, 1976

Z 5 9 Manure Thompson, D.B., Winter and Spring Runoff from Manure Application Plots
Spreading et al. ASAE Summer Meeting, 1978
Confined
Livestock
260 Manure McCaskey, T.A. Water Quality of Runoff from Grassland Applied with
Spreading Liquid, Semi Liquid, and Dry Dairy Waste
Livestock Waste Management, 1971

261 Manure Steenhuis, T., et al.. Winter Spread Manure Nitrogen Loss
Spreading ASAE Summer Meeting, 1979

262 Manure Keeney, D.R., Sources and Fate of Available Nitrogen in Rural
Spreading L.W, Walsh Ecosystems

263 Manure Westerman, P.W., et Erosion of Sod and Manure After Surface Application of
Spreading al. Manure
North Carolina Agriculwai Research Service, 1980

264 Irrigation Stewart, B.A., et. al. Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Grain Sorghtun in a
Limited Irrigation Dairyland Farming System
Agronomy Journal, 1983

266 Irrigation Michelson, R.H., et al. Till-Plant Systems for Reducing Runoff under Low-
Pressure, Center Pivot Irrigation
Jotunal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1987

268 Irrigation DeBoer, D.W., et al. Primary and Secondary Tillage for Surface Runoff Control
Under Sprinkler Irrigation
ASAE, 1987

292 Irrigation King, J. Phillip, interim Report: Irrigation Water Management Systicam Draft
Julie Wright November 15, 1991
Department of Civil, Agricultural and Geological Engineering,
New Mexico State University
Prepared for USEPA, NPSCB, Contract No. 68-C9-0013

293 Cropland King, J. Phillip, Interim Report: Sediment Delivery Estimation Medmds, Draft,
Erosion Julie Wright November 15. 1991,
Department of Civil, Agricultural and Geological Engineering,
New Mexico State University
Prepared for USEPA, NPSCB, Contract No. 68-C9-0013

294 Manure Steenhuis, T.S., et al. Ammonia Volitilization of Winter Spread Manure
Spreading Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 152-157, 1979

310 Cropland Arcieri, W.R., et al. Tillage and Winter Cover Effects on Runoff and Sod Loss in
Erosion Silage Com
Atlantic Regional Meeting of the ASAE, August, 1986

311 Nutrient Romikens, MJ.M., et Nitrogen and Phosphorus Composition of Surface Runoff as
Managemtn al. Affected by Tillage Method
Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol.2, No. 2, 1973

313 Manure Long, F. Leslie, Runoff Water Quality as Affected by Surface-appfied Dairy Cattle
Spreading Manure
Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 8, No. 2. 1979

330 Cropland Mueller, Dwight H. Effect of Selected Conservation Tillage Pracuces on The Qtulity
Erosion of Runoff Water
M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1979

331 Cropland Schwab, G.O., et al. Sediment and Chemical Content of Drainage Water
Erosion Joint Meeting of ASAE and CSAE, 1979

333 Cropland Yoo, K.H., et al. Surface Runoff and its Quality from Conservauon TWage Systems
Erosion of Cotton

335 Cropland Spomer, R.G., et al. Sod and Water Conservation with Westem Iowa 1"illar Systims
Erosion Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 19, No. 1. 1976

340 Nutrian Spooner, J., et al. Nonpoint Sources: NPS Policy, Economics, and Planning
Management Research Journal WPCF, Vol. 62, No. 4, June 1990

347 Irrigation Yonts, C.D., et al. Furrow Irrigation Performance in Reduced-Tillage Sysw=
Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1991

348 Cropland Roy, B.L., The Role of Coarse Fragments and Surface Compaction in
Erosion A. R. Jarreet Reducing Interrill Erosion
Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1991

352 Cropland Younos, T.M.. et al. Fate and Effects of Pollutants: Nonpoint Sources (litemam
Erosion review), Journal WTCF, Vol. 59, No. 6, 1987
353 Cropland JHayes, C., Modeling Long-Term Effectiveness of Vegetauve FiltersTon-
Erosion J.E. Hairston Site Sedimat Controls
ASAE Paper No. 83-2081, 1983
1 1 1 - 0

CHAPTER 3: Management Measures for
Forestry

1. INTRODUCTION

A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect coastal waters from silvicultural sources of nonpoint pollution.
"Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to our coastal waters, which
reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint
pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adrninistration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, States progfams need not specify or require implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measures generally
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the site, location, type of
operation, and climate. The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the
types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some
of these practices, or appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs,
and economic impacts of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures
are addressed in a separate document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate.
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
the management measure.

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter contains 10 management measures that address various phases of forestry operations relevant to the
control of sources of silvicultural nonpoint pollution that affect coastal waters. A separate measure for forestry
operations in forested wetlands is included. These measures are:

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-1

L Introduction Chapter 3

(1) Preharvest planning
(2) Strearnside management areas
(3) Road constructionheconstruction
(4) Road management
(5) Timber harvesting
(6) Site preparation and forest regeneration
(7) Fire management
(8) Revegetation of disturbed areas
(9) Forest chemical management
(10) Wetland forest management

Each of these topics is addressed in a separate section of this chapter. Each section contains (1) the management
measure; (2) an applicability statement that describes, when appropriate, specific activities and locations for which
the measure is suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the rationale for the management
measure's selection; (5) information on the effectiveness of the management measure and/or of practices to achieve
the measure; (6) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or in combination with other
practices, to achieve the management measure; and (7) information on costs of the Measure and/or of practices to
achieve the measure.

Coordination of Measures

The management measures developed for silviculture are to be used as an overall system of measures to address
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution sources on any given site. In most cases, not all the measures will be needed to
address the NPS sources of a specific site. For example, many silvicultural systems do not require road construction
as part of the operation and would not need to be concerned with the management measure that addresses road
construction. By the same token, many silvicultural systems do not use prescribed fire and would not need to use
the fire management measure.

Most forestry operations will have more than one phase of operation that needs to be addressed and will need to
employ two or more of the measures to address the multiple sources. Where more than one phase exists, the
application of the measures needs to be coordinated to produce an overall system that adequately addresses all
sources for the site and do@s not cause unnecessary expenditure of resources on the site.

Since the silvicultural management measures developed for the CZARA are, for the most part, a system of practices
that are commonly used and recommended by States and the U.S. Forest Service in guidance or rules for forestry-
related nonpoint source pollution, there are many forestry operations for which practices or systems of practices have
already been implemented. Many of these operations may already achieve the measures needed for the nonpoint
sources on them. For cases where existing source control is inadequate, it may be necessary to add only one or two
more practices to achieve the measure. Existing NTPS progress must be recognized and appropriate credit given to
the accomplishment of our common goal to control NPS pollution. There is no need to spend additional resources
for a practice that is already in existence and operational. Existing practices, plans, and systems should be viewed
as building blocks for these management measures and may need no additional improvement.

D. Relationship of This Chapter t o Other Chapters and to Other EPA
Documents

2. Chapter 7 of this document contains management measures to protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve
a nonpoint source pollution abatement function. These measures apply to a broad variety of nonpoint sources;
however, the measures for wetlands described in Chapter 7 are not intended to address silvicultural sources.

3-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 1. Introduction

Practices for normal silvicullural operations in forested wetlands are covered in Management Measure J of
Chapter 3.

3. Chapter 8 of this document contains information on recommended monitoring techniques to (1) ensure proper
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the management measures and (2) assess over time the success
of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

4. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifting Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

5. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains details on how State coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on:

� The basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to specify management measures "in conformity" with this
management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

� Requirements concerning how States are to implement Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

E. Background

The effects of forestry activities on water quality have been widely studied, and the need for management measures
and practices to prevent silvicultural contributions to water pollution has been recognized by all States with
significant forestry activities. Silvicultural activities have been identified as nonpoint sources in coastal area water
quality assessments and control programs. Water quality concerns related to forestry were addressed in the 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and later, more comprehensively, as nonpoint sources under
section 208 of the 1977 Clean Water Act and section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act. On a national level,
silviculture contributes approximately 3 to 9 percent of nonpoint source pollution to the Nation's waters (Neary et
al., 1989; USEPA, 1992a). Local impacts of timber harvesting and road construction on water quality can be severe,
especially in smaller headwater streams (Brown, 1985; Coats and Miller, 1981; Pardo, 1980). Megahan (1986)
reviewed several studies on forest land erosion and concluded that surface erosion rates on roads often equaled or
exceeded erosion reported for severely eroding agricultural lands. These effects are of greatest concern where
silvicultural activity occurs in high-quality watershed areas that provide municipal water supplies or support cold-
water fisheries (Whitman, 1989; Neary et al., 1989; USEPA, 1984; Coats and Miller, 1981).

Twenty-four States have identified silviculture as a problem source contributing to NPS pollution in their 1990
section 305(b) assessments (USEPA, 1992b). Silviculture was the pollution source for 9 percent of NPS pollution
to rivers in the 42 States reporting NPS pollution figures in section 305(b) assessments (USEPA, 1992b). States have
reported -up to 19 percent of their river miles to be impacted by silviculture. On Federal lands, such as national
forests, many water quality problems can be attributed to the effects of timber harvesting and related activities
(Whitman, 1989). In response to these impacts, many States have developed programs to address NPS pollution
from forestry activities.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-3

I. Introduction Chapter 3

1. Pollutant Types and Impacts

Without adequate controls, forestry operations may degrade several water quality characteristics in watetbodies
receiving drainage from forest lands. Sediment concentrations can increase due to accelerated erosion; water
temperatures can increase due to removal of overstory riparian shade; slash and other organic debris can accurnulate
in waterbodies, depleting dissolved oxygen; and organic and inorganic chemical concentrations can increase due to
harvesting and fertilizer and pesticide applications (Brown, 1985). These potential increases in water quality
contaminants are usually proportional to the severity of site disturbance (Riekerk, 1983, 1985; Riekerk et al., 1989).
Silvicultural NPS pollution impacts depend on site characteristics, climatic conditions, and the forest practices
employed. Figure 3-1 presents a model of forest biogeochemistry,'hydrology, and storinflow interactions.
Sediment. Sediment is ofien the primary pollutant associated with forestry activities (Pardo, 1980). Sediment is
often defined as mineral or organic solid material that is eroded from the land surface by water, ice, wind, o.-r other
processes and is then transported or deposited away from its original location.

Sediment transported from forest lands into waterbodies can be particularly detrimental to benthic organisms and
many fish species. When it settles, sediment fills interstitial spaces in lake bottoms or streambeds. This can
eliminate essential habitat, covering food sources and spawning sites and smothering bottom-dwelling organisms and
periphyton. Sediment deposition also reduces the capacity of stream channels to carry water and of reservoirs to hold
water. This decreased flow and storage capacity can lead to increased flooding and decreased water supplies
(Golden, et al., 1984).

Suspended sediments increase water turbidity, thereby lini@iting the depth to which light can penetrate and adversely
affecting aquatic vegetation photosynthesis. Suspended sediments can also damage the gills of some fish species,
causing them to suffocate, and can limit the ability of sight-feeding fish to find and obtain food.

Turbid waters tend to have higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. A decrease in dissolved
oxygen levels can kill aquatic vegetation, fish, and benthic invertebrates. Increases (or decreases) in water
temperature outside the tolerance limits of aquatic organisms, especially cold-water fish such as trout and salmon,
can also be lethal (Brown, 1974).

Nutrients. Nutrients from forest fertilizers, such as nitrogen and phosphorus adsorbed to sediments, in solution, or
transported by aerial deposition, can cause harmful effects in receiving waters. Sudden removal of large quiuitities
of vegetation through harvesting can also increase leaching of nutrients from the soil system into surface waters and
ground waters by disrupting the nitrogen cycle (Likens et al., 1970). Excessive amounts of nutrients may cause
enrichment of waterbodies, stimulating algal blooms. Large blooms limit light penetration into the water column,
increase turbidity, and increase biological oxygen demand, resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen levels. This
process, termed eutrophication, drastically affects aquatic organisms by depleting the dissolved oxygen these
organisms need to survive.

Forest Chemicals. Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides (collectively termed pesticides) used to control forest
pests and undesirable plant species, can be toxic to aquatic organisms. Pesticides that are applied to foliage or soils,
or are applied by aerial means, are most readily transported to surface waters and ground waters (Norris and Moore,
1971). Some pesticides with high solubilities can be extremely harmful, causing either acute or chronic effects in
aquatic organisms, including reduced growth or reproduction, cancer, and organ malfunction or failure (Brown, 1974).
Persistent pesticides that tend to sorb onto particulates are also of environmental concern since these relatively
nonpolar compounds have the tendency to bioaccumulate. Other "chen-dcals" that may be released during forestry
operations include fuel, oil, and coolants used in equipment for harvesting and road-building operations.

Organic Debris Resulting from Forestry Activities. Organic debris includes residual logs, slash, litter, and soil
organic matter generated by forestry activities. Organic debris can adversely affect water quality by causing
increased biochemical oxygen demand, resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels in watercourses. Logging slash
and debris deposited in streams can alter strearnflows by forming debris dams or rerouting streams, and can also

3-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januarv 1993

Chapter 3 1. Introduction

Figure 3-1. Conceptual model of forest biogeochemistry, hydrology and stormflow (Riekerk et al., 1989).

redirect flow in the channel, increasing bank cutting and resulting sedimentation (Dunford, 1962; Everest and
Meehan, 198 1). In some ecosystems, small amounts of naturally occurring organic material can be beneficial to fish
production. Small streams in the Pacific Northwest may be largely dependent on the external energy source provided
by organic materials such as leaves and small twigs. Naturally occurring large woody debris in streams can also
create physical habitat diversity for rearing salmonids and can stabilize streambeds and banks (Everest and Meehan,
1981; Murphy et al., 1986).

Temperature. Increased temperatures in streams and waterbodies can result from vegetation removal in the riparian
zone from either harvesting or herbicide use. These temperature increases can be dramatic in smaller (lower order)
streams, adversely affecting aquatic species and habitat (Brown, 1972; Megahan, 1980; Curtis et al., 1990). Increased
water temperatures can also decrease the dissolved oxygen holding capacity of a waterbody, increasing biological
oxygen demand levels and accelerating chemical processes (Curtis et al., 1990).

Streamflow. Increased strearnflow often results from vegetation removal (Likens et al., 1970; Eschner and
Larmoyeux, 1963; Blackburn et al., 1982). Tree removal reduces evapotranspiration, which increases water
availability to stream systems. The amount of streamflow increase is related to the total area harvested, topography,
soil type, and harvesting practices (Curtis et al., 1990). Increased streamflows can scour channels, erode
streambanks, increase sedimentation, and increase peak flows.

2. Forestry Activities Affecting Water Quality

The types of forestry activities affecting NPS pollution include road construction and use, timber harvesting,
mechanical equipment operation, burning, and fertilizer and pesticide application (Neary et al., 1989).

Road Construction and Use. Roads are considered to be the major source of erosion from forested lands,
contributing up to 90 percent of the total sediment production from forestry operations (Rothwell, 1983; Megahan,
1980; Patric, 1976). (See Figure 3-2.) Erosion potential from roads is accelerated by increasing slope gradients on
cut-and-fill slopes, intercepting subsurface water flow, and concentrating overland flow on the road surface and in
channels (Megahan, 1980). Roads with steep gradients, deep cut-and-fill sections, poor drainage, erodible soils, and
road-stream crossings contribute to most of this sediment load, with road-stream crossings being the most frequent

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-5

I. Introduction Chapter 3

AREA MASS EROSION is

Undisturbed 69%
Forest Undisturbed 24% rcuts 25%
For"

Roads 5%

Clearcuts 26%
Roads 51%

Western Cascades, Oregon

Figure 3-2. Comparison of forest land areas and mass erosion under various land uses (adapted from Sidle,
1989).

sources of erosion and sediment (Rothwell, 1983). Soil loss tends to be greatest during and immediately after road
construction because of the unstabilized road prism and disturbance by passage of heavy trucks and equipment
(Swift, 1984).

Brown and Krygier (197 1) found that sediment production doubled after road construction on three small watersheds
in the Oregon Coast Range. Dymess (1967) observed the loss of 680 cubic yards of soil per acre from the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest in Oregon due to soil erosion from roads on steep topography. Landslides were
observed on all slopes and were most pronounced where forest roads crossed stream channels on steep drainage
headwalls. Another example of severe erosion resulting from forestry practices occurred in the South Fork of the
Salmon River in Idaho in the winter of 1965, following 15 years of intensive logging and road construction. Heavy
rains triggered a series of landslides that deposited sediment on spawning beds in the river channel, destroying
salmon spawning grounds (Megahan, 1981). Careful planning and proper road layout and design, however, can
minimize erosion and prevent stream sedimentation (Larse, 197 1).

Timber Harvesiting. Most detrimental effects of harvesting are related to the access and movement of vehicles and
machinery, and the skidding and loading of trees or logs. These effects include soil disturbance, soil compaction,
and direct disturbance of stream channels. Logging operation planning, soil and cover type, and slope are the most
important factors influencing harvesting impacts on water quality (Yoho, 1980). The construction and use of haul
roads, skid trails, and landings for access to and movement of logs are the harvesting activities that have the greatest
erosion potential.

Surveys of soil disturbance from logging were performed by Hornbeck and others (1986) in Maine, New Hampshire,
and Connecticut. They found 18 percent of the mineral soil exposed by logging practices in Maine, I I percent in
New Hampshire, and 8 percent in Connecticut. Megahan (1986) reviewed several studies on forest land erosion and
concluded that surface erosion rates on roads often equaled or exceeded erosion reported for severely eroding
agricultural lands. Megahan (1986) found that in some cases erosion rates from harvest operations may approach
erosion rates from roads and that prescribed burning can accelerate erosion beyond that from logging alone.

Another adverse impact of harvesting is the increase in stream water temperatures resulting from removal of
strearnside vegetation, with the greatest potential impacts occurring in small streams. However, stream ide buffer
strips have been shown to minimize the increase in stream temperatures (Brazier and Brown, 1973; Brown and
Krygier, 1970).

3-6 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 3 L Introduction

Regeneration Methods. Regeneration methods can be divided into two general types: (1) regeneration from
seedlings, either planted seedlings or existing seedlings released by harvesting, and (2) regeneration from seed, which
can be seed from existing trees on or near the site or the broadcast application of seeds of the desired species. In
some areas, regeneration with seedlings by mechanical tree planting is often conducted because it is faster and more
consistent. Planting approaches relying on seeding generally require a certain amount of mineral soil to be exposed
for seed establishment. For this reason, a site preparation technique is usually needed for regeneration by seeding.

Site Preparation. Mechanical site preparation by large tractors that shear, disk, drum-chop, or root-rake a site may
result in considerable soil disturbance over large areas and has a high potential to deteriorate water quality (Beasley,
1979). Site preparation techniques that result in the removal of vegetation and litter cover, soil compaction,
exposure or disturbance of the mineral soil, and increased stormflows due to decreased infiltration and percolation,
all can contribute to increases in stream sediment loads (Golden et al., 1984). However, erosion rates decrease over
time as vegetative cover grows back.

Prescribed burning and herbicides are other methods used to prepare sites that may also have potential negative
effects on water quality. These activities are discussed below.

Prescribed Burning. Prescribed burning of slash can increase erosion by eliminating protective cover and altering
soil properties (Megahan, 1980). The degree of erosion following a prescribed bum depends on soil erodibility,
slope, precipitation timing, volume and intensity, fire severity, cover remaining on the soil, and speed of revegetation.
Burning may also increase storniflow in areas where all vegetation is killed. Such increases are partially attributable
to decreased evapotranspiration rates and reduced canopy interception of precipitation. Erosion resulting from
prescribed burning is generally less than that resulting from roads and skid trails and from site preparation that causes
intense soil disturbance (Golden et al., 1984). However, significant erosion can occur during prescribed burning if
the slash being burned is collected or piled, causing soil to be moved and incorporated into the slash.

Application of Forest Chemicals. Adverse effects on water quality due to forest chemical application typically
result from improper chemical application, such as failure to establish buffers around watercourses (Norris and
Moore, 1971). Aerial application of forest chemicals has a greater potential to adversely affect water quality,
especially if chemicals are applied under improper conditions, such as high winds (Riekerk et al., 1989), or are
applied directly to watercourses.

F. Other Federal, State, and Local Silviculture Programs

1. Federal Programs

Forestry activities on Federal lands are predominantly controlled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service and Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Private entities operating
on Federal lands are regulated by timber sales contracts. The Forest Service has developed preventive land
management practices and project performance standards (USEPA, 1991). The Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) administers the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) and Stewardship Incentives Program
(SIP). Under FIP, ASCS provides cost-share funds to develop, manage, and protect eligible forest land, with
emphasis on enhancing water quality, wildlife habitat, and recreational resources, and producing softwood timber.
In addition, the Clean Water Act section 404 regulatory program may be applicable to some forestry activities (such
as stream crossings) that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. However,
section 404(f) of the Act.exempts most forestry activities from permitting requirements. Regulations describing
404(f) exemptions, as well as applicable best management practices for section 404, have been published by EPA
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (40 CFR 232.3). The management measures in this guidance apply only to
nonpoint source silvicultural activities. Clean Water Act section 402 regulations for point source pernidts exempt
these nonpoint silvicultural activities (40 CFR 122.27) except for the section 404 requirements discussed above.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-7

I. Introduction Chapter 3

2. State Forestry NPS Programs

Most States with significant forestry activities have developed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control
silviculturally-related NPS water quality problems. Often, water quality problems are not due to ineffectiveness of
the practices themselves, but to the failure to implement them appropriately (Whitman, 1989; Pardo, 1980).

There are currently two basic types of State forestry NPS programs, voluntary and regulatory. Thirty-five States
currently implement voluntary programs, with 6 of these States having the authority to make the voluntary programs
regulatory and 10 States backing the voluntary program with a regulatory program for non-compliers (see Table 3-1
for more specific types of programs). Nine States have developed regulatory programs (Essig, 1991).

Voluntary programs rely on a set of BMPs as guidelines to operators (Cubbage et al., 1989). Operator education
and technology transfer are also a responsibility of State Forestry Departments. Workshops, brochures, and field tours
are used to educate and to demonstrate to operators the latest water quality management techniques. Landowners
are encouraged to hire operators who have a working knowledge of State forestry BMPs (Dissmeyer and Miller,
1991). Transfer of information on State NPS controls to landowners is also an important element of these programs.

Regulatory programs involve mandatory controls and enforcement strategies defined in Forest Practice Rules: based
on a State's Forest Practices Act or local government regulations. These programs usually require the
implementation of BMPs based on site-specific conditions and water quality goals, and they have enforceable
requirements (Ice, 1985). Often streams are classified based on their most sensitive designated use, such as
importance for municipal water supply or propagation of aquatic life. Many water quality BMPs also improve
harvesting operation efficiency and therefore can be applied in the normal course of forest harvest operations with
few significant added costs (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988; Dissmeyer and Miller, 1991). Harvest
operation plans or applications to perform a timber harvest are frequently reviewed by the responsible State agency.
Erosion and sedimentation control BMPs are also used in these programs to minimize erosion from road construction
and harvesting activities.

Present State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) and section 319 programs may already include specific: BMP
regulations or guidelines for forestry activities. In some States, CZM programs have adopted State fDrestry
regulations and BMPs through reference or as pan of a linked program.

3. Local Governments

Counties, municipalities, and local soil and water conservation management districts may also impose additional
requirements on landown.ers and operators conducting forestry activities. In urbanizing areas, these requirements
often relate to concerns regarding the conversion of forested lands to urban uses or changes in private property values
due to aesthetic changes resulting from forestry practices. In rural areas additional requirements for forestry activities
may be implemented to protect public property (roads and municipal water supplies). Local forestry regulations tend
to be stricter in response to residents' complaints (Salazar and Cubbage, 1990).

3-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 1. Introduction

Table 3-1. State Programs by Region and Frequency (Henly and Ellefson, 1987)

Frequency of States in Region Having Program Type
Major Forestry Activity New Middle Lake Central South Southern Pacific N. Rocky S. Rocky
and Program Type England Atlantic States States Atlantic States States Mountain Mountain Total

Water Quality Protection

Tax Incentives 0 0 1 0 0 0 .0 0 0 1
Financial Incentives 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5
Educational Programs 5 2 3 5 3 8 3 3 3 35
Technical Assistance 6 5 3 6 3 6 2 4 5 40
Voluntary Guidelines 3 4 1 3 3 9 2 3 2 30
Legal Regulations 5 4 3 1 0 0 5 3 3 24

Reforestation and Timber
Management

Tax Incentives 1 2 3 5 1 2 0 2 0 16
Financial Incentives 1 3 3 4 3 4 2 1 1 22
Educational Programs 5 4 3 6 3 8 3 3 2 37
Technical Assistance 6 5 3 7 3 8 4 5 5 46
Voluntary Guidelines 0 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 16
Legal Regulations 1 3 1 1 0 0 4 1 3 14

Forest Protection

Tax Incentives 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Financial Programs 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4
Educational Programs 5 5 3 6 3 9 1 3 3 38
Technical Assistance 6 5 3 7 3 9 4 4 5 46
Voluntary Guidelines 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 2 17
Legal Regulations 6 4 2 6 3 8 5 4 4 42

Wildlife and Aesthetic
Management

Tax Incentives 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
Financial Incentives 0 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 6
Educational Programs 4 3 3 5 3 7 1 4 2 32
Technical Assistance 5 5 3 6 3 7 4 4 4 41
Voluntary Guidelines 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 13
Legal Regulations 2 2 1 2 0 1 5 1 0 14

NOTE: Water Quality Protection focuses on nonpoint silvicultural sources of pollutants, vegetative buffer strips along waters, road
and skid trail design and construction. Reforestation and Timber Management focuses on seed trees and other reforestation
forms, timber harvesting system, clearcut size and design. Forest Protection focuses on slash treatment, other wildfire-related
treatments, prescribed burn smoke management, herbicide and pesticide application, disease and insect management. Wildlife
and Aesthetic Management focuses on wildlife habitat, scenic buffers along roadways, coastal zone management requirements.
Regional Groupings of States: New England-Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont;
Middle Atlantic-Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia; Lake States-Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin; Central States-Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and Ohio; South Atlantic-North
Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia; Southern States-Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Texas; Pacific States-Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington; N. Rocky Mountain-Idaho, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming; S. Rocky Mountain-Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Now Mexico and Utah.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-9

/1. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

11. FORESTRY MANAGEMENT MEASURES

A. Preharvest Planning

Perform advance planning for foi,est harvesting that includes the following elements
where appropriate:
(1) Identify the area to be harvested including location of waterbodies and sensitive
areas such as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas,
or high- erosion-hazard areas (landslide-prone areas) within the harvest unit.
(2) Time the activity for the season or moisture conditions when the least impact
occurs.
(3) Consider potential water quality impacts and erosion and sedimentation control
in the selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems, especially for
harvesting and site preparation.
(4) Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying
high-erosion-hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent
practicable.
(5) Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known
existing water quality impairments or problems in watersheds of concern.
Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the following
elements where appropriate:
(1) Locate and design road systems to minimize, to the extent practicable, potential
sediment generation and delivery to surface waters. Key components are:
� locate roads, landings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent practicable Steep
grades and steep hilislope areas, and to decrease the number of stream
crossings;
� avoid to the extent practicable locating new roads and landings in Strearnsidle
Management Areas (SMAs); and
� determine road usage and select the appropriate road standard.
(2) Locate and design temporary and permanent stream crossings to prevent failure
and control impacts from the road system. Key components are:
� size and site crossing structures to prevent failure;
� for fish-bearing streams, design crossings to facilitate fish passage.
(3) Ensure that the design of road prism and the road surface drainage are
appropriate to the terrain and that road surface design is consistent with the
road drainage structures.
(4) Use suitable materials to surface roads planned for all-weather use to support
truck traffic.
(5) Design road systems to avoid high erosion or landslide hazard areas. Identify
these areas and consult a qualified specialist for design of any roads that must
be constructed through these areas.
Each State should develop a process (or utilize an existing process) that ensures that
the management measures in this chapter are implemented. Such a process should
include appropriate notification, compliance audits, or other mechanisms for forestry
R.
activities with the potential for significant adverse nonpoint source effects based on
the type and size of operation and the presence of stream crossings or SMAs.

3-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

1. Applicability

This management measur6 pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. The
planning process components of this management measure are intended to apply to commercial harvesting on areas
greater than 5 acres and any associated road system construction or reconstruction conducted as part of normal
silvicultural activities. The component for ensuring implementation of this management measure applies to
harvesting and road construction activities that are determined by the State agency to be of a sufficient size to
potentially impact the receiving water or that involve SMAs or stream crossings. On Federal lands, where
notification of forestry activities is provided to the Federal land management agency, the provisions of the final
paragraph of this measure may be implemented through a formal agreement between the State agency and the Federal
land management agency. This measure does not apply to harvesting conducted for precommercial thinning or
noncommercial firewood cutting.

Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in
doing so. The application of this management measure by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The objective of this management measure is to ensure that silvicultural activities, including timber harvesting, site
preparation, and associated road construction, are conducted without significant nonpoint source pollutant delivery
to streams and coastal areas. Road system planning is an essential part of this management measure since roads have
consistently been shown to be the largest cause of sedimentation resulting from forestry activities. Good road
location and design can greatly reduce the sources and transport of sediment. Road systems should generally be
designed to minimize the number of road miles/acres, the size and number of landings, the number of skid trail
miles, and the number of watercourse crossings, especially in sensitive watersheds. Timing operations to take
advantage of favorable seasons or conditions, avoiding wet seasons prone to severe erosion or spawning periods for
fish, is effective in reducing impacts to water quality and aquatic organisms (Hynson et al., 1982). For example,
timber harvesting might be timed to avoid periods of runoff, saturated soil conditions, and fish migration and
spawning periods.

Preharvest planning should include provisions to identify unsuitable areas, which may have merchantable trees but
pose unacceptable risks for landslides or high erosion hazard. These concerns are greatest for steep slopes in areas
with high rainfall or snowpack or sensitive rock types. Decomposed granite, highly weathered sedimentary rocks,
and fault zones in metamorphic rocks are potential rock types of concern for landslides. Deep soils derived from
these rocks, colluvial hollows, and fine-textured clay soils are soil conditions that may also cause potential problems.
Such areas usually have a history of landslides, either occurring naturally or related to earlier land-disturbing
activities.

Potential water quality and habitat impacts should also be considered when planning silvicultural harvest systems
as even-aged (e.g., clearcut, seedtree, shelterwood) or uneven-aged (e.g., group selection or individual tree selection)
and planning the type of yarding system. While it may appear to be more beneficial to water quality to use uneven-
aged silvicultural stand management because less ground disturbance and loss of canopy cover occur, these factors
should also be weighed against the possible effects of harvesting more acres selectively to yield equivalent timber
volumes. Such harvesting may require more miles of road construction, which can increase sediment generation and
increase levels of road management.

In addition, for uneven-aged systems, yarding in moderately sloping areas is usually done with groundskidding
equipment, which can cause much more soil disturbance than cable yarding. For even-aged systems, cable yarding
may be used in sloping areas; cable yarding is not widely used for uneven-aged harvesting. Whichever silvicultural

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-11

IL Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

system is selected, planning will be required to minimize erosion and sediment delivery to waterbodies. Preharvest
planning should address how harvested areas will be replanted or regenerated to prevent erosion and potential impact
to waterbodies.

Cumulative effects to water quality from forest practices are related to several processes within a watershed (onsite
mass erosion, onsite surface erosion, pollutant transport and routing, and receiving water effects) (Sidle, 1989).
Cumulative effects are influenced by forest management activities, natural ecosystem processes, and the distribution
of other land uses. Forestry operations such as timber harvesting, road construction, and chemical use may directly
affect onsite delivery of nonpoint source pollutants as well as contribute to existing cumulative impairments of water
quality.

In areas where existing cumulative effects problems have already been assessed for a watershed of concern, the
potential for additional contributions to known water quality impairments or problems should be taken into account
during preharvest planning. This does not imply that a separate cumulative effects assessment will be needed for
each planned forestry activity. Instead, it points to the need to consider the potential for additional contributions to
known water quality impairments based on information from previously conducted watershed or cumulative effects
assessments. These types of water quality assessments, generally conducted by State or Federal agencies, may
indicate water quality impairments in watersheds of concern caused by types of pollutants unrelated to forestry
activities. In this case, there would be no potential for additional contributions of those pollutants from the planned
forestry activity. However, if existing assessments attribute a water quality problem to the types of pollutants
potentially generated by the planned forestry activity, then it is appropriate to consider this during the planning
process. If additional contributions to this impairment are likely to occur as a result of the planned activity, this may
necessitate adjustments in planned activities or implementation of additional measures. This may include selection
of harvest units with low sedimentation risk, such as flat ridges or broad valleys; postponement of harvesting until
existing erosion sources are stabilized; and selection of limited harvest areas using existing roads. The need for
additional measures, as well as the appropriate type and extent, is best considered and addressed during the
preharvest planning process.

Some important sediment sources related to roads are stream crossings, road fills on steep slopes, poorly designed
road drainage structures, and road locations in close proximity to streams. Roads through high-erosion-hazard areas
can also lead to serious water quality degradation. Some geographical areas have a high potential for serious erosion
problems (landslides, major gullies, etc.) after road construction. Factors such as slope steepness, soil and rock
characteristics, and local hydrology influence this potential. High-erosion-hazard areas may include badlands, loess
deposits, steep and dissected terrain, and areas with existing landslides and are generally recognizable on the ground
by trained personnel. Indications of hazard locations may include landslides, gullies, weak soils, unusually high
ground water levels, very steep slopes, unvegetated shorelines and streambanks, and major geomorphic changes.
Road system planning should identify and avoid these areas.

In most States, high-erosion-hazard areas are limited in extent. In the Pacific Coast States, however, road-related
landslides are often the major source of sediment associated with forest management. Erosion hazard areas are often
mapped, and these maps are one tool to use in identifying high-erosion-hazard sites. The U.S. Geological Survey
has produced geologic hazard maps for some areas. The USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), as well as State and local agencies, may also have erosion-hazard-
area maps.

Preplanning the timber harvest operation to ensure water quality protection will minimize NPS pollution generation
and increase operation efficiency (Maine Forest Service, 1991; Connecticut RC&D Forestry Committee, 1990;
Golden et al., 1984). The planning of strearnside management area width and extent is also crucial becaase of
SMAs' potential to reduce pollutant delivery. Identification and avoidance of high-hazard areas can greatly meduce
the risk of landslides and mass erosion (Golden et al., 1984). Careful planning of road and skid trail system locations
will reduce the amount of land disturbance by minimizing the area in roads and trails, thereby reducing erosion and
sedimentation (Rothwell, 1978). Studies at Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia, demonstrated that good
planning reduced skid road area by as much as 40 percent (Kochenderfer, 1970).

3-12 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 3 A Forestiy Management Measures

Designing road systems prior to construction to minimize road widths, slopes, and slope lengths will also significantly
reduce erosion and sedimentation (Larse, 1971). The most effective road system results from planning conducted
to serve an entire basin, rather than arbitrarily constructing individual road projects to serve short-term needs (Swift,
1985). The key environmental factors involved in road design and location are soil texture, slope, aspect, climate,
vegetation, and geology (Gardner, 1967).

Proper design of drainage systems and stream crossings can prevent system destruction by storms, thereby preventing
severe erosion, sedimentation, and channel scouring (Swift, 1984). Removal of excess water from roads will also
reduce the potential for grade weakening, surface erosion, and landslides. Drainage problems can be minimized when
locating roads by avoiding clay beds, seeps, springs, concave slopes, muskegs, ravines, draws, and stream bottoms
(Rothwell, 1978).

Developing a process, or utilizing an existing process, to ensure that the management measures in this chapter are
implemented is an important component for forestry nonpoint source control programs. While silvicultural
management of forests may extend over long stand rotation periods of 20 to 120 years and cover extensive areas of
forestland, the forestry operations that generate nonpoint source pollution, like harvesting and road building, are of
relatively short duration and occur in dispersed, often isolated locations in forested areas. Forest harvesting or road
building operations are usually operational on a given site only for a period of weeks or months. These operational
phases are then followed by the much longer period of regrowth of the stand or the rotation period. Since forestry
operations are relatively dispersed and move from site to site within forested areas, it is essential to have some
process to ensure implementation of management measures. For example, it is not possible to track the
implementation of management measures or determine their effectiveness if there is no way of knowing where or
when they might be applied. In the case of monitoring or water quality assessments, correlation of water quality
conditions to forestry activities is not possible absent some ability to determine where and to what extent forestry
operations are being conducted and whether management measures are being implemented. Because of the dispersed
and episodic nature of forestry operations, many States have implemented programs that currently incorporate a
process such as notification to ensure implementation and to facilitate evaluation of program implementation and
assessment of water quality conditions.

This process has been shown to be a beneficial device for ensuring the implementation of water quality best
management practices, particularly for forestry activities. In contrast to the typical forestry situation, nonpoint
pollution from urban and agricultural sources is generated from areas and activities that are relatively stationary and
repetitive. Because of this, these sources of nonpoint pollution are more apparent and readily addressed than more
isolated and episodic forestry operations. Given the unique nature of forestry operations, it is necessary for States
to have some mechanism for being apprised of forestry activities in order to uniformly address sources of nonpoint
pollution.

This Forestry Management Measure component allows considerable flexibility to States for determining how this
provision should be carried out in the coastal zone. For the purposes of this management measure, such a process
should include appropriate notification mechanisms for forestry activities with the potential for nonpoint source
impacts. It is important to point out that for the purposes of this management measure such a notification process
might be either verbal or written and does not necessarily require submittal and approval of written preharvest plans
(although those States that currently require submittal of a preharvest plan would also fulfill this management
measure component for the coastal zone program). States also have flexibility in determining what information
should be provided and how this should occur for notification mechanisms. Timing and location of the planned
forestry operation are common elements of existing notification requirements and may serve as an acceptable
minimum. Existing programs for forestry have found some type of notification of the planned activity to the
appropriate State agency to be a very beneficial device for ensuring the implementation of water quality best
management practices for silvicultural activities. At least 12 Coastal Zone Management Program States currently
require some type of notification, associated with Forest Practices Acts, CWA section 404 requirements, tax incentive
or cost share programs, State Forester technical assistance, severance tax filings, stream crossing permits, labor
permits, erosion control permits, or land management agency agreements.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-13

A Foreshy Management Measures Chapter 3

3. Management Measure Selection

The rationale for this measure is based on information on the effects of various harvesting practices and the
effectiveness and costs of planning, design, and location components addressed in this measure. This measure is also
based in part on the experience of some States in using preharvest planning as part of implementation of best
management practices.

a. Effectiveness Information

Preharvest planning has been demonstrated to play an important role in the control of nonpoint source pollution and
efficient forest management operations. A fundamental component to be considered in timber harvest planning is
the selection of the silvicultural system. Research conducted by Beasley and Granillo (1985) demonstratiA that
selective cutting generated lower water yields and sediment yields than did clearcutting. This is important not only
because of the sediment loss, but also because higher stormflows can undercut streambanks and scour channels,
reducing channel stability. The data in Table 3-2 show that selective cutting results in sediment yields 2.5 to 20
times less and water yields 1.3 to 2.6 times less than those resulting from clearcutting. As stated previously, the
amount and potential water quality impacts of roads needed for each system must also be taken into account.

Methods used for harvesting are closely related to the silvicultural system. Four harvesting methods combined with
varying types of management practices to protect water quality, including road location, were compared in a study
conducted by Eschner and Larmoyeux (1963) (Table 3-3). Harvesting effects on water quality, as measured by
turbidity, were shown to be clearly related to the care taken in logging and planning skid roads. The extensive

Table 3-2. Clearcutting Versus Selected Harvesting Methods (AR)
(Beasley and Granillo, 1985)

Mean Annual Mean Annual Sediment
Water Year Treatment Water Yield (cm) Losses (kg/ha)

1981 Clearcut 6.4 41

(Preharvest) Selection 7.4 52

Control 6.8 52

1982 Clearcut 13.2 264

Selection 5.1 13

Control 1.0 4

1983 Clearcut 44.7 63

Selection 33.8 26

Control 31.0 19

1984 Clearcut 32.8 83

Selection. 14.5 is

Control 17.5 46

1985 Clearcut 27.9 73

Selection 12.3 12

Control 15.9 17

3-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januajy 1993

Chapter 3 /J. Forestty Management Measures

selection method, combined with some NPS controls (20 percent road grade limits, no skidding in streams, water
bars on skid roads), produced higher maximum levels of turbidity than did intensive selection with additional control
practices (10 percent road grade limits; skid trails located away from streams). Harvesting by the diameter limit
practice without any restrictions on road grades or stream restrictions increased maximum turbidity by 200 times over
intensive selection, and commercial clearcutting with no controls increased maximum turbidity by over three orders
of magnitude. This study concluded that care taken in preharvest planning of skid roads and logging operations can
prevent most potential impairment to water quality.

McMinn (1984) compared a skidder logging system and a cable yarder for their relative effects on soil disturbance
(Table 3-4). With the cable yarder, 99 percent of the soil remained undisturbed (the original litter still covered the
mineral soil), while the amount of soil remaining undisturbed after logging by skidder was only 63 percent. Beasley,
Miller, and Gough (1984) related sediment loss associated with forest roads to the average slope gradient of road
segments (Table 3-5). The greater the average slope gradient, the greater the soil loss, ranging from a total of 6.8
tons/acre lost when the slope gradient was I percent, to 19.4 tons/acre at 4 percent, to 32.3 tons/acre at 6 percent,
to 33.7 tons/acre at 7 percent.

Sidle (1980) found that the impacts of tractor skidding can be lessened through the use of preplanned skid roads and
landings designed so that the area disturbed by road construction and the overall extent of sediment compaction at
the site are minin-fted. Sidle (1980) described a study in North Carolina that showed that preplanning roads could
result in a threefold decrease in soil compaction at the logging area.

Table 3-3. Effect of Four Harvesting and Road Design Methods on Water Ouality (WV, PA)
(Eschner and Larmoyeux, 1963)

Frequency Distribution of Samples
Turbidity Unit Classes
Maximum 0 to 10 11 to 99 100 to 999 1000+ Total
Watershed Turbidity
Number Practice (Turbidity units) (Number of samples)

Commercial
1 c(earcut 56,000 126 40 24 13 203

Diameter
2 liMitb 5,200 171 17 8 7 203

Extensive
5 selectiond 21 Oc 195 8 0 0 203
3 Intensive 25 201 2 0 0 203
selectione

4 Control 15 202 1 0 0 203

Note: Includes regularly scheduled samples and special samples in storm periods.
' Skid roads were not planned but were "logger's choice."
b Trees over 17 inches DBH were cut. Water bars placed at 2-chain intervals along skid roads.
c Not included in frequency distribution. This sample was taken at a time when the other watersheds were not
sampled.
d Trees over 11 inches D13H were cut. Maximum skid road grade was 20 percent, with water bars installed as
needed. Skidding was prohibited in streams.
With intensive selection, trees over 5 inches DBH were cut. Maximum skid road -grade was 10 percent.
Skidding was prohibited in streams, and roads were located away from streams. Water bars were used as
0 needed, and disturbed areas were stabilized with grass seeding.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 3-15

Ii. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-4. Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable
Miniyarder on Sol[ (GA) (McMinn, 1984)

Disturbance Class' Cable Skidder (percent) Miniyarder (percent)

Undisturbed 63 99

Soil exposed 12 1

Soil disturbed 25 0

Undisturbed = original duff or litter still covering the mineral soil.
Exposed = litter and duff scraped away, exposing mineral soil, but no scarification.
Disturbed = Mineral soil exposed and scarified or dislocated.

Table 3!.S. Relationship Between Slope Gradient and Annual Sediment Loss
on an Established Forest Roada (AR) (Beasley, Miller, and Gough, 1984)
Soil Deposited b Suspended Solids Total

Average Slope Gradient of Road tons per tons per tons per tons per tons per tonsper
Segment (percent) acre mile acre mile acre mile

7 21.6 54.0 12.0 30.0 33.7 84.0

6 10.2 26.7 22.1 57.8 32.3 84.5

4 5.0 11.3 14.4 32.6 19.4 43.8

1 0.2 0.3 6.6 12.4 6.8 12.7

a The length of the road segments averaged 330 feet, ranging from 308 to 357 feet. Most of the other physical characteristics of
the road were consistent, except the variation in the proportion of backslope to total area. Fill slopes below the road segments
were well vegetated. Cut slopes were steep, bare, and actively eroding.
b Measured in upslope, inside ditches.

Several researchers have emphasized that prevention is the most effective approach to erosion control for road
activities (Megahan, 1980; Golden et al., 1984). Because roads are the greatest source of surface erosion from
forestry operations, reducing road surface area while maintaining efficient access is a primary component ot'proper
road design. Careful planning of road layout and design can minimize erosion by as much as 50 percent (Yoho,
1980; Weitzman and Trimble, 1952). This practice has the added benefits of reducing construction, maint-mance,
and transport costs and increasing forested area for production. Rice et al. (1972) found no increase in sedimentation
from a well-designed logging road on gently sloping, stable soils in Oregon except for during the construction period.

Locating roads on low gradients is another planning component that can reduce the impacts of sedimentation.
Trimble and Weitzman (1953) presented data showing that lower gradients and shorter road lengths reduce erosion.
The same authors, in a 1952 journal article, also presented data showing that reduced gradients in conjunction with
water bars can significantly reduce erosion from roads. The data from these two studies are presented in Table 3-6.

b. Cost Information

A cost-benefit analysis by Dissmeyer and others (USDA, 1987) reveals the dramatic, immediate savings from
considering water quality during the design phase of a road reconstruction project (Table 3-7). Expertise on soil and
water protection provided by a hydrologist resulted in 50 percent of the savings alone. Other long-term economic
benefits of careful planning such as longer road life and reduced maintenance costs were not quantified in this
analysis.

3-16 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 A Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-6. The Effect of Skid Road Grade and Length on Road Surface Erosion
(WV, PA) (Trimble and Weitzman, 1953)

Erosion from Skid Road Surface After Logging
Skid Road Type (Grade *
and Length of Slope) Erosion (in) Average Grade (%) Average Length (ft)

0-20% grade/0-132 feet 0.4 10 46

21-40% grade/0- 132 feet 0.7 29 55

133-264 feet 1.0 35 211

Table 3-7. Costs and Benefits of Proper Road Design (With Water Quality Considerations)
Versus Reconstruction (Without Water Quality Considerations)
(USDA Forest Service, 1987)

Without Soil/ Water Input' With SoiVWater Inputo

Miles of road 3.0 3.0

Reconstruction costs $796,000 $372,044

Soil/water input costs $800

Immediate benefit (savings) of soil/water $211,978
input

Soil/water inputs are design adjustments made by a hydrologist and include narrower road width and
steeper road bank cuts in soils of low erodibility and low revegetation potential.

Kochenderfer, Wendel, and Smith (1984) determined the costs for locating four minimum standard roads in the
Central Appalachians (Table 3-8). Road location costs increased as the terrain became more difficult (e.g., had a
large number of rock outcrops or steep slopes) or required several location changes. Typically, road location costs
accounted for approximately 8 percent of total costs.

Ellefson and Miles (1984) performed an economic evaluation of forest practices to curb nonpoint source water
pollutants. They presented the cumulative decline in net revenue of 1.2 percent for the practices of skid trail and
landing design for a sale with initial net revenue of $124,340.

4. Practices

a. Harvesting Practices

Consider potential water quality and habitat impacts when selecting the silvicultural system as even-
aged (clearcut, seedtree, or shelterwood) or uneven-aged (group or individual selection). The yarding
system, site preparation method, and any pesticides that will be used should also be addressed in

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-17

Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-8. Characteristics and Road Location" Costs of Four "Mi nimurn-Standard"
Forest Truck Roads Constructed In the Central Appalachians (Kochenderfer,
Wendel, and Smith, 1984)

Culvert
Road Road Location
Road Length Grade Number Size Length Costs
Number (miles) N of Dips' Number (in) (ft) ($/miles)

1 0.81 6.9 22 1 18 39 585

6 0.78 2.7 15 5 15 135 615

7 0.34 3.7 5 2 15 64 720

8 1.25 2.6 30 0 585

Road location includes the cost to plan, reconnoiter, and lay out 1 mile of road.
Includes natural grade breaks where dozer work is required for outsloping.

preharvest planning. As part of this practice the potential impacts from and extent of roads needed for
each silvicultural system should be considered.

In warmer regions, schedule harvest and construction operations during dry periods/seasons. In
temperate regions, harvest and construction operations may be scheduled during the winter to take
advantage of snow cover and frozen ground conditions.

To minimize soil disturbance and road damage, limit operations to periods when soils are not highly
saturated (Rothwell, 1978). Damage to forested slopes can also be minimized by not operating kigging
equipment when soils are saturated, during wet weather, or in periods of ground thawing.

M Planned harvest activities or chemical use should not contribute to problems of cumulative effects in
watersheds of concern.

M Use topographic maps, aerial photography, soil surveys, geologic maps, and rainfall intensity charts
to augment site reconnaissance to lay out and map harvest unit, identify and mark, as needed.

� Any sensitive habitatareas needing special protection such as threatenedand endangered species
nesting areas,
� Streamside management areas,
Steep slopes, high-erosion-hazard areas, or landslide prone areas,
Wetlands.

In high-erosion-hazard areas, trained specialists (geologist, soil scientist, geotechnical engrineer,
wildland hydrologist) should identify sites that have high risk of landslides or that may become unstable
after harvest and should recommend specific practices to control harvesting and protect water quality.

M Lay out harvest units to minimize the number of stream crossings.

M States are encouraged to adopt notification mechanisms that integrate and avoid duplicating existing,
requirements for notification including severance taxes, stream crossing permits, erosion control
permits, labor permits, forest practice acts plans, etc. For example, States may require one preharvest

3-18 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januare 1993

Chapter 3 A Forestry Management Measures

plan that the landowner could submit to just one State or local office. The appropriate State agency
might encourage forest landowners to develop a preharvest plan. The plan would address the
components of this management measure including the area to be harvested, any forest roads to be
constructed, and the timing of the activity.

b. Road System Practices

Preplan skid trail and landing location on stable soils and avoid steep gradients, landslide-prone areas,
high-erosion-hazard areas, and poor-drainage areas.

� Landings should not be located in SMAs.
� New roads and skid trails should not be located in SMAs, except at crossings. Existing roads and landings
in the SMA will be closed unless the construction of new roads and landings to access an area will cause
greater water quality impacts than the use of existing roads.
� Roads should not be located along stream channels where road fill extends within 50-100 horizontal feet
of the annual high water level. (Bankfull stage is also used as reference point for this.)

Systematically design transportation systems to minimize total mileage.

� Weigh skid trail length and number against haul road length and number.
� Locate landings to minimize skid trail and haul road mileage (Rothwell, 1978).

Utilize natural log landing areas to reduce the potential for soil disturbance (Larse, 1971; Yee and
Roelots, 1980).

Plot feasible routes and locations on an aerial photograph or topographic map to assist in the final
determination of road locations.

Proper design will reduce the area of soil exposed by construction activities. Figure 3-3 presents a comparison of
road systems.

IN In moderately sloping terrain, plan for road grades of less than 10 percent, with an optimal grade
between 3 percent and 5 percent. In steep terrain, short sections of road at steeper grades may be
used if the grade is broken at regularintervals. Vary road grades frequently to reduce culvert and road
drainage ditch flows, road surface erosion, and concentrated culvert discharges (Larse, 1971).

Gentle grades are desirable for proper drainage and economical construction (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
1988). Steeper grades are acceptable for short distances (200-300 feet), but an increased number of drainage
structures may be needed above, on, and below the steeper grade to reduce runoff potential and minimize erosion.
In sloping terrain, no-grade road sections are difficult to drain properly and should be avoided when possible.

IN Design skid trail grades to be 15 percent or less, with steeper grades only for short distances.

Design roads and skid trails to follow the natural topography and contour, minimizing alteration of
natural features.

This practice will reduce the amount of cut and fill required and will consequently reduce road failure potential.
Ridge routes and hillside routes are good locations for ensuring stream protection because they are removed from
stream channels and the intervening undisturbed vegetation acts as a sediment barrier. Wide valley bottoms are good
routes if stream crossings are few and roads are located outside of SMAs (Rothwell, 1978).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-19

/I. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Permanent Haul Road L2 Skid Road (or trail)
Temporary Haul Road Ff Bridge (water crossing)
Landing 59

Plans A, B, and C show three ways
to place truck and skid roads on a
cutting unit. The comments next to
each plan Indicate why Plan C Is
best.
Plan A layout: 2 bridges
4 landings
3 miles of haul road
Comment: Road and bridge con- L
struction costs too high. Skid
distance too short. Too much steep
downhill skidding. Too many land-
Ings on too steep land. Two bridges
are unnecessary.
Plan B layout: 1 bridge 19% 11
3 landings
3.5 miles of
haulroad
Comment: Loop road unnecessary.
Skid distances too short. Erosion
minimized up hill skidding.
Plan C layout: I bridge
2 landings
2 miles of haul road % JI
Comment: Haul road follows high
ground. Minimal road construction. J
Ideal skidding distances. Erosion
minimized by uphill skidding. Least
number of landings. Only one
bridge required. -3.,

Figure 3-3. How to select the best road layout (Hynson et al., 1982).

Roads in steep terrain should avoid the use of switchbacks through the use of more favorable locations.
Avoid stacking roads above one another in steep terrain by using longer span cable harvest techniques.

Design roads crossing low-lying areas so that water does not pond on the upsiope side of the road.

� Use overlay construction techniques with suitable nonhazardous materials for roads crossing muskegs.
� Provide cross drains to allow free drainage and avoid ponding, especially in sloping areas.

3-20 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 l/. Forestry Management Measures

Do not locate and construct roads with fills on slopes greater than 60 percent. When necessary to
construct roads across slopes that exceed the angle of repose, use full-bench construction andlor
engineered bin walls or other stabilizing techniques.

M Use full-bench construction and removal of fill material to a suitable location when constructing road
prisms on sideslopes greater than 60 percent

M Design cut-and-fill slopes to be at stable angles, or less than the normal angle of repose, to minimize
erosion and slope failure potential.

The degree of steepness that can be obtained is determined by the stability of the soil (Rothwell, 1978). Figure 3-4
depicts proper cut-and-fill construction. Table 3-9 presents an example of stable backslope and fill slope angles for
different soil materials.

� Use retaining walls, with properly designed drainage, to reduce and contain excavation and embankment
quantities (Larse, 1971). Vertical banks may be used without retaining walls if the soil is stable and water
control structures are adequate.

� Balance excavation and embankments to minimize the need for
supplemental building material and to maximize road stability.
� Do not use road fills at drainage crossings as water
impoundments unless they have been designed as an earthfill
dam that may be subject to section 404 requirements. These
earthfill embankments should have outlet controls to allow
draming prior to runoff periods and should be designed to pass
flood flows.

Allow time after construction for disturbed soil and fill material Figure 3-4. Typical side-hill cross
section illustrating how cut material, A,
to stabilize prior to use (Huff and Deal, 1982). Roads should equals fill material, B (Rothwell, 1978).
be compacted and stabilized prior to use. This will reduce the
amount of maintenance needed during and after harvesting
activities (Kochenderfer, 1970).

Table 3-9. Stable Back Slope and Fill Slope Angles for Different Soil
Materials (Rothwell, 1978)

Back Slopes Fill Slopes

Flat ground cuts under 0.9 m 2:1 Common for most soil 1%:1
types

Most soil types with ground slopes <55% 1:1 Alluvial soils 2:1

Most soil types with ground slopes >55% 3/4:1 Ballast 1:1
Hardpan of soft rock Y2: I Clay 4-1:1

Solid rock 'A: 1 Rock, crushed 1-Y4:1

Gravel 1:1

Sand, moist 1@k-1:1

Sand, saturated 2:1

Shale 1%:1

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-21

IL Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Use existing roads, whenever practical, to minimize the total amount of construction necessary.

Do not plan and construct a road when access to an existing road is available on the opposite side of the drdnage.
This practice will minimize the amount of new road construction disturbance. Wowever, avoid using existing or past
road locations if they do not meet needed road standards (Swift, 1985).

0 Minimize the number of stream crossings for roads and skid trails. Stream crossings should be
designed and sited to cross drainages at 900 to the streamflow.

Locate stream crossings to minimize channel changes and the amount of excavation or fill needed at
the crossing (Fumiss et al., 1991). Apply the following criteria to determine the locations of stream
crossings (Hynson et al., 1982):

� Use a streambed with a straight and uniform profile above, at, and below the crossing;
� Locate crossing so the stream and road alignment are straight in all four directions;
� Cross where the stream is relatively narrow with low banks and firm, rocky soil; and
� Avoid deeply cut streambanks and soft, muddy soil.

0 Choose stream-crossing structures (bridges, culverts, or fords) with the structural capacity to safely
handle expected vehicle loads with the least disturbance to the watercourse. Consider streara size,
storm frequency and flow rates, intensity of use (permanent or temporary), water quality, and habitat
value, and provide for fish passage.

M Select the waterway opening size to minimize the risk of washout during the expected life of the
structure.

Bridges or arch culverts, which retain the natural stream bottom and slope, are preferred over pipe culverts for
streams that are used for fish migrating or spawning areas (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). Fish passage may be provided in
streams that have wide ranges of flow by providing multiple culverts (Figure 3-7).

0 Design culverts and bridges for minimal impact on water quality. Size small culverts to pass Ihe 25-
year flood, and size major culverts to pass the 50-year flood. Design major bridges to pass the 100-
year flood.

W The use of fords should be limited to areas where the streambed has a firm rock or gravel botiom (or
where the bottom has been armored with stable material), where the approaches are both kow and
stable enough to support traffic, where fish are not present during low flow, and where the water depth
is no more than 3 feet (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988, Hynson et a/., 1982).

0 For small stream crossings on temporary roads, the use of temporary bridges is recommended.

Temporary bridges usually consist of logs bound together and suspended above the stream, with no part in contact
with the stream itself. This prevents streambank erosion, disturbance of stream bottoms, and excessive turbidity
(Hynson et al., 1982). Provide additional capacity to accommodate debris loading that may lodge in the siructure
opening and reduce its capacity.

When temporary stream crossings are used, remove culverts and log crossings upon completion of
operations.

3-22 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Forestry Management Measures

BRIDGE MULTIPLE CUL
Used tor spans over 6 rn (20 Used tor spans 2 rn to 12 rn (6'-40')

1z 3@
r

`@o

-tZ

CULVERT ARCH CULVERT
Used tor spans up to 4 m12') Used for spans 4 rn to 9 rn 112' to 301
Figure 3-5. Alternative water crossing structures (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, 1988).

%-N

Figure 3-7. Multiple culverts for fish passage in
streams that have wide ranges of flows (Hynson et
or
al., 1982).

Figure 3-6. Culvert conditions that block
fish passage (Yee and Roelofs, 1980).

M Springs flowing continuously for more than 1 month should have drainage structures rather than
allowing road ditches to carty the flow to a drainage culvert,

Most forest roads should be surfaced, and the type of road surface will usually be determined by the
volume and composition of traffic, the maintenance objectives, the desired service life, and the stability
and str ength of the road foundation (subgrade) material (Larse, 1971).

Figure 3-8 compares roadbed erosion rates for different surfacing materials.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-23

I/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Surface roads (with gravel, grass, wood chips, or crushed rocks) where grades increase the potential
for surface erosion.

Use appropriately sized aggregate, appropriate percent fines, and suitable particle hardness to protect
road surfaces from ruffing and erosion under heavy truck traffic during wet periods. Ditch runoff should
not be visibly turbid during these conditions. Do not use aggregate containing hazardous materials or
high sulfide ores.

Plan water source developments, used for wetting and compacting roadbeds and surfaces, to prevent
channel bank and streambed impacts. Access roads should not provide sediment to the water source.

Many States, currently utilize some process to ensure implementation of management practices. These
processes are typically related to the planning phase of forestry operations and commonly involve some
type of notification process. Some States have one or more processes in place which serve as
notification mechanisms used to ensure implementation. These State processes are usually associated
with either Forest Practices Acts, Erosion Control Acts, State Dredge and Fill or CWA Section 404
requirements, timber tax requirements, or State and Federal incentive and cost share programs. The
examples of existing State processes below illustrate some of these which might also be used as
mechanisms to ensure implementation of management measures.

Florida Water Management Districts require notification prior to conducting forestry operations that involve stream
crossings. This is required in order to meet the requirements of a State Dredge and Fill general permit, comparable
to a CWA section 404 requirement. This notification is usually done by mail, but at least one water management
district also allows verbal notification for some types of operations by telephoning an answering machine. In Florida,
notification is required for any crossing of "Waters of the State," including wetlands, intermittent streams and creeks,
lakes, and ponds. If any of these waters in the State are to be crossed during forestry operations, either by hau I roads
or by groundskidding, then notification is needed and State BMPs are required by reference in the general perntit.
Notification is usually provided by mailing in a notification sheet, which says who will conduct the operation and
where it will be conducted (see Appendix 3A, Example 3A-1). In addition, information on what type of op.-ration
will be conducted, the name of a contact person, and a sketch of the site are included. Use of pesticides for forestry
applications in Florida also requires
licensing by the State Bureau of
Pesticides.

The Oregon Forest Practice Rules
require that the landowner or
operator notify the State Forester at
E 1-0
least 15 days prior t o 0
-1.0
commencement of the following
activities: (1) harvesting of forest @Q
tree species-, (2) construction,
0 (D
reconstruction and improvement of
roads; (3) application of pesticides
2 0.5 -
and fertilizers; (4) site preparation 0.5 2
C3 bare soil
for reforestation involving clearing
or use of heavy machinery; ED 5 cm crushed rock (2in
C
(5) clearing forest land for 0 CD gross
conversion to any non-forest use; 15 cm crushed rocli (6.n)
(6) disposal or treatment of slash; 0.0 0.0 20 cm large stone (8in)
(7) pre-commercial thinning; and _-Li
(8) cutting of firewood, when the Figure 3-8. Soil loss rates for roadbeds with five surfacing treatments.
firewood will be sold or used for Roads constructed of sandy loam saprolite (Swift, 1988).

3-24 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januarv 1993

Chapter 3 U. Forestry Management Measures

barter. The State must approve the activity within 15 days and may require the submittal of a written plan. In
addition, the preparation and submittal of a written plan is required for all operation within 100 feet of Class I
waters, which are waters that support game fish or domestic uses, or within 300 feet of wetlands and sensitive
wildlife habitat areas. Appendix 3A, Example 3A-2 contains a copy of Oregon's Notification of
Operation/Application for Permit form. Oregon has developed a system of prioritization for the review and approval
of these written plans. In Oregon, notification of intent to harvest is provided to the Department of Revenue through
the Department of Forestry for purposes of tax collection. Additional permits for operation of power-driven
machinery and to clear rights-of-way for road systems are also required.

New Hampshire does not have a Forest Practices Act, but does have a number of other State processes that serve
as notification mechanisms for forestry activities. Prior to conducting forest harvesting, an Intent to Cut Application
must be submitted to the Department of Revenue Administration (see Appendix 3A, Example 3A-3). This is required
for the timber yield tax, and is filed in order to get a certificate for intent to cut. The Intent to Cut Application must
be accompanied by an application for Filling, Dredging or Construction of Structures for those operations that involve
the crossing of any fi-eshwater wetland, intermittent or perennial stream, or other surface water. If the activity is not
considered a minimum impact, a written plan must be submitted and approved before work may begin. Signature
of these applications by the owner or operator adopts by reference the provisions of the State Best Management
Practice Handbook. The State Erosion Control Act also requires notification for obtaining a permit for ground-
disturbing activities greater than 100,000 square feet. This permit is required prior to commencement of operations.
Another State process that entails notification is the provisions for the prevention of pollution from terrain alteration.
These provisions require the submission of a plan 30 days before conducting the transport of forest products in or
on the border of the surface waters of the State or before significantly altering the characteristics of the terrain in
such a manner as to impede the natural runoff or create an unnatural runoff. The State must grant written permission
before operations of this type may take place. Each of these existing State mechanisms entails the notification of
the State prior to conducting forestry operations. Pesticides licensing is also necessary if the forestry operation
0 involves the application of herbicides or insecticides.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-25

/1. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

. .. ... . ............
B. Streamside Management Areas (SMAS)

Establish and maintain a strearnside management area along surface waters, which
is sufficiently wide and which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to
buffer against detrimental changes in the temperature regime of the waterbody, to
provide bank stability, and to withstand wind damage. Manage the SMA in such a
way as to protect against soil disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream of
sediments and nutrients generated by forestry activities, including harvesting.
Manage the SMA canopy species to provide a sustainable source of large woody
debris needed for instrearn channel structure and aquatic species habitat.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to surface waters bordering or within the area of operations. SMAs should be established for
perennial waterbodies as well as for intermittent streams that are flowing during the time of operation. Forwinter
logging, SMAs are also needed for intermittent streams since spring breakup is both the time of maximum transport
of sediments from the harvest unit and the time when highest flows are present in intermittent streams.

2. Description

The strearnside management area (SMA) is also commonly referred to as a strearnside management zone (SIVIZ) or
as a riparian management area or zone. SMAs are widely recognized to be highly beneficial to water qualily and
aquatic habitat. Vegetation in SMAs reduces runoff and traps sediments generated from. upslope activities, and
reduces nutrients in runoff before it reaches surface waters (Figure 3-9, Kundt and Hall, 1988). Canopy species
provide shading to surface waters, which moderates water temperature and provides the detritus that serves as an
energy source for stream ecosystems. Trees in the SMA also provide a source of large woody debris to surface
waters. SMAs provide important habitat for aquatic organisms (and terrestrial species) while preventing excessive
logging-generated slash and debris from reaching waterbodies (Corbett and Lynch, 1985).

SMAs need to be of sufficient width to prevent delivery of sediments and nutrients generated from forestry activities
(harvest, site preparation, or roads) in upland areas to the waterbody being protected. Widths for SMAs are
established by considering the slope, soil type, precipitation, canopy, and waterbody characteristics. To avoid failure
of SMAs, zones of preferential drainage such as intermittent channels, ephemeral channels and depressions need to
be addressed when determining widths and laying out SMAs. SMAs should be designed to withstand wind damage
or blowdown. For example, a single rank of canopy trees is not likely to withstand blowdown and maintain the
functions of the SMA.

3-26 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

SMAs should be managed to maintain a sufficient number of large trees SEDIMENT
to provide for bank stability and a sustainable source of large woody
debris. Large woody debris is naturally occurring dead and down woody
materials and should not be confused with logging slash or debris. Trees
to be maintained or managed in the SMA should provide for large woody
debris recruitment to the stream at a rate that maintains beneficial uses Soil runoff
associated with fish habitat and stream structure at the site and
downstream. This should be sustainable over a time period that is
equivalent to that needed for the tree species in the SMA to grow to the
size needed to provide large woody debris.

Soil pamcles are
A sufficient number of canopy species should also be maintained to disperud on the forod
provide shading to the stream water surface needed to prevent changes floor and mftlrAd thm.
in temperature regime for the waterbody and to prevent deleterious
temperature- or sunlight-related impacts on the aquatic biota. If the PHOSPHORUS
existing shading conditions for the waterbody prior to activity are known
to be less than optimal for the stream, then SMAs should be managed to Phosphorus
increase shading of the waterbody. applied as
fGrtiliZOf.

To preserve SMA integrity for water quality protection, some States limit
the type of harvesting, timing of operations, amount harvested, or
reforestation methods used. SMAs are managed to use only harvest and
silvicultural methods that will prevent soil disturbance within the SMA.
Additional operational considerations for SMAs are addressed in This laesA wrom as a
subsequent management measures. Practices for SMA applications to adinwill trop and, of the
wetlands are described in Management Measure J. somw Ifffo, retains and
uffilm phmphcft anions.
3. Management Measure Selection NITROGEN
a. Effectiveness Information
Nitrogen
appiled as
The effectiveness of SMAs in protecting streams from temperature fertilizers.
increases, large increases in sediment load, and reduced dissolved oxygen
was demonstrated by Hall and others (1987) (Table 3-10). Lantz (1971)
(Table 3-11) also showed the protection that strearnside vegetation and
selective cutting gave to both water quality and the cutthroat trout .000
population. A comparison of physical changes associated with logging
using three streamside treatments was made by Hartman and others Nli.Ww movefloff-sille via
(1987) (Table 3-12). This study was performed to observe the impact of groW4 walei and surkm
minalf. Strearn0de toresis
these SMAs on the supply of woody debris essential to the fish r1swin n"mW thmWh plont
population and channel structure. The volume and stability of large growth and disnit"ficaflom
woody debris decreased immediately in the most intensive treatment area, Figure 3-9. SMA pollutant removal
decreased a few years after logging in the careful treatment area, and processes (Kundt and Hall, 1988).
remained stable where strearnside trees and other vegetation remained.

Other experimental forest.studies have found that average monthly maximum water temperature increases from 3.3
to 10.5 'C following clearcutting (Lynch et. al., 1985). Increases in stream temperature result from increased direct
solar radiation to the water surface from the removal of vegetative cover or shading in the strearnside area. Stream
temperature change depends on the height and density of trees, the width of the waterbody, and the volume of water
(stream discharge), with small streams heating up faster than large streams per unit of increased solar radiation
0 (Megahan, 1980). Increased direct solar radiation also shifts the energy sources for strewn ecosystems from outside
the stream sources, allochthonous organic matter, to instrewn producers, autochthonous aquatic plants such as algae.

EPA-840-B-,92-002 January 1993 3-27

IL Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-10. Comparison of Effects of Two Methods of Harvesting on Water Quality (OR)
(Hall at al., 1987)

Dissolved
Watershed Method Strearnflow Water Temp. Sediment Oxygen

Deer Creek Patch cut with No increase in No change Increases for No change
buffer strips peak flow one year due to
(750 acres) periodic road
failure

Needle Clearcut with no Small increases Large changes, Five-fold Reduced by
Branch stream daily maximum increase during logging slash to
protection (175 increase by first winter, near zero in
acres) 300F, returning returning to near some reaches;
to pre-log temp. normal the returned to
within 7 years fourth year after normal when
harvest slash removed

Brown and Krygier (1970) report the greatest long-term average temperature response following clearcutting and
slash disposal on a small watershed in Oregon. The average monthly temperature increased 14 OF compared to no
increase on an adjacent, larger watershed that was clearcut in patches with 50- to 100-foot-wide buffer strips b-,tween
the logging units and the perennial streams. Lynch and Corbett (1990) report less than a 3 OF mean temp-mature
increase following harvesting, with 100-foot buffer strips along perennial streams. They attribute the increase to an
intermittent stream with no protective vegetation that became perennial after harvesting due to increased flow. As
a result of this BMP evaluation study, Pennsylvania modified its BMPs to require SMAs along both perennial and
intermittent streams.

Another benefit of strearnside management arras is control of suspended sediment and turbidity levels. Lynch and
others (1985) documented the effectiveness of SMAs in controlling these pollutants (Table 3-13). A combination
of practices was applied, including buffer strips and prohibitions for skidding, slash disposal, and road layout in or
near streams. Average stormwater-suspended sediment and turbidity levels for the treatment without these practices
increased significantly compared to the control and SMA/BMP sites.

Table 3-11. Water Ouality Effects from Two Types of Logging Operations In the Alsea
Watershed (OR) (Lantz, 1971)

Watershed and Oxygen Suspended Cutthroat Trout
Logging Method Acreage Content Temperature Sediment Population

Needle Branch; 175 Decrease Increase of Increase. Decrease from
clearcut, strearnside during maximum from (largest 265 to 65 fish
vegetation removed summer due 61 OF to 85OF contribution in stream @k
to debris in from roads) mile
water

Deer Creek; 750 Only minor changes, if any
selection cut, 30%
streamside harvested
vegetation retained

Flynn Creek; control 500 No changes

3-28 EPA-840-8-92-002 danuafy 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestiy Management Measures

Table 3-12. Summary of Major Physical Changes Within Strearnside Treatment Areas (BC)
(Hartman et al., 1987)

Streamside Treatment
Leave Strip* Carefulb lntensive@

11 111 IV Vill V VI Vil

Large Debris
Mean volume (m3/30 m)
Prelogging 29.6 34.2 37.4 14.3 25.4 26.0 78.2
Postlogging 29.5 50.4 36.4 14.7 23.2 20.0 19.5
Mean number of pieces
Prelogging 34.0 27.3 32.0 14.2 25.0 25.3 19.8
Postlogging 36.5 27.0 30.0 20.9 27.5 36.2 23.0
Means of stability indices
Prelogging
Postlogging 54.7 53.0 84.4 82.0 80.2 93.1 98.9
63.3 61.7 61.2 39.0 35.7 43.9 56.2

Small Debris
Volume Volume not
Prelogging measured but low.
Postlogging Volume increased
after logging and
reduced by 90%
after 1978 freshet.

Sources: All results except those on substrate change are from Schultz International (1981) and Toews and
Moore (1982). The results on substrate change are from Scrivener and Brownlee (1986).
Leave strip treatment included leaving a variable-width strip of vegetation along the stream.
b Careful treatment involved clearcutting to the margin of the stream and felling of streambank alder, with virtually
no in-channel activity.
Intensive treatment involved clearcutting to the streambank, felling of streambank alder, some yarding of felled
trees, and merchantable blowdown from the stream.

Table 3-13. Storm Water Suspended Sediment Delivery for Different Treatments (PA)
(Lynch, Corbett, and Mussallem, 1985)

Water Year and Treatment Annual Average Suspended Sediment in mgA (Range)

1977
Forested control 1.7(0.2- 8.6)
C lea rcut- herbicide 10.4(2.3 - 30.5)
Commercial clearcut with BMPs' 5.9(0.3 - 20.9)

1978
Forested control 5.1(0.3 - 33.5)
Clearcut-herbicide ..b (1.8 _ 38.0)
Commercial clearcut with BMPsa 9.3(0.2 - 76.0)

Buffer strips, skidding in streams prohibited, slash disposal away from streams, skid trail and road layout away from
streams.
b Data not available.

EPA-840-B-,92-002 January 1993 3-29

/1. Foreshy Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-14. Average Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel After
Harvesting (OR) (Froehlich, 1973)
Natural Debris Material Added in Felling % increase-
Cutting Practice (tons per hundred feet of channel)
Conventional tree-felling 8.1 47 570

Cable-assisted directional felling 16 14 1,12
Conventional tree-felling with buffer strip" 12 1.3 14

' Buffer strips ranged from 20 to 130 feet wide for different channel segments.

Practices such as directional felling are designed to minimize stream and streambank damage associated with
increased logging debris in SMAs. Froehlich (1973) provides data on how effective different cutting practices and
buffer strips are in preventing debris from entering the stream channel (Table 3-14). Buffer strips were the most
effective debris barriers. Narver (1971) investigated the impacts of logging debris in streams on salmonid prod-action
and describes threats to fish embryo survival from low dissolved oxygen concentrations and decreased flow velocities
in intragravel waters. Erman and others (1977) studied the effectiveness of buffer strips in protecting aquatic
organisms and found significant differences in benthic invertebrate communities when logging occurred with buffer
strips less than 30 meters wide.

b. Cost Information

In 4 of the 10 areas in Oregon studied by Dykstra and Froelich (1976a), the 55-foot buffer strip was the least costly
alternative, yet these researchers concluded that no single alternative is preferable for all sites in terms of costs and
that cost analysis alone cannot resolve the question of best stream protection method (Table 3-15).

Dykstra and Froehlich (1976b) also found that increased cable-assisted directional felling costs (68 to 108 p-,rcent
increase) were offset by savings in channel clean-up costs (only 27 percent as much large debris and 39 percent small
debris accumulated in the stream for cable-assisted felling), increased yield from reduced breakage, and reJuced
yarding costs. They also estimated costs for debris removal from streams to be $300 to clean 5 tons of debris from
a 100-foot segment, or about $60 per ton of residue removed.

Table 3-15. Average Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs per MW (OR)
(Dykstra and Froehlich, 1976a)

Total Cost Volume
Cutting Practice Average Range Foregone
Conventional felling $24.78 $21.90 - 29.93 None
Cable-assisted directional felling (1.43% $26.05 $21.36 - 31.24
breakage saved within 200-foot stream)

Cable-assisted felling (10% breakage $24.64 $19.55 - 29.82
saved)
Buffer strip (55 feet wide) $23.34 $19.84 - 27.77 0 to 6 percent
Buffer strip (150 feet wide) $27.15 $24.33 - 30.28 6 to 17 percent

' Cost estimates for each of 10 areas studied by Dykstra and Froehlich were averaged for this table.

3-30 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

Lickwar (1989) examined the costs of SMAs as determined by varying slope steepness (Table 3-16) in different
regions in the Southeast and compared them to road construction and revegetation practice costs. He fovun_@_____@@s
to be the least expensive practice, in general, and to cost roughly the same independent of slope.

The costs associated with use of alternative buffer and filter strips were also analyzed in an Oregon case study
(Olsen, 1987) (Table 3-17) and by Ellefson and Weible (1980). In the Oregon case study, increasing the buffer width
from 35 feet on each side of a stream to 50 feet was shown to reduce the value per acre by $103 undiscounted and
$75 discounted costs, approximately a 2 percent increase on a harvesting cost per acre of $5,163 undiscounted and
$3,237 discounted. Doubling the buffer width from 35 to 70 feet on each side reduced the dollar value per acre by
approximately 3 times more, adding approximately 8 percent to the discounted harvesting costs. Ellefson and Weible
also analyzed the added cost and rate of return associated with various filter and buffer strip widths. Doubling the
width of a filter strip from 30 to 60 feet increases the cost from $12 to $44 per sale and reduces the rate of return
by 0.4 percent. Doubling the width of the buffer strip from 30 to 60 feet doubles the cost and reduces the rate of
return by I percent. Increasing the width of the buffer strip from 30 to 100 feet triples the cost and reduces the rate
of return by 2.3 percent.

4. Practices

Generally, SMAs should have a minimum width of 35 to 50 feet SMA width should also increase
according to site-specific factors. The primary factors that determine the extension of SMA width are
slope, class of watercourse, depth to water table, soil type, type of vegetation, and intensity of
management.

Many States use SMAs. Examples of SMA designation strategies from Florida, North Carolina, Maine, and
Washington are presented. Figure 3-10 depicts Florida's streamside management zone (SMZ) designations. Florida's
SMZs are divided into a fixed-width primary zone and a variable secondary zone, each of which has its own special
management criteria. Table 3-18 presents North Carolina's recommendations for SMZ widths for various types of
waterbodies dependent on adjacent upland slope. Maine's recommended filter strip widths are dependent on the land

Table 3-16. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for
Streamside Management Areas (1987 Dollars) (Lickwar, 1989)
Practice Component Steep Sites' Moderate Sites' Flat Sites'

Streamside
Management Zones $2,061.77 (0.52%) $2,397.80 (0.51%) $2,344.08 (0.26%)

a Based on a 1,148-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $399,68. Slopes average over 9 percent.
b Based on a 1,104-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $473,18. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to
8 percent.
c Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $899,49. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to
3 percent.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-31

1/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-17. Cost Impacts of Three Alternative Buffer Strips (OR)':
Case Study Results with 640-Acre Base (36 mbf/acre) (Olsen, 1987)
Scenario

Average buffer width (feet on each side) 35 50 70
Percent conifers removed 100 60 25
Percent reclassified Class 11 streams' 0 20 80
Harvesting restrictions Current New New
Road Construction
New miles 2.09 2.14 3.06
Road and landing acres 10.9 11.1 15.9
Cost total (1000's) $96.00 $102.00 $197.00
Cost/acre $149.00 $160.00 $307.00
Harvesting Activitiesc
mmbf harvested 22.681 22.265 20.277
Acres harvested 638.3 635.5 633.1
Cost total (1000's) $3,104.00 $3,101.00 $2,842.00
Cost/acre $4,841.00 $4,835.00 $4,432.00
Cost/mbf $136.87 $139.26 $140.17
Inaccessible Area and Volume
Percent area in buffers 1.3 3.9 14.0
mmbf left in buffers 0.000 0.313 2.214
Acres unloggable 1.44 4.32 6.72
mmbf lost to roads and landings 0.202 0.205 0.295
Undiscounted Costs (1000's)
Road cost $96.00 $102.00 $197.00
Harvesting cost $3,104.00 $3,101.00 $2,842.00
Value of volume foregone $38.00 $101.00 $413.00
Total $3,238.00 $3,304.00 $3,451.00
Cost/acre $5,060.00 $5,163.00 $5,393.00
Reduced dollar value/acre $103.00 $323.00
Discounted Costs
Cost with 4% discount rate (1000's) $2,023.00 $2,071.00 $2,195.00
Cost/acre $3,162.00 $3,237.00 $3,431.00
Reduced value/acre $75.00 $269.00

mmbf = millon board feet; mbf = thousand board feet
a 1986 dollars.
Generally, only Class I streams are buffered.
Includes telling, landing construction and setup, yarding, loading, and hauling.
d Volume foregone x net revenue ($1501mbo.

slope between the road and waterbody (Table 3-19). Washington State requires a riparian management zone ('RMZ)
around all Type 1, 2, and 3 waters where the adjacent harvest cutting is a regeneration cut or a clearcut. A guide
for calculating the average width of the RMZ is provided in the Forest Practices Board manual (Washington State
Forest Practices Board, 1988)(Figure 3-11).

3-32 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 /1. Forestry Management Measures

Discretionary Zone
Streamaide Management Zone
(SMZ)
(varies with Secondary Zone) Remaining DiawetionuT Zone
r-P-AM-Oft-I [email protected] Z.-.---l

Site Sensitivity Claim A 1 35 feet
A2 45 feet
A 3 60 feet
A4 75 feet
A: 90 feet
A
110feet

Sit* Sensitivity Class B 1 35 feet
B 2 60 feet
B 3
75 foot
B 4 90 feet
B 110 feet
B 140 feet

Site Sensitivity Class C 1 35 feet
C 2 60 feet
C 3 so feet
C 4 100 rest
C 120 feet
C 140 feet

Feet 35 75 115 150 225 300

Site Sensitivity Classification

Soil ErodiblUty 9 Vector Slope
Oto2% _3%to_7% 8% to 12% 13% to 17% -18% to 22% 22%+
Low Less than 0.20 A I A 2 A 3 A 4 A 5 A 6
Moderate 0-21 thru 0.27 B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 B 5 B 6
High Greater than 0.28 C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6

Figure 3-10. Florida's streamside management zone widths as defined by the Site Sensitivity Classification
(Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, 1991).

Minimize disturbances that would expose the mineral soil of the SMA forest floor. Do not operate
skidders or other heavy machinery in the SMA.

Locate a# landings, portable sawmills, and roads outside the SMA.

Restrict mechanical site preparation in the SMA, and encourage natural revegetation, seeding, and
handplanting.

Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the SMA. Buffers for pesticide application should be established
for all flowing streams.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-33

Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-18. Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths
(North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, 1989)

Percent Slope of Adjacent Lands
Type of Stream 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-45 46+
or Waterbody SMZ Width Each Side (feet)

Intermittent 50 50 50 50 50

Perennial 50 50 50 50 50

Perennial Trout Waters 50 66 75 100 125

Public Water Supplies 50 100 150 150 200
(Streams and Reservoirs)

Directionally fell trees away from streams to prevent logging slash and organic debris from entering the
waterbody.

Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to maintain its integrity.

Enough trees should be left to maintain shading and bank stability and to provide woody debris. This provision for
leaving residual trees can be accomplished in a variety of ways. For example, the Maine Forestry Service (1991)
specifies that no more than 40 percent of the total volume of timber 6 inches DBH and greater should be removed
in a 10-year period, and the trees removed should be reasonably distributed within the SMA. Florida (1991)
recommends leaving a volume equal to or exceeding one-half the volume of a fully stocked stand. The nurnber of
residual trees varies inversely with their average diameter (Table 3-20). A shading requirement independent of the
volume of timber may be necessary for streams where temperature changes could alter aquatic habitat.

Studies by Brazier and Brown (1973) demonstrated that the effectiveness of the SMA in controlling temperature
changes is independent of timber volume; it is a complex interrelationship between canopy density, canopy height,
stream width, and stream discharge. The Washington State Forest Practices Board (1988) incorporates leave tree
and shade requirements in its regulations (Figure 3-12). Shade requirements within the SMA are to leave all
nonmerchantable timber that provides midsummer and midday shade to the water surface, and to leave sufficient
merchantable timber necessary to retain 50 percent of the summer midday shade. Shade cover is preferably left
distributed evenly within the SMA (Figure 3-13). If a threat of blowdown exists, then clumping and clustering of
leave trees may be used as long as the shade requirement is met (Figure 3-14).

Table 3-19. Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths (Maine Forest Service, 1991)
Slope of Land Width of Strip (ft along ground)

0 25

10 45

20 65

30 85

40 105

50 125

60 145

70 165

3-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 11 Forestry Management Measures

Guidelines for Calculatin Average Width Of Figure 14. Eastern Washington Figure 14. Eastern Washington
Riparian Management Zones (RMZ) Riparian Management Zone (RMZ)

Use the following procedures to calculate average width of Eastern Washington riparian
management zone (RMZ) when the adjacent harvest cutting is a regeneration cut or
clearcut. Average RMZ width is also used to calculate the acreage and number of trees/
acre. (See WAC 222-16-010(33) Partial Cut.)

Procedures

1. RMZs are measured separately on each side of streams. Begin at the ordinary high
water mark of Type 1. 2 and 3 Waters and measure the horizontal distance to the line
where vegetation changes from wetland to upland type. EXCEPT where the distance
is less then the minimium or greater than the maximum widths in the rules. (See 7 below
am Figure 14.)

2. Width measurements (horizontal distance) are taken at right angles to the stream reach.
See WAC 222-30-020(6) for description of Eastern Washington RMZ- Western
Washington RMZ is described in WAC 222-30-020(5).

3. Measure width of RMZ at 5 or more similarly spaced intervals.

4. Use 50 feet or greater distances between width measurements. Sample the entire stream
reach within the harvest Unit.

5. On each end of the strum reach being measured. begin and end width measurements

atone-half the interval used for the other measurements. Thishelps to reduce sampling

error$.

6. If the RMZ width varies more than 30 feet in a set of measurements. increase the

number of measurements. Try for uniform sampling. Use enough measurements to
adequately sample natural variations in width. (See Figure 14.)

7. On Eastern Washington PARTIAL CUTS. a width of less than 30 feet is noted a 30
feet and a width of more than 50 fact is noted as 50 feet when calculating the average
RMZ width for leave trees/am because then distances me specified in the rules, The
natural riparian area may be wider or narrower than stated in the rules.

For other types of cuts, minimum width is measured in the same way as for partial cuts.
But the actual width of more than 30 feet is noted up to a maximum of 300 feet. If the
riparian area is wider than 300 feet. it is noted as 300 feet.

8. Calculate average width by totaling the widths in feet and dividing by the number of
measurements.

9. In Eastern Washington where the adjacent harvest is a regeneration cut or clearcut,
RMZ must AVERAGE 50 feet in width.

10. Multiply average RMIZ width by its length within the cutting unit to calculate square
feet of RMZ- Measure length approximately parallel to strewn reach and near outer
edge of RMZ.

11. Multiply square feet by 0.000023 to calculate acres or see Acreage Table 6. (Figure
15 describes leave trees and snags for Eastern Washington RMZ.

Figure 3-11. Guide for calculating the average width of the RMZ (Washington State Forest Practices Board, 1988).

EPA-80-B-92-002 January 1993 3-35

1/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-20. Stand Stocking in the Primary SMZ (Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, 1991)
Minimum Number of Trees per Average Tree Spacing
Average Tree Size (DBH) 100 feet (feet)
Small (2" to 6") 18 14
Medium (8" to 12") 7 23
Large (114"+ 3 34

Design for Leave Trees and Snags/Acre - Type 1, 2 and 3 Water
(50 percent of ALL leave trees are to be live at completion of harvest.)

#JAL QUL SRecies Size by dbh Othcr Design Criteria
All Live Trees 12" or less, AND

All* Dead Snags All, *(exc. those in viol. L & I Rules)

AND

16 Live Conifers 12 - 20" distr. x size repr. of stand,

AND

3 Live Conifers 20" or larger, AND

.1 2 Live Deciduous Largest trees 16" & larger, EXCEPT

[Where 2 Live Deciduous Trees 16" clbh & larger do NOT exist, AND

2 Dead Snags 20" dbh & larger do not exist,

SUBSTITIJTE

2 Live Conifers Wor larger. IF these do NOT exist,

SU13ST=E

5 Live Conifers Largest available,

AND

3 Live Deciduous 12 - 16", IF they exist in the RMZ. AND

ADDITIONAL Trees to Total the Minimum Number of Leave Trees:

Minimum Total Number of Leave Trees/Acre
(includes Design Trees)

Adjacent Measured I Side Number of Trees/Acre by Type of Red
Type of Width of RMZ Gravel/Cobble Boulder/Bedrock
Do* XhL M&L AY, (<10" diameter) (& lake At Dondl
Partial 39 5U DNA$* 135,4" dbh & > 75,4" dbh & >
Other 34Y 300' 59 135.4" dbh & > 75. 4" dbh & >

*(See defirtidon, regeneration cuts of any type are NOT Partial.)
*Does not apply.

Figure 3-12. Washington State Forest Practices Board (1988)
requirements for leave trees in the RMZ.

3-36 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Forestry Management Measures

Un,t So..d.,Y

50% Shading

Un.t Sound.,V'\

Figure 3-13. Uniform harvesting in the riparian zone Figure 3-14. Vegetative shading along a stream course
(Washington State Forest Practices Board, 1988). (Washington State Forest Practices Board, 1988).

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-37

/L Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

. . ........ .
... . ...
C. Road Construction/Reconstruction

(1) Follow preharvest planning (as described under Management Measure A) when
constructing or reconstructing the roadway.
(2) Follow designs planned under Management Measure A for road surfacing and
shaping.
(3) Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under
Management Measure A and regional storm return period and installation
specifications. Match these drainage structures with terrain features and with
road surface and prism designs.
(4) Guard against the production of sediment when installing stream crossings.
(5) Protect surface waters from slash and debris material from roadway clearing.
(6) Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or other favorable practices on disturbed
soils on unstable cuts, fills, etc.
(7) Avoid constructing new roads in SMAs to the extent practicable.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended for application by States on lands where silvicultural or forestry operations
are planned or conducted. It is intended to apply to road construction/reconstruction operations for silvicultural
purposes, including:
� The clearing phase: clearing to remove trees and woody vegetation from the road right-of-way;
� The pioneering phase: excavating and filling the slope to establish the road centerline and appro)dmate
grade;
� The construction phase: final grade and road prism construction and bridge, culvert, and road drainage
installation; and
� The surfacing phase: placement and compaction of the roadbed, road fill compaction, and surface placement
and compaction (if applicable).
Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in
doing so. The application of this management measure by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to minimize delivery of sediment to surface waters during road
construction/reconstruction projects. Figure 3-15 depicts various road structures addressed by this management
measure. Disturbance of soil and rock during road construction/reconstruction creates a significant potential for
erosion and sedimentation of nearby streams and coastal waters. Some roads are temporary or seasonal-use roads,

3-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai), 1993

Chapter 3 11. Forestry Management Measures

Right Of Way

Roadside Roadside

o'
c: Clearing Width

Z x Aosdway Y

Back Slope __I!@vjled Way
r

surface Course CO
7 C 9
ease Course
Drainage Ditch - Subiltsda Fill Slope

Ground

Roadbed

Note: Shapes And Dimensions Will Vary To Fit Local Conditions
See Drewings For Typical Sections
X & Y Denote Clearing Outside Of Roadway

Figure 3-15, Illustration of road structure terms (Hynson et al., 1982).

and their construction does not involve the high level of disturbance generated by permanent, high-standard roads.
However, temporary or low-standard roads still need to be constructed in such a way as to prevent disturbance and
sedimentation. Brown (1972) stated that road construction is the largest source of silviculture-produced sediment
in the Pacific Northwest. It is also a significant source in other regions of the country. Therefore, proper road and
drainage crossing construction practices are necessary to minimize sediment delivery to surface waters. Proper road
design and construction can prevent road fill and road backslope failure, which can result in mass movements and
severe sedimentation. Proper road drainage prevents concentration of water on road surfaces, thereby preventing road
saturation that can lead to rutting, road slumping, and channel washout (Dymess, 1967; Golden et al., 1984). Proper
road drainage during logging operations is especially important because that is the time when erosion is greatly
accelerated by continuous road use (Kochenderfer, 1970). Figure 3-16 presents various erosion and sediment control
practices.

Surface protection of the roadbed and cut-and-fill slopes can:

� Minimize soil losses during storms;
� Reduce frost heave erosion production;
� Restrain downslope movement of soil slumps; and
� Minimize erosion from softened roadbeds (Swift, 1984).

Although there are many commonly practiced techniques to minimize erosion during the construction process, the
most meaningful are related to how well the work is planned, scheduled, and controlled by the road builder and those
responsible for determining that work satisfies design requirements and land management resource objectives (Larse,
1971).

3. Management Measure Selection

Most erosion from road construction occurs within a few years of disturbance (Megahan, 1980). Therefore, erosion
Line

control practices that provide immediate results (such as mulching or hay bales) should be applied as soon as possible
to minimize potential erosion (Megahan, 1980). King (1984) found that the amount of sediment produced by road
construction was directly related to the percent of the area taken by roads, the amount of protection given to the
seeded slopes, and whether the road is given a protective surface (Table 3-21).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-39

/I. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

1 , . I - - , , 1.4- '. "'.. @1.

.4. 1

E E

LP
710 v
V5

.1. C

T-V (a

cts

06
0

(D
E
-it

zz,-.
Dc
C

CD
Ar.
G
'A

0
.3
fv

V
4)
!-: Ac
(D
"0 X
;T 4", 15F e 37

cm
co
OD

40
(D
L
0

LL. CC

3-40 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 /1. Forestty Management Measures

Table 3-21. Effects of Several Road Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield (ID)
King (1984)

Increase of Annual
Watershed Area in Roads Sediment Yield'
Area (acres) (percent) Treatment (percent)

207 3.9 Unsurfaced roads; 156
Untreated cut slope;
Untreated fill slope

161 2.6 Unsurfaced roads; 130
Untreated cut slope dry
seeded

364 3.7 Surfaced roads; 93
Cut and fill slopes straw
mulched and seeded

154 1.8 Surfaced roads; 53
Filter windrowed;
Cut and fill slopes straw
mulched and seeded

70 3.0 Surfaced roads; 25
Filter windrowed;
Cut and fill slopes hydro-
mulched and seeded

213 4.3 Surfaced roads; 19
Filter windrowed;
Cut and fill slopes hydro-
mulched and seeded

Measured in debris basins.

a. Effectiveness Information

The effectiveness of road surfacing in controlling erosion was demonstrated by Kochenderfer and Helvey
(1984)(Table 3-22). The data show that using 1-inch crusher-run gravel or 3-inch clean gravel can reduce erosion
to less than one-half that of using 3-inch crusher run gravel and to 12 percent that of an ungraveled road surface.

According to Swift (1984b), road cuts and fills are the largest source of sediment once a logging road is constructed.
His research showed that planting grass on cut-and-fill slopes of new roads effectively reduced erosion in the
southern Appalachians. The combined effectiveness of grass establishment and roadbed graveling was a 97-99
percent reduction in soil loss.

Swift (1986) measured the extent of downslope soil movement for various categories of roadway and slope
conditions (Tables 3-23 and 3-24). He found that grassed fill was more effective than mulched fill or bare fill in
reducing the downslope njovement of soil from newly constructed roads. The author determined grass, forest floor
litter, and brush barriers to be effective management practices for reducing downslope sediment.

Megahan (1980, 1987) summarized the results of several studies that echo Swift's conclusions (Table 3-25). The
combination of straw mulch with some type of netting to hold it in place reduces erosion by more than 90 percent
and has the added benefits of providing immediate erosion control and promoting revegetation. Treating the road
surface reduced erosion 70 to 99 percent. Grass seeding alone can control erosion in moist climates, as confirmed
by Swift (1984b).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-41

IL Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-22. Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments In Controlling Soil
Losses (WV) (Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1984)

Average Annual Soil Losses
Surface Treatment (tons/acre)"

3-inch clean gravel 5.4

Ungraveled 44.4

3-inch crusher-run gravel 11.4

1-Inch crusher-run gravel 5.5

Six measurements taken over a 2-year time period.

b. Cost Information

The costs associated with construction of rolling dips on roads were estimated by Dubensky (1991) as $19.75 each,
with more dips needed as the slope of the road increases.

Ellefson and Miles (1984) determined the decline in net revenue associated with culvert construction, water bar
construction, and construction of broad-based dips to be 3.8 percent, 2.3 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively, for
a timber sale with net revenue of $124,340 without these practices. Kochenderfer and Wendel (1980) examined road
costs, including bulldozing, construction of drainage dips, culvert installafion, and graveling. They concluded that:

(1) Cost to reconstruct a road (including 600 tons of 3-inch clean stone surfacing at $5.74/ton) = $5,855 per
mile. Cost also included 20.5 hours (25 hours/mile) of D-6 tractor time (for road construction and
construction of broad-based drainage dips), 23 hours (28 hours/mile) of JD 450 tractor time to spread
gravel and do final dip shaping, and installation of two culverts. Road construction without the stone
would have cost $1,0611mile.

(2) Cost for a newly constructed road was $3,673 per mile, including 200 tons of gravel. Costs included 46.5
hours (57 hours/mile) of D-6 tractor time to bulldoze the road and construct 22 drainage dips. Spreading
gravel and final dip shaping required 7.5 hours of JD tractor time. This road, constructed without stone,
would have cost $2,078 per mile.

The study concluded that road construction costs in terrain similar to the West Virginia mountain area would range
from about $2,000/mile with no gravel and few culverts to about $10,000/mile with complete graveling and more
frequent use of culverts.

Kochenderfer, Wendel, and Smith (1984) examined the costs associated with road construction of four minimum
standard roads in the Appalachians (Table 3-8 gives road characteristics). Excavation costs varied according to site-
specific factors (soil type, rock outcrop extent, topography) and increased as the amount of rock needing b1lasting
and the number of large trees to be removed increased. Culvert costs varied according to the size and type of culvert
used (Tables 3-26 and 3-27).

Lickwar (1989) studied the costs of various forestry practices in the Southeast. He determined that practices
associated with road construction were generally the most expensive, regardless of terrain. The costs for broad,-based
dips and water bars increased as the terrain steepened, indicating increased implementation of erosion and runoff
control practices as slopes increased (Table 3-28). Steeper areas also required additional (nonspecified) road costs
that were not necessary in moderate to flat areas.

3-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januant 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-23. Reduction In the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20
Feet Long by Grass and Forest Debris (Swift, 1986)

Number of Deposits
Degree of Soil Protection Per 1,000 Feet of Road

Grassed fill, litter and brush burned 13.9

Bare fill, forest litter 9.9

Mulched fill, forest litter 8.1

Grassed fill, forest litter, no brush barrier 6.9

Grassed fill, forest litter, brush barrier 4.6

Table 3-24. Comparison of Downslope Movement of Sediment from Roads for
Various Roadway and Slope Conditions (Swift, 1986)

Mean Distance (feet)
Sites Slope -
Comparisons (no.) N Mean Max Min

All sites 88 46 71 314 2

Barrier'

Brush barriers 26 46 47 156 3

No brush barrier 62 47 81 314 2
Drainageb

Culvert 21 40 80 314 30

Outsloped without culvert 56 47 63 287 2

Unfinished roadbed with berm 11 57 95 310 25

Grass fill and forest litter' 46 40 45 148 2

With brush barrier 16 39 34 78 3

With culvert 4 20 37 43 30

Without culvert 12 45 32 78 3

Without brush barrier 30 41 51 148 2

With culvert 7 37 58 87 30

Without culvert 23 42 49 148 2

Examined the effectiveness of leaving brush barriers in place below road fills, rather than removing brush
barriers.
b Compared roads where storm water was concentrated at a culv6rt pipe to outsloped roads without a
culvert. The berm was constructed on an unfinished roadbed to prevent downslope drainage.
c Compared effectiveness of brush barriers versus drainage i *e*' culvert, systems,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-43

I/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-25. Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads
(Megahan, 1987, 1980)

Stabilization Portion of Road Percent Decrease
Measure Treated in Erosion' Reference

Tree planting Fill slope 50 Megahan,1974b
Hydromulch, straw mulch, and Fill slope 24 to 58 King, 1984
dry seeding'

Grass and legume seeding Road cuts 71 Dyrness, 1970

Straw mulch Fill slope 72 Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966

Straw mulch Road fills 72 Ohlander, 1964

Wood chip mulch Road fills 61 Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966

Wood chip mulch Fill slope 61 Ohlander, 1964

Excelsior mulch Fill slope 92 Burroughs and King, 1985

Paper netting Fill slope 93 Ohlander, 1964

Asphalt-straw mulch Fill slope 97 Ohlander, 1964

Straw mulch, netting, and
planted trees Fill slope 98 Megahan,1974b

Straw mulch and netting Fill slope 99 Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966

Gravel surface Road tread 70 Burroughs and King, 1985

Dust oil Road tread 85 Burroughs and King, 1985

Bituminous surfacing Road treated 99 Burroughs and King, 1985
Terracing Cut slope 86 Unpublished datac
Straw mulch Cut slope 32 to 47 King, 1984
Straw mulch Cut slope 97 Dyrness, 1970

Percent decrease in erosion compared to similar, untreated sites.
No difference in erosion reduction between these three treatments.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID.

Unit cost comparisons for surfacing practices (Swift, 1984a) reveal that grass is the least expensive alternative, at
$174 per kilometer of road (Table 3-29).. Five-centimeter crushed rock cost almost $2000 per kilometer, 15-
centimeter gravel cost about $6000, and 20-centimeter gravel cost almost $9000. The author cautions, however, that
material costs alone are misleading because an adequate road surface might endure several years of use, whereas a
grassed or thinly-graveled surface would need replenishing. Even so, multiple grass plantings may be cheaprr and
more effective than gravel spread thinly over the roadbed, depending on climate, growing conditions, soil type, and
road use (Swift, 1984b). Megahan (1987) found that dry seeding alone cost significantly less than seeding in
conjunction with plastic netting (Table 3-30).

3-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januall 1993

Chapter 3 11. Forestry Management Measures

Table 346. Cost Summary for Four "Minimum-Standard" Forest Truck Roads
Constructed in the Central Appalachiansa (1984 Dollars)
(Kochenderfer, Wendel, and Smith, 1984)
Road Costs (dollars/mile)
No. Excavation Culvert Labor & Vehicle Total

1 2,900 371 1,092 5,048

6 4,200 1,043 1,947 7,805

7 5,650 1,143 2,116 9,629

8 3,950 0 722 5,457

Costs and time rounded to nearest whole number.

Table 3-27. Unit Cost Data for Culverts (Kochenderfer, Wendel, and
Smith, 1984)

Culvert Type Cost

15-inch gasline pipe (30-foot sections) $7.50/ft
15-inch galvanized $6.00/ft

18-inch galvanized $7.75/ft

36-inch galvanized $19.00/ft

Table 3-28. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Road
Construction (1987 Dollars) (Lickwar, 1989)

Location

Practice
Component Steep SiteSa Moderate Sitesb Flat Sites'

Stream crossings $31.74 (0.01%) $128.74 (0.03%) $2,998.74 (0.33%)
Broad-based dips $11,520 (2.88%) $7,040.00 (1.49%) $3,240.00 (0.36%)
Water bars $8,520 (2.13%) $4,440.00 (0.94%) $2,160 (0.24%)
Added road costs $3,990 (1.00%) Not Provided Not Provided

Based on a 1, 1 48-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $399,685. Slopes average over 9 percent.
Based on a 1, 1 04-acre forest and gross harvest. revenues of $473,182. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to 8
percent.
c Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $899,491. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to 3
percent.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-45

I/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-29. Cost of Gravel and Grass Road Surfaces (NC, WV) (Swift, 1984a)

Surface Requirements/km Unit Cost Total Cost/krn

Grass 28 kg Ky-31 $0.840/kg $23.52
14 kg rye $0.660/kg $9.24
405 kg 10-10-10 $0.121/kg $49.01
900 kg lime $0.033/kg $29.70
Labor and equipment $62.14/km $62.14

Crushed rock (5 cm)o 425 ton $4.680/ton $1,989

Crushed rock (15 CM)a 1,275 ton $4.680/ton $5,967
Large stone (20 cm)a 1,690 ton $5.240/ton $8,856

Values in parentheses are thickness or depth of surfacing material.

Table 3-30. Costs of Erosion Control Measures (ID) (Megahan, 1987)

Measure Cost ($/acre)

Dry seeding 124
Plastic netting placed over seeded area 5,662

Source: Haber, D.F., and T. Kadoch, 1982. Costs of Erosion Control Measures Used on
a Forest Road in the Silver Creek watershed in Idaho, University of Idaho, Dept. of Civil
Engineering.

4. Practices

As discussed more Mly at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Follow the design developed during preharvest planning to minimize erosion by properly timing and
limiting ground disturbance operations.

Construct bridges and install culverts during periods when strearnflow is low.

Avoid construction during egg incubation periods on streams with important spawning areas.

Practice careful equipment operation during road construction to minimize the movement of excavated
material downslope as unintentional sidecast.

Compact the road base at the proper moisture content, surfacing, and grading to give the designed
road surface drainage shaping,

3-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 11. Forestfy Management Measures

use straw bales, straw mulch, grass-seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control and revegetation
techniques to complete the construction project. These methods are used to protect freshly disturbed
soils until vegetation can be established.

M Prevent slash from entering streams or promptly remove' slash that accidentally enters streams to
prevent problems related to slash accumulations.

Slash can be useful if placed as windrows along the base of the fill slope. Right-of-way material that is merchantable
can also be used by the operator.

M Use turnouts, wing ditches, and dips to disperse runoff and reduce road surface drainage from flowing
directly into watercourses.

M Install surface drainage controls to remove stormwater from the roadbed before the flow gains enough
volume and velocity to erode the surface. Route discharge from drainage structures onto the forest
floor so that water will disperse and infiltrate (Swift, 1985). Methods of road surface drainage include:

Broad-based Dip Construction. A broad-based dip is a gentle roll in the centerline profile of a road that
is designed to be a relatively permanent and self-maintaining water diversion structure and can be traversed
by any vehicle (Swift, 1985, 1988) (See Figure 3-17). Ibe dip should be outsloped 3 percent to divert
stormwater off the roadbed and onto the forest floor, where transported soil can be trapped by forest litter
(Swift, 1988). Broad-based dips should be used on roads having a gradient of 10 percent or less. Proper
construction requires an experienced bulldozer operator (Kochenderfer, 1970).

Installation of Pole Culverts and/or Ditch Relief Culverts. Culverts are placed at varying intervals in a
road to safely conduct water firom. the ditch to the outside portion of the road. Figures 3-18 and 3-19
highlight the design and installation of pole and pipe culverts, respectively. Culverts often need outlet and
inlet protection to keep water from scouring away supporting material and to keep debris from plugging the
culvert. Energy dissipators, such as riprap and slash, should be installed at culvert outlets (Rothwell, 1978).
Culvert spacing depends on rainfall intensity, soil type, and road grade. Culvert size selection should be
based on drainage area size and should be able to handle large flows. Open-top or pole culverts are
temporary drainage structures that are most useful for intercepting runoff flowing down road surfaces
(Kochenderfer, 1970). They can also be used as a substitute for pipe culverts on roads of smaller
operations, if properly built and maintained, but they should not be used for handling intermittent or live
streams. Open-top culverts should be placed at angles across a road to provide gradient to the culvert and
to ensure that no two wheels of a vehicle hit the ditch at once.

Road Outsloping and Grading. Grade and outslope roadbeds to minimize water accumulation on road
surfaces (Kochenderfer, 1970). This practice minimizes erosion and road failure potential. Outsloping
involves grading the road so that it slopes downward from the toe of the road cut to the shoulder. The

Or%
%SL
@@@7 0.2m
3" CRUSHED STONE

3% OUTSLOPI

Figure 3-17. Diagram of broad-based dip design for forest access roads (Swift, 1985).

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-47

11. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

nail or lag bolt

spac r

4 8" log
300 17170
Figure 3-18. Design of pole culverts
(Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and road surface
Recreation, 1987). earth ,
112 di irn7"'
cover or minunuitt
of 0m) toot
slope should be about 3-4 percent (Rothwell, X
1978). Outsloping the roadbed keeps water
from flowing next to and undermining the cut 1/2 diam
-L hiand
bank, and is intended to spill water off the road ta M P
in small volumes at many random sites. In -Figure 3-19. Design and installation of pipe culverts (Vermont
addition to outsloping the roadbed, a short Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, 1987).
reverse grade should be. constructed to turn
water off the surface. Providing a berm on the
outside edge of an outsloped road during construction, and until loose fill material is protected by vegetati,Dn, can
eliminate fill erosion (Swift, 1985). The effectiveness of outsloping is limited by roadbed rutting during wet
conditions. Also, berms may form along the edge of older roadbeds and block drainage (Swift, 1985). Therefore,
proper maintenance of these structures is necessary.

Ditch and Turnout Construction. Ditches should be used only where necessary and should discharge
water into vegetated areas through the use of turnouts. The less water ditches carry and the more frequently
water is discharged, the better. Construct wide, gently sloping ditches, especially in areas with highly
erodible soils. Ditches should be stabilized with rock and/or vegetation (Yoho, 1980) and outfalls protected
with rock, brush barriers, live vegetation, or other means. Roadside ditches should be large enough to carry
runoff from moderate storms. A standard ditch used on secondary logging roads is a triangular section 45
cm deep, 90 cm wide on the roadway side, and 30 cm wide on the cut bank side. Minimum ditch gradient
should be 0.5 percent, but 2 percent is preferred to ensure good drainage. Runoff should be frequently
diverted into culverts to prevent erosion or overflow (RothweU, 1978).

Install appropriate sediment control structures to trap suspended sediment transported by runoff and
prevent its discharge into the aquatic environment.

Methods to trap sediment include:

Brush Barriers. Brush barriers are slash materials piled at the toe slope of a road or at the outlets of
culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars. Brush barriers should be installed at the toe of fills if the fills are
located within 150 feet of a defined stream channel (Swift, 1988). Figure 3-20 shows the use of a brush
barrier at the toe of fill. Proper installation is important because if the brush barrier is not firmly anchored
and embedded in the slope, brush material may be ineffective for sediment removal and may detach to block
ditches or culverts (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988). In addition to use as brush barriers, slash
can be spread over exposed mineral soils to reduce the impact of precipitation events and surface flow.

SHt Fences. Silt fences are temporary barriers used to intercept sediment- laden runoff from small areas.
They act as a strainer: silt and sand are trapped on the surface of the fence while water passes through.

3-48 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 /1. Forestry Management Measures

'f_4

Road fill Brush& slash 4ncnor loc
debris

Figure 3-20. Brush barrier at toe of fill (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988).

They may consist of woven geotextile filter fabric or straw bales. Silt fences should be installed prior to
earthmoving operations and should be placed as close to the contour as possible.

Riprap. Riprap is a layer of rocks or rock fragments placed over exposed soil to protect it from erosive
forces. Riprap is generally used only in areas where the velocity of water flow, seriousness of erosion,
steepness of slope, or material type prevents satisfactory establishment of vegetation. Stones of suitable size
are fitted and implanted in the slope to form a contiguous cover (Figure 3-21). When used near streams,
riprap should be extended below the stream channel scour depth and above the high water line. Commonly,
a filter cloth or graded filter blanket of small gravel is laid beneath the riprap. Riprap should not be used
on slopes that are naturally subject to deep-seated or avalanche-type slide failure. Riprap should be used
in conjunction with other slope stabilization techniques and then only if these techniques are ineffective
alone. Riprap is not recommended for very steep slopes or fte-grained soils (Hynson et al., 1982).

Filter Strips. Sediment control is achieved by providing a filter or buffer strip between streams and
construction activities in order to use the natural filtering capabilities of the forest ficior and litter. The
Strearnside Management Area management measure requires the presence of a filter or buffer strip around
all waterbodies.

Revegetate or stabilize disturbed areas, especially at stream crossings.

Cutbanks and fillslopes along forest roads are often difficult to revegetate (Berglund, 1978). Properly condition
slopes to provide a seedbed, including rolling of embankments and scarifying of cut slopes. The rough soil surfaces
will provide niches for seeds to lodge and germinate. Seed as soon as possible after disturbance, preferably during
road construction or immediately following completion and within the same season (Larse, 1971). Early grassing
and spreading of brush or erosion-resisting fabrics on exposed soils at stream crossings are imperative (Swift, 1985).
See the Revegetation of Disturbed Areas management measure for a more detailed discussion.

Protect access points to the site that lead from a paved public right-of-way with stone, wood chips,
corduroy logs, wooden mats, or other material to prevent soil or mud from being tracked onto the paved
road.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-49

/I @Crestry Wanagement Measures Chapter 3

Design High walef ---------------

P ace Larger Rocks

K Layer When
L7
All8ase And On Face 44 Inch Gravel

Necessary

Below Lower
Limit 01 Scour

PISCS Largest Rocks
At Bond

Figure 3-21. Dimensions of typical rock riprap blanket. T equals 1.5 times the diameter of the average size rock.
When rock is spherical cobbles, or when machine-placed, T=l.gD (Hynson et al., 1982).

This will prevent tracking of sediment onto roadways, thereby preventing the subsequent washoff of that sedliment
during storm events. When necessary, clean truck wheels to remove sediment prior to entering a public right-of-way.

M Construct stream crossings to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

Avoid operating machinery in waterbodies. Work within or adjacent to five streams and water channels should not
be attempted during periods of high strearnflow, intense rainfall, or migratory fish spawning. Avoid channel changes
and protect embankments with riprap, masonry headwalls, or other retaining structures (Larse, 197 1).

If possible, culverts should be installed within the natural streambeds. The inlet should be on or below the streambed
to minimize flooding upstream and to facilitate fish passage. Culverts should be firmly anchored and the earth
compacted at least halfway up the side of the pipe to prevent water from leaking around it (Figure 3-22). Both ends
of the culvert should protruae at least I foot beyond the fill (Hynson et al., 1982). Large culverts should be aligned
with the natural course and gradient of the stream unless the inlet condition can be improved and the erosion
potential reduced with some channel improvement (Larse, 1971). Use energy dissipators at the downstream end of
the culverts to reduce the erosion energy of emerging water. Armor inlets to prevent undercutting and armor outlets
to prevent erosion of fill or cut slopes.

M Excavation for a bridge or a large culvert should not be performed in flowing water. The water should
be diverted around the work site during construction with a cofferdam or stream diversion.

Isolating the work site from the flow of water is necessary to minimize the release of soil into the watercourse and
to ensure a satisfactory installation in a dry environment. Limit the duration of construction to minimize
environmental impacts by establishing disturbance limits, equipment limitations, the operational time period when
disturbance can most easily be limited, and the use of erosion and sediment controls, such as silt fences and sediment
catch basins. Diversions should be used only where constructing the stream crossing structure without diverting the
stream would result in insitrearn disturbance greater than the disturbance from diverting the stream. Figum 3-23
portrays a procedure for installing a large culvert when excavation in the channel of the stream would cause
sedimentation and increase turbidity.

3-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

Road surface

melsiculverl

lamp in a rlh a, gravel
Suasion love&
Fill

C!
IR
0
?
e)
0

2R
I I 1:F:i i i

Id,
Ul
Nll

L
Figure 3-22. Culvert installation in streambed (Hynson et al., 1982).

Compact the fill to minimize erosion and ensure road stability (Hynson et aL, 1982).

During construction, fills or embankments are built up by gradual layering. Compact the entire surface of each layer
with a tractor or other construction equipment. If the road is to be grassed, the final layer should not be compacted
in order to provide an acceptable seedbed.

Property dispose of organic debris generated during road construction (Hynson et aL, 1982).

Stack usable materials such as timber, pulpwood, and firewood in suitable locations and use them to the
extent possible. Alternatives for use of other materials include piling and burning, chipping, scattering,
windrowing, and removal to designated sites.
Organic debris should not be used as fill material for road construction since the organic material would
eventually decompose and cause fill failure (Hynson et al., 1982; Larse, 1971).
Debris that is accidently deposited in streams during road construction should be removed before work is
terminated.
All work within the stream channel should be accomplished by hand to avoid the use of machinery in the
stream and riparian zone (Hynson et al., 1982).

Use pioneer roads to reduce the amount of area disturbed and ensure stability of the area involved.

Pioneer roads are temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access when building permanent
roads.

� Confine pioneer roads to the construction limits of the surveyed permanent roadway.
� Fit the pioneer road with temporary drainage structures (Hynson et al., 1982).

M When soil moisture conditions are excessive, promptly suspend earthwork operations and take
measures to weatherproof the partially completed work (Larse, 1971; Hynson et aL, 1982).

Regulating traffic on logging roads during unfavorable weather is an important phase of erosion control.
Construction and logging under these conditions destroy drainage structures, plug up culverts, and cause excessive
ruffing, thereby increasing the amount and the cost of required maintenance (Kochenderfer, 1970).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-51

11. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Locate bum bays away from water and drainage courses.

If the use of borrowlor gravel pits is needed during forest road construction, locate rock quarries, gravel
pits, and borrow pits outside SMAs and above the 50-year flood level of any waters to minimize the
adverse impacts caused by the resulting sedimentation. Excavation should not occur below the water
table.

Gravel mining directly from streams causes a multitude of impacts including destruction of fish spawning sites,
turbidity, and sedimentation (Hynson et al., 1982). During the construction and use of rock quarries, gravel pits, or
borrow pits, runoff water should be diverted onto the forest floor or should be passed through one or more settling
basins. Rock quarries, gravel pits, spoil disposal areas, and borrow pits should be revegetated and reclaimed upon
abandonment.

Natural stream

Diversion channel Excavated

It AAA A

4 0.

Stream Diverted, Culvert Placed In Excavation

Embankment - Fill Placed Over Culvert

-A&AA A

Completed Roadfill With Structural Plate Arch Culvert$.
Stream Back In Original Channel
Figure 3.23. Culvert installation using a diversion (Hynson et al., 1982).

3-52 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

"g -0,
"'EMN."
@:H:;:%:01:1:.: -`-*1.`.-*--`.* 2. .
.. ......
D. Road Management

(1) Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet
or thaw periods on roads not designed and constructed for these conditions.
(2) Evaluate the future need for a road and close roads that will not be needed.
Leave closed roads and drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand
storms.
(3) Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there Is a reasonable risk of plugging
or failure from lack of maintenance.
(4) Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads
and seasonal roads to control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove
all temporary stream crossings.
(5) Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance. Conduct
maintenance practices, when conditions warrant, Including cleaning and
replacement of deteriorated structures and erosion controls, grading or seeding
of road surfaces, and, in extreme cases, slope stabilization or removal of road
fills where necessary to maintain structural integrity.
(6) Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatement, so that chemical
contaminants or pollutants are not Introduced into surface waters to the extent
practicable.
(7) Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and
approaches to reduce the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto
roads, and (b) that fill erosion will occur if the drainage structures become
obstructed.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to active and inactive roads constructed or used for silvicultural activities.

2. Description

The objective of this management measure is to manage existing roads to maintain stability and utility and to
minimize sedimentation and pollution from runoff-transported materials. Roads that are actively eroding and
providing significant sediment to waterbodies, whether in use or not, must be managed. If roads are no longer in
MWMWMWM=WMMWM===J

use or needed in the foreseeable future, an effective treatment is to remove drainage crossings and culverts if there
is a risk of plugging or failure from lack of maintenance. In other cases (e.g., roads in use), it may be more
economically viable to periodically maintain crossing and drainage structures.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-53

/1. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Sound planning, design, and construction measures often reduce the future levels of necessary road maintenance.
Roads constructed with a n-dnimum width in stable terrain, and with frequent grade reversals or dips, require
minimum maintenance. However, older roads remain one of the greatest sources of sediment from forest land
management. In some locations, problems associated with altered surface drainage and diversion of water Erorn
natural channels can result in serious gully erosion or landslides. After harvesting is complete, roads an-, often
forgotten. Erosion problems may go unnoticed until after there is severe resource damage. In western Oregon, 41
out of the IG4 landslides reported on private and State forest lands during the winter of 1989-90 were associattd with
older (built before 1984) forest roads. These landslides were related to both road drainage and original construction
problems. Smaller erosion features, such as gullies and deep ruts, are far more common than landslides arid very
often are related to road drainage.

Drainage of the road prism, road fills in stream channels, and road fills on steep slopes are the elements of greatest
concern in road umagement. Roads used for active timber hauling usually require the most maintenance, and
mainline roads typically require more maintenance than spur roads. Use of roads during wet or thaw periods can
result in a badly rutted surface, impaired drainage, and excessive sediment leading to waterbodies. Inactive: roads,
not being used for timber hauling, are often overlooked and receive little maintenance. Many forest roads that have
been abandoned may be completely overgrown with vegetation, which makes maintenance very difficult.

Figure 3-24 illustrates some differences between a road with a well-maintained surface, good revegetation, and open
drainage structures, and a poorly maintained road.

WELL - MAINTAINED ROAD

Stable cut bank with good plant cover
that does not impair visibility and drying
of road surface

)Ik Open culvert
Water drains freely to ditch outlet

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rock
Open culvert Inlet and clear ditch rip-rap'
with good capacity for runoff Protect* fill
slope from
culvert water

POORLY ' MAINTAINED ROAD

Bare *oil subi*ct to erosion
and further slumping Wheel ruts collect
4..
and channel water
on road surface Debris and sediment
reducing culvert
capacity
Ditch and @_Iver't inlet Soil washed away
clogged with $oil and by culvert water
debris slumped In from
cut bank and ditch walls

_j
Figure 3-24. Road maintenance examples (Adams, 1991).

3-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

3. Management Measure Selection

a. Effectiveness Information

Drainage structures must be maintained to function properly. Culverts and'ditches must be kept free of debris that
can restrict water flow. Routine clearing can minimize clogging and prevent flooding, gullying, and washout
(Kochenderfer, 1970). Routine maintenance of road dips and surfaces and quick response to problems can
significantly reduce road-caused slumps and slides and prevent the creation of berms that could channelize runoff
(Oregon Department of Forestry 1981; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988).

Proper road/trail closure is essential in preventing future erosion and sedimentation from abandoned roads and skid
trails. Proper closure incorporates removal of temporary structures in watercourses, returning stream crossing
approaches to their original grades, revegetating disturbed areas, and preventing future access (Kochenderfer, 1970;
Rothwell, 1978) Revegetation of disturbed areas protects the soil from raindrop impact and aids soil aggregation, and
therefore reduces erosion and sedimentation (Rothwell, 1978).

b. Cost Information

Benefits of proper road maintenance were effectively shown by Dissineyer and Frandsen (1988). Maintenance costs
for road repair were 44 percent greater without implementation of control measures than for installation of BMPs
(Table 3-31).

Dissineyer and Foster (1987) presented an analysis of the economic benefits of various watershed treatments
associated with roads (Table 3-32). Specifically, they examined the cost of revegetating cut-and-fill slopes and the
costs of various planning and management technical services (e.g., preparing soil and water prescriptions, compiling
soils data, and reviewing the project in the field). These costs were compared to savings in construction and
maintenance costs resulting from the watershed treatments. Specifically, savings were realized from avoiding
problem soils, wet areas, and unstable slopes. The economic analysis showed that the inclusion of soil and water
resource management (i.e., revegetating and technical services) in the location and construction of forest roads
resulted in an estimated savings of $311 per kilometer in construction costs and $186 per kilometer in maintenance
costs.

As part of the Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project, Rygh (1990) examined the various costs of ripping and
scarification using different techniques. The major crux of Rygh's work was to compare the relative advantages of
using a track hoe for ripping and scarification versus the use of large tractor-mounted rippers. He found track hoes
to be preferable to tractor-mounted rippers for a variety of reasons, including the following:

� A reduction in furrows and resulting concentrated runoff caused by tractors;
� Improved control over the extent of scarification;
� Increased versatifity and maneuverability of track hoes; and
� Cost savings.

Rygh estimated that the cost of ripping with a track hoe ranged from $220 to $406 per mile compared to a cost of
$550 per mile for ripping with a D7 or D8 tractor (Table 3-33).

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA antic@pates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-55

Forestiy Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-31. Comparison of Road Repair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and Without BMPsa
(Dissmeyer and Frandsen, 1988)

Maintenance Costs Without BMPs Costs of BMP Installation

Equipment $365 Labor to construct terraces and
Materials (gravel) 122 water diversions $780
Work supervision 40 Materials to revegetate 120
Repair cost per 3 years 527 Cost of technical assistance 300
Total cost over 20 yearSb $2,137 Total cost over 20 years fl,200

IRR: 11.2%
PNV: $937
BtC rato: 1.78 to 1.00 for road BMP installation versus reconstruction/repair.

' BMPs include construction of terraces and water diversions, and seeding.
b Discounted 0 40/6.

Table 3-32. Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Watershed Treatments Associated with Roads
(SE U.S.) (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1987)

Treatmenta

Seed Without Seed With Hydroseed With
Mulch Mulch Mulch

Costs

Cost per kilometer 356 569 701

Cost per kilometer.for soil and water
technical services ($) 62 62 62

Total cost of watershed treatment 418 631 763

Benefits'

Savings in construction costs ($/km) 311 311 311

Savings in annual maintenance costs ($/km) 186 186 186

Benefit/cost (10-year period) 4.4:1 2.9:1 2.4:1

Adapted from West, S., and B.R. Thomas, 1982. Effects of Skid Roads on Diameter, Height, and Volume Growth
In Douglas-Fir. Soil Soi. Soc. Am. J., 45:629-632.
Treatments included fertilization and liming where needed.
Cost savings were associated with soil and water resource management in the location and construction of
forest roads by avoiding problem soils, wet areas, and unstable slopes. Maintenance cost savings were derived
from revegetating cut and fill slopes, which reduced erosion, prolonging the time taken to fill ditch lines with
sediment and reducing the frequency of ditch line reconstruction.

Blade and reshape the road to conserve existing surface material, to retain the original, crowned, self-
draining cross section; and to prevent or remove berms (except thosedesigned for slope protection) and
other Irregularities that retard normal surface runoff (Larse, 1971).

Ruts and potholes can weaken road subgrade materials by channeling runoff and allowing standing water to persist
(Rothwell, 1978). Periodic grading of the road surface is necessary to fill in wheel ruts and to reshape the road
(Haussman and Pruet@ 1978). Maintenance practices must be modified for roads with broad-based dips (swift,
1985). Maintenance by a motor grader is difficult because scraping tends to fill in the dips, the blade cannot be

3-56 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januai],, 1993

Chapter 3 IL Foreshy Management Measures

Table 3-33. Comparative Costs of Reclamation of Roads and Removal of Stream
Crossing Structures (11)) (Rygh, 1990)

Method Cost (dollar/mile)

Ripping/scarification
Ripping with D7 or D8 tractor $550
Scarifying with D8-mounted brush blade $844

Scarification to 6-inch depth and installation of water bars
with track hoe $1,673
Ripping and slash scattering with track hoe $.440-$660
Ripping, slash scattering, and water bar installation with track
hoe $812

Ripping with track hoe $220- $406

maneuvered to clean the dip outlet, and cut banks are destabilized when the blade undercuts the toe of the slope.
Small bulldozers or front-end loaders appear to be more suitable for periodic maintenance of intermittent-use forest
roads (Swift, 1988).

Clear road inlet and outlet ditches, catch basins, culverts, and road-crossing structures of obstructions
(Larse, 1971).

Avoid undercutting backsl9pes when cleaning silt and debris from roadside ditches (Rothwell, 1978). Minimize
machine cleaning of ditches during wet weather. Do not disturb vegetation when removing debris or slide blockage
from ditches (Larse, 1971; Rothwell, 1978). The outlet edges of broad-based dips need to be cleaned of trapped
sediment to eliminate mudholes and prevent the bypass of stormwaters. The frequency of cleaning depends on traffic
load (Swift, 1988). Clear stream-crossing structures and their inlets of debris, slides, rocks, and other materials prior
to and following any heavy runoff period (Hynson et al., 1982).

M Maintain road surfaces by mowing, patching, or resurfacing as necessary.

Grassed roadbeds carrying fewer than 20-30 vehicle trips per month usually require only annual roadbed mowing
and periodic trimming of encroaching vegetation (Swift, 1988).

0 Remove temporary stream crossings to maintain adequate streamflow (Hynson et al., 1982).

Failure or plugging of abandoned temporary crossing structures can result in greatly increased sedimentation and
turbidity in the stream, and channel blowout.

M Wherever possible, completely close the road to travel and reshict access by unauthorized persons by
using gates or other barriers (Haussman and Prueff, 1978).

Where such restrictions are not feasible, traffic should be regulated (Rothwell, 1978).

M Install or regrade water bars on roads that will be closed to vehicle traffic and that lack an adequate
system of broad-based dips (Kochenderfer, 1970).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 3-57

A Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Water bars will help to minimize the volume of water flowing over exposed areas and remove water to areas where
it will not cause erosion. Water bar spacing depends on soil type and slope. Table 3-34 contains suggested
guidelines for water bar spacing. Water should flow off the water bar onto rocks, slash, vegetation, duff, or other
less erodible material and should never be diverted directly to streams or bare areas (Oregon Department of Forestry,
1979a). Outslope closed road surfaces to disperse runoff and prevent closed roads from routing water to stiearns.

Revegetate to provide erosion control and stabilize the road surfaca and banks.

Refer to Revegetation of Disturbed Areas management measure for a more detailed discussion.

Replace open-top culverts with cross drains (water bars, dips,' or ditches) to control and divertrunoff
from road surfaces (Rothwell, 1978; Haussman and Pruett, 1978).

Open-top culverts are for temporary drainage of ongoing operations. It is important to replace them with more
permanent drainage structures to ensure adequate drainage and reduce erosion potential prior to establishment of
vegetation on the roadbed.

Periodically inspect closed roads to ensure that vegetational stabilization measures are operating as
planned and that drainage structures are operational (Hynson et aL, 1982; Rothwell, 1978). Conduct
reseeding and drainage structure maintenance as needed.

Table 3-34. Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope
(Oregon Department of Forestry, 1979a)
Road Grade Soil Type
(percent) Granitic or Sandy Shale or Gravel Clay

2 900 1000 1000

4 600 1000 800

6 500 1000 600

8 400 900 500

10 300 800 400

12 200 700 400

15 150 500 300

20 150 300 200

25+ 100 200 150

Note: Distances are approximate and should be varied to take advantage of natural features.

3-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestfy Management Measures

E. 'Timber Harvesting

The timber harvesting management measure consists of implementing the following:

(1) Timber harvesting operations with skid trails or cable yarding follow layouts
determined under Management Measure A.
(2) Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent
practicable. Disperse landing drainage over sideslopes.
(3) Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope
failures. Protect landing surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings
outside of SMAs.
(4) Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging
debris and slash material.
(5) Use appropriate areas for petroleum storage, draining, dispensing. Establish
procedures to contain and treat spills. Recycle or properly dispose of all waste
materials.

For cable yarding:
(1) Limit yarding corridor gouge or soil plowing by properly locating cable yarding
landings.
(2) Locate corridors for SMAs following Management Measure B.

For groundskidding:
(1) Within SMAs, operate groundskidding equipment only at stream crossings to the
extent practicable. In SMAs, fell and endline trees to avoid sedimentation.
(2) Use improved stream crossings for skid trails which cross flowing drainages.
Construct skid trails to disperse runoff and with adequate drainage structures.
(3) On steep slopes, use cable systems rather than groundskidding where
groundskidding may cause excessive sedimentation.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to all harvesting, yarding, and hauling conducted as part of normal silvicaltural activities on
harvest units larger than 5 acres. This measure does not apply to harvesting conducted for precommercial thinnings
or noncommercial firewood cutting.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-59

A Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to minimize sedimentation resulting from the siting and operation of limber
harvesting, and to manage petroleum products properly.

Logging practices that protect water quality and soil productivity can also reduce total mileage of roads and skid
trails, lower equipment maintenance costs, and provide better road protection and lower road maintenance. Careful
logging can disturb soil surfaces as little as 8 percent, while careless logging practices can disturb soils as much as
40 percent (Golden et al., 1984). In the Appalachians, skid roads perpendicular to the contour, instead of along the
contour, yielded 40 tons of sediment per acre of skid road surface (Hornbeck and Reinhart, 1964). Higher bulk
densities and lower porosity of skid road soils due to compaction by rubber-tired skidders result in reduccd soil
infiltration capacity and corresponding increases in runoff and erosion (Dickerson, 1975). Douglass and Swank
(1975) found that poor logging techniques increased sediment production during storms by 10 to 20 times more than
sediment production from the undisturbed control watershed. A properly logged watershed experienced only slightly
increased sedimentation compared to the undisturbed control watershed.

Locating landings for both groundskidding and cable yarding harvesting systems according to preharvest planning
minimizes erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters. However, final siting of landings may need to be
adjusted in the field based on site characteristics.

Landings and loading decks can become very compacted and puddled and are therefore a source of runoff and
erosion (Golden et al., 1984). Practices that prevent or disperse runoff from these areas before the runoff reaches
watercourses will minimize sediment delivery to surface waters. Also, any chemicals or petroleum products spilled
in harvest areas can be highly mobile, adversely affecting the water quality of nearby surface waters. Correct spill
prevention and containment procedures are therefore necessary to prevent petroleum products from entering surface
waters. Designation of appropriate areas for petroleum storage will also minimize water quality impacts due to spills
orleakage.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure is based on the experience and information gained from studies and from States using
similar harvesting practices. Many studies have evaluated and compared the effects of different timber harvest
techniques on sediment loss (erosion), soil compaction, and overall ground disturbance associated with 'Various
harvesting techniques. The data presented in Tables 3-35 through 3-40 were compiled from many different studies
conducted throughout the United States and Canada. Many local factors such as climatic conditions, soil type, and
topography affected the results of each study. The studies also examined harvesting techniques under a variety of
conditions, including clearcuts, selective cuts, and fire-salvaged areas. However, the major conclusions from the
studies on the relative impacts of different timber harvesting techniques on soil erosion and the causes and
consequences of ground disturbance remain fairly constant between the studies and enable cross-geographic
comparison.

Some of the most significant water quality impacts from loggi ng operations (especially increased sedimentation)
result from the actual yarding operations and activities on landings. The critical factors that affect the degree of soil
disturbance associated with a particular yarding technique include the amount of disturbance caused by the yarding
machinery itself and the amount of road construction needed to support each system. Stone (1973) presented
information suggesting that roads may contribute greater than 90 percent of the sedimentation problems associated
with logging operations. Therefore, since road areas represent potential erosion sites, it is important to recognize
and consider the amount of land used for roads by various logging systems (Sidle, 1980).

a. Effectiveness Information

The amount of total soil disturbance varies considerably between the different yardi ng techniques. Megahan (1980)
presented the most comprehensive survey of the available information on these impacts, presenting the data in two

3-60 EPA-840-8-92-002 JanuaCv 1993

Chapter 3 //. Forestry Management Measures

ways: soil disturbance associated with the actual yarding operation and soil disturbance associated with the
construction of roads needed for the practice (Tables 3-35 and 3-36). The results of his investigation echoed other
studies presented in this section and clearly show that aerial and skyline cable techniques are far less damaging than
other yarding techniques.

The amount of soil disturbance by yarding depends on the slope of the area, volume yarded, size of logs, and the
logging system. Table 3-36 presents data on the extent of soil disturbance associated with particular yarding systems.
Megahan's ranking of yarding techniques (from greatest impact to lowest impact) based on percent area disturbed
is summarized as follows: tractor (21 percent average), ground cable (21 percent, one study), high-lead (16 percent

Table 3-35. Soil Disturbance from Roads for Alternative Methods of Timber Harvesting (Megahan, 1980)

Percent of Logged Area Bared

Skid Roads
Logging System (State) and
Roads Landings Total Reference

Tractor:

Tractor - clearcut (BC) 30.0 - 30.0 Smith, 1979

Tractor - selection (CA) 2.7 5.7 8.4 Rice, 1961

Tractor - selection (ID) 2.2 6.8 9.0 Haupt and Kidd, 1965

Tractor - group selection (ID) 1.0 6.7 7.7 Haupt and Kidd, 1965
Tractor and helicopter - 4.5 0.4 4.9 Klock, 1975
fire salvage (WA)
Tractor and cable 16.9 - 16.9 Klock, 1975
fire salvage (WA)

Ground Cable:

Jammer - group selection (ID) 25-30 - 25-30 Megahan and Kidd, 1972

Jammer - clearcut (BC) 8.0 - 8.0 Smith, 1979

High-lead - clearcut (BC) 14.0 - 14.0 Smith, 1979
High-lead - clearcut (OR) 6.2 3.6 9.8 Silen and Gratkowski,
1953

High-lead - clearcut (OR) 3.0 1.0 4.0 Brown and Krygier, 1971
High-lead - clearcut (OR) 6.0 1.0 7.0 Brown and Krygier, 1971

High-lead - clearcut (OR) 6.0 - 6.0 Fredriksen, 1970

Skyline:

Skyline - clearcut (OR) 2.0 - 2.0 Binkley, 1965

Skyline - clearcut (BC) 1.0 - 1.0 Smith, 1979

Aerial:

Helicopter - clearcut 1.2 - 1.2 Binkley'

Estimated by Virgil W. Binkley, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-61

11. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-36. Soil Disturbance from Logging by Alternative Harvesting Methods (Megahan, '1980)

Method of Harvest Location Disturbance (%) Reference

Tractor:

Tractor - clearcut E. WA 29.4 Wooldridge, 1960

Tractor - clearcut W. WA 26.1 Steinbrenner and Gessel, 1955

Tractor - fire salvage E. WA 36.2 Klock', 1975
Tractor on snow - fire salvage E. WA 9.9 Klock", 1975

Tractor - clearcut BC 7.0 Smith, 1979

Tractor - selection E. WA, OR 15.5 Garrison and Rummel, 1951

Ground Cable:

Cable - selection E. WA, OR 20.9 Garrison and Rummel, 1951

High-lead - fire salvage E. WA 32.0 Klock", 1975

High-lead - clearcut W. OR 14.1 Dyrness, 1965

High-lead - clearcut W. OR 12.1 Ruth, 1967

High-lead - clearcut BC 6.0 Smith, 1979

Jammer - clearcut BC 5.0 Smith, 1979

Grapple - clearcut BC 1.0 Smith, 1979

Skyline:

Skyline - clearcut W. OR 12.1 Dymess, 1965

Skyline - clearcut E. WA 11.1 Wooldridge, 1960
Skyline - clearcut BC 7.0 Smith, 1979

Skyline - clearcut W. OR 6.4 Ruth, 1967
Skyline - fire salvage E. WA 2.8 Klocke, 1975
Balloon - clearcut W. OR 6.0 Dyrness'

Aerial:

Helicopter - fire salvage E. WA 0.7 Klocka, 1975
Helicopter - clearcut ID 5.0 Clayton (in press)

Disturbance shown is classified as severe.
Dymess, C.T., unpublished data on file, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR.

average), skyline (8 percent average), jammer in clearcut (5 percent, one study), and aerial techniques (4 percent
average).

The amount of road required for different yarding techniques varies considerably. Sidle (1980) defined the amount
of land used for haul roads by various logging methods. Skyline techniques require the least amount of road area,
with only 2-3.5 percent of the land area in roads. Tractor and single-drum jammer techniques require the greatest
amount of road area (10-15 and 18-24 percent of total area, respectively). High-lead cable techniques fall in the

3-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 3 11. Foreshy Management Measures

middle, with 6-10 percent of the land used for roads. Megahan (1980) concluded that tractor, jammer, and high-lead
cable methods result in significantly higher amounts of disturbed soil than do the skyline and aerial techniques.

Sidle (1980) also presented data showing that tractors cause the greatest amount of soil disturbance (35 percent of
land area) and soil compaction (26 percent of land area). Sidle (1980) concluded that skyline and aerial balloon
techniques created the least disturbance (12 and 6 percent, respectively) and compaction Q and 2 percent,
respectively) (Table 3-37).

Miller and Sirois (1986) compared the land area disturbed by cable, skyline, and groundskidding systems
(Table 3-38). They found groundskidding operations to affect 31 percent of the total land area, whereas cable
yarding only affected 16 percent of the total land area. Similarly, Patric (1980) found skidders to serve the smallest
area per mile of road (20 acres), with skyline yarding serving the largest area per mile of road (80 acres)
(Table 3-39).

Table 3-37. Relative Impacts of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and
Compaction in Pacific Northwest Clearcuts (OR, WA, ID) (Sidle, 1980)

Yarding Method Bare Soil Compacted Soil (%)

Tractor 35 26

High-lead 15 9

Skyline 12 3

Balloon 6 2

Table 3-38. Percent of Land Area Affected by Logging Operations (Southwest MS)
(Miller and Sirois, 1986)

Operational Area Cable Skyline Groundskidding

Landings 4.1 6.4

Spurroads 2.6 3.5

Cable corridors or skid trails -9.2 21.4

Total 15.9 31.3

Table 3-39. SkiddinglYarding Method Comparison (Patric, 198O)a

Harvesting System Acres Served per Mile of Road

Wheeled skidder 20

Jammer 31

High-lead 40

Skyline 80

aAdapted from Kochenderfer and Wendel (1978) and unpublished work, by Thorsen.

EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993 3-63

1/. Foresfty Management Measures Chapter 3

b. Cost Information

The costs and benefits of rehabilitation of skid trails by planting hardwood, hardwood pine, and shortleaf pine in the
southeastern United States were studied by Dissmeyer and Foster (1986). The average rehabilitation cost per acre
was $360 and included water barring, ripping or disking, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching where needed
(Table 3-40). The.benefit/cost ratio of the rehabilitation cost was $1.33 for hardwood, $2.82 for hardwood pine, and
$5.07 for shortleaf pine. The real rate of return over inflation ranged from 2.4 to 4.8 percent.

4. Practices

Table 3-40. Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Skid Trail Rehabilitation In the Management of
Three Southern Timber Types In the Southeast (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1986)

Timber Type -

Hardwood Shortleaf
Units Hardwood Pine Pine

Rotation Years 70 60 60

Harvest volume per hectare m 3 301 350 420
Value per cubic meter $b 28.57 42.86 64.29

Total value of timber per hectare for
uncompacted soil $b 8,600 15,001 27,002

Timber volume per acre on skid trails
(26% of uncompacted soil) m 3 78 91 109
Timber volume lost per acre m 3 .223 259 311

Cost per hectare for, skid trail
rehabilitationa $b 900 900 900

Timber volume recovered
(75% of loss) rn3 167 194 233
Value of timber volume recovered $b 4,771 8,315 14,980

Internal rate of return based upon
timber volume recovered O/Oc 2.4 3.8 4.8

Net present value of timber volume
recovered (@ 2%) $b 1,193 2,538 4,568

B/C ratio of rehab. cost Ratio 1.33:1 2.82:1 5.07:1

Note: Skid trail rehabilitation reduces sediment yields.
M3: cubic meters.
aAverage cost for skid trail rehabilitabon includes water barring, ripping or disking, seeding, fertilizing, and
mulching where needed ($900/ha = $3601ac).
1986 dollars.
Percentage points over inflation.

3-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaf)l 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

a. Harvesting Practices

Fell trees away from watercourses, wheneverpossible, keeping logging debris from the channel, except
where debris placement is specifically prescribed for fish or wildlife habitat (Megahan, 1983).

M Any tree accidently felled in a waterway should be immediately removed (Huff and Deal, 1982).

M Remove slash from the waterbody and place it out of the SMA.

This will allow unrestricted water flow and protection of the stream's nutrient balance. Remove only logging-
generated debris. Leave pieces of large woody debris in place during stream cleaning to preserve channel integrity
and maintain stream productivity. Bilby (1984) concluded that indiscriminate removal of large woody debris can
adversely affect channel stability. Table 3-41 presents a possible way to determine debris stability.

b. Practices for Landings

M Landings should be no larger than necessary to safely and efficiently store logs and load trucks.

M Install drainage and erosion control structures as necessary.

Diversion ditches placed around the uphill side of landings minimize accumulation of water on the landing. Landings
should have a slight slope to facilitate drainage. Also, adequate drainage on approach roads will prevent road
drainage water from entering the landing area.

M The slope of the landing surface should not exceed 5 percent and should be shaped to promote
efficient drainage.

Table 3-41. General Large Woody Debris Stability Guide Based on Salmon Creek, Washington
(Bliby, 1984)

1.a. If debris is anchored or buried in the streambed or bank at one or both ends or along the upstream face -
LEAVE.
1.b. If debris is not anchored, go to 2.

2.a. If debris is longer than 10.0 m - LEAVE.
2.b. If debris is shorter than 10.0 m - go to 3.

3.a. If debris is greater than 50 cm in diameter - go to 4.
3.b. If debris is less than 50 cm in diameter - go to 5.

4.a. If debris is longer than 5.0 m - LEAVE.
4.b. If debris is shorter than 5.0 m - go to 5.

5.a. If debris is braced on the downstream side by boulders, bedrock outcrops, or stable pieces of debris -
LEAVE.
5.a. If debris is not braced on the downstream side - REMOVE.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-65

/1. Forestfy Management Measures Chapter 3

The slope of landing fills should not exceed 40 percent, and woody. or organic debris should not be
incofporated into fills.

If landings are to be used during wet periods, protect the surface with a suitable material such as
wooden matting or gravel surfacing.

Install drainage structures for the landings such as water bars, culverts, and ditches to avoid
sedimentation. Disperse landing drainage over sideslopes. Provide filtration or settling if water is
concentrated in a ditch.

Upon completion of harvest, clean up landing, regrade, and revegetate (Rothwell, 1978).

� Upon abandonme@t, minimize erosion on landings by adequately ditching or mulching with forest litter.

� Establish a herbaceous cover on areas that will be used again in repeated cutting cycles, and restock
landings that will not be reused (Megahan, 1983).

� If necessary, install water bars for drainage control.

Locate landings for cable yarding where slope profiles provide favorable deflection conditions so that
the yarding equipment used does not cause yarding corridor gouge or soil plowing, which concentrates
drainage or causes slope instabiliV

Locate cable yarding corridors for streamside management areas following Management Measure B
components. Yarded logs should not cause disturbance of the major channel banks of the watercourse
of the SMA.

c. Groundskidding Practices

Skid uphill to log landings whenever possible. Skid with ends of logs raised to reduce ruffing and
gouging.

This practice will disperse water on skid trails away from the landing. Skidding uphill lets water from trails flow
onto progressively less-disturbed areas as it moves downslope, reducing erosion hazard. Skidding downhill
concentrates surface runoff on lower slopes along skid trails, resulting in significant erosion and sedimentation hazard
(Figure 3-25). If skidding downhill, provide adequate drainage on approach trails so that drainage does not enter
landing.

Skid perpendicular to the slope (along the contour), and avoid skidding on slopes greater than 40
percent

Following the contour will reduce soil erosion and encourage revegetation. If skidding must be done parallel to the
slope, then skid uphill, taking care to break the grade periodically.

Avoid skid trail layouts that concentrate runoff into draws, ephemeral drainages, or watercourses. Use
endlining to winch logs out of SMAs or directionally fell trees so tops extend out of SMAs and trees can
be skidded without operating equipment in SMAs. In SMAs, trees should be carefully endlined to avoid
soil plowing or gouge.

3-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai3,1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

phil
Logging

Downhill
Logging

Figure 3-25. Hypothetical skid trail pattern for uphill and downhill logging (Megahan, 1983).

Suspend groundskidding during wet periods, when excessive rutting and churning of the soil begins,
or when runoff from skid trails is turbid and no longer infiltrates within a short distance from the skid
trail. Further limitation of groundskidding of logs, or use of cable yarding, may be needed on slopes
where there are sensitive soils andlor during wet periods.

Retire skid trails by installing water bars or other erosion control and drainage devices, removing
culverts, and revegetating (Rothwell, 1978, Lynch et al, 1985).

� After logging, obliterate and stabilize all skid trails by mulching and reseeding.

� Build cross drains on abandoned skid trails to protect stream channels or side slopes in addition to mulching
and seeding.

� Restore stream channels by removing temporary skid trail crossings (Megahan, 1983).

� Scatter logging slash to supplement water bars and seeding to reduce erosion on skid trails (Lynch et al.,
1985).

d. Cable Yarding Practices

M Use cabling systems or other systems when groundskidding would expose excess mineral soil and
induce erosion and sedimentation.

� Use high-lead cable or skyline cable systems on slopes greater than 40 percent.

� To avoid soil, disturbance from sidewash, use high-lead cable yarding on average-profile slopes of less than
15 percent.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-67

l/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

0 Avoid cable yarding in or across watercourses.

When cable yarding across streams carm ot be avoided, use full suspension to minimize damage to channel barflcs and
vegetation in the SMA.

M Yard logs uphill rather than downhill.

In uphill yarding, log decks are placed on ridge or hill tops rather than in low-lying areas (Megahan, 1983). This
creates less soil disturbance because the lift imparted to the logs reduces frictional resistance and the outward
radiation of yard trails downhill from the landing disperses runoff evenly over the slope and reduces erosion
potential. Downhill yarding should be avoided because it concentrates surface erosion.

e. Petroleum Management Practices

Service equipment where spilled fuel and oil cannot reach watercourses, and drain all petroleum
products and radiator water into containers. Dispose of wastes and containers in accordance with
proper waste disposal procedures.' Waste oil, filters, grease cartridges, and other petroleum-
contaminated materials should not be left as refuse in the forest

Take precautions to prevent leakage and spills. Fuel trucks and pickup-mounted fuel tanks must not
have leaks.

0 Use and maintain seepage pits or other confinement measures to prevent diesel oil, fuel oil, or other liquids
from running into streams or important aquifers.

* Use drip collectors on oil-transporting vehicles (Hynson et al., 1982).

Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spill containment and cleanup', and
notification of proper authorities.

Provide materials for adsorbing spills, and collect wastes for proper disposal.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulates the transportation, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous
materials, including petroleum products and by-products.

3-68 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 /1. Forestry Management Measures

F. Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration

Confine on-site potential NPS pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation
and the regeneration of forest stands. The components of the management measure
for site preparation and regeneration are:

(1) Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site
conditions.
(2) Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation
activities on the contour of sloping terrain.
(3) Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in
strearnside management areas.
(4) Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material.
(5) Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment used begins to cause
excessive soil disturbance that will increase erosion.
(6) Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMAs to control
movement of the material during high runoff conditions.
(7) Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the
year. Conduct bedding in sloping areas on the contour.
(8) Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to all site preparation and regeneration activities conducted, as part of normal silvicultural
activities on harvested units larger than 5 acres.

2. Description

Regeneration of harvested forest lands not only is important in terms of restocking a valuable resource, but also is
important to provide water quality protection from disturbed soils. Tree roots stabilize disturbed soils by holding
the soil in place and aiding soil aggregation, decreasing slope failure potential. The presence of vegetation on
disturbed soils also slows.storm runoff, which in turn decreases erosion.

Leaving the forest floor litter layer intact during site preparation operations for regeneration minimizes mineral soil
disturbance and detachment, thereby minimizing erosion and sedimentation (Golden et al., 1984). Maintenance of
an unbroken litter layer prevents raindrop detachment, maintains infiltration, and slows runoff (McClurkin et al.,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-69

Chapter 3 H. Forestry Management Measures

1987). Mechanical site preparation can potentially impact water quality in areas that have steep slopes and erodible
soils, and where the prepared site is located near a waterbody. Use of mechanical site preparation treatments that
expose mineral soils on steep slopes can greatly increase erosion and landslide potential. Alternative methods, such
as drum chopping, herbicide application, or prescribed burning, disturb the soil surface less than mechanical practices
(Golden et al., 1984).

Mechanical planting using machines that scrape or plow the soil surface can produce erosion rills, increasing surface
runoff and erosion. Natural regeneration, hand planting, and direct seeding minimize soil disturbance, especially on
steep slopes with erodible soils (Golden et al., 1984).

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure is based in part on information and experience gained from studies and from the use of similar
management practices by States. The information summarized provides comparisons and relative levels of effects
and costs for site preparation and regeneration. The majority of the data in Tables 3-42 through 3-46 compare
sediment loss or erosion rates for shearing, chopping, root-raking and disking. Many of the data are site-slN-,cific,
and site characteristics and experimental conditions are provided (when available) in the text below. Regional
differences in effects are summarized by Dissmeyer and Stump (1978); however, most of the experimental
information is from the Southeast and Texas.

a. Effectiveness Information

Effects of different site preparation techniques depend greatly on care of application and site conditions. Beasley
(1979) studied the relative soil disturbance effects of site preparation following clearcutting on three small watersheds
in the hilly northern Mississippi Coastal Plain. Slopes were mostly 30 percent or greater. One site was single drum-
chopped and burned; one was sheared and windrowed (windrows were burned); and the third was sheared,
windrowed, and bedded to contour. The control watershed was instrumented and left uncut. The treatments exposed
soil on approximately 40-70 percent of the three watersheds (Table 3-42). A temporary cover crop of clover was
sown after site preparation to protect the soil from rainfall impact and erosion. Similar increases in sediment
production were measured for the three treatments in the first year after site preparation, with amounts decreasing
during the second year except for the bedded site, which was attributed to gully formation from increased stormflow.
During the second year, the clover and other vegetation covered 85-95 percent of the surface, effectively decreasing
sediment production.

A summary of work on erosion from site preparation by Dissmeyer and Stump is presented in Golden et al.
(1984)(Table 3-43). These erosion rates were compiled from the Erosion Data Bank of the U.S. Forest Service and
are based on observations throughout the Southeast. The rates reflect soil movement measured at the bottom @Df the
slope, not sediment actually reaching a stream. Therefore, the numbers estimate the worst-case erosion if the stream
is located directly at the toe of the slope with no intervening vegetation. Rates are given as tons per acre pe:r year
average for 3- to 4-year recovery periods.

The degree of erosion produced by site preparation practices is directly related to the amount of soil disturbed and
the percentage of good ground cover remaining. Dissmeyer (1980) showed that disking produced more than twice
the erosion rate of any other method (Table 3-44). Bulldozing, shearing, and sometimes grazing were associated with
relatively high rates of erosion. Chopping or chopping and burning produced moderate erosion rates. Logging also
produced moderate erosion rates in this study when it included the impact of skid and spin roads. The lowest rate
of erosion is associated with burning.

Beasley and Granillo (1985) compared stormflow and sediment losses from mechanically and chemically prepared
sites in southwest Arkansas (Table 3-45). Mechanical preparation (clearcutting followed by shearing, windrowing,
and replanting with pine seedlings) significantly increased sediment losses in the first 2 years after treatment. A
subsequent decline in sediment losses in the mechanically prepared watersheds was attributed to rapid growth of
ground cover. Windrowing brush into ephemeral drainages and leaving it unburned effectively minimized soil losses

3-70 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-42. Deposited, Suspended, and Total Sediment Losses and Percentage of Exposed Soil in
the Experimental Watersheds During Water Years 1976 and 1977 for Various Site Preparation
Techniques (MS, AR) (Beasley, 1979)

Treatment Percent of Exposed Soil

Chopped 37

Sheared and windrowed 53

Bedded 69

1976 (tons/ha) 1977 (tons/ha)

Treatment Deposited Suspended Total Deposited Suspended Total

Control 0.62 0.11

Chopped 2.19 10.34 12.54 0.74 1.58 2.31

Sheared 2.14 10.65 12.80 0.81 1.41 2.22

Bedded 3.26 10.98 14.25 2.18 3.36 5.54

by trapping sediment on-site and reducing channel scouring. Chemical site preparation (herbicides) had no significant
effect on sediment losses.

Water quality changes associated with two site preparation methods were studied by Blackburn, DeHaven, and Knight
'1112', Table 1-41 shows that shearing and windrowing (which exposed 11 percent of the soil) can produce 400
times more sediment loadings than chopping (which exposed 16 percent of the soil) during site preparation. Total

Table 3-43. Predicted Erosion Rates' Using Various Site Preparation Techniques for
Physiographic Regions in the Southeastern United Stites (Golden et al., 1984)

Average Erosion Rate
Physiographic Regions Treatment (tons/acre/year)

Ridge and Valley Bulldozing 13.70

Sand Mountain KG-blade 4.00

Southern Piedmont Chopping 0.22
Chop and burn 0.38
KG-blade 1.80
Disking 4.10
Bulldozing 1.90

Southern Coastal Plain Chopping 0.24
Chop and bum 0.41
KG-blade 0.65
Disking 2.46
Bulldozing 0.66
0.89

Blackland Prairies, AL and MS KG-blade 1.20
Disking 3.30

Rates are averages for the recovery period.
0

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-71

Chapter 3 11. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-44. Erosion Rates for Site Preparation Practices In Selected Land Resource Areas In the
Southeast (Dissmeyer, 1980)

Erosion Rates by Land Resource Area (Tons/Acre/Year)

Southern
Recovery Southern MS Valley Carolina & Atlanta &
Period Ouachita Southern Coastal Silty Southern GA Sand Gulf Coast
Condition or Activity (Years) Mtns Appalachians Plains Uplands Piedmont Hills Flatwoods

Natural -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00

Logged" 3 2.3 1.7 0.48 0.27 0.48 0.20 0.13

Burned 2 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.7 0.14 0.06 0.05

Chopped 3 0.60 0.24 - 0.22 0.36 0.05

Chopped and burned 3-4 1.7 0.41 -- 0.38 -- 0.15

Sheared 4 3.6 0.65 2.4 1.8 1.0 0.20

Disked 4 - 2.46 9.8 4.1 -- --

Bulldozed 4 -- 0.89 -- 1.9 -

Grazed -- 0.80 0.18 1.0 0.95 0.01

Includes the impact of skid and spur roads.

Table 3-45. Effectiveness of Chemical and Mechanical Site Preparation in Controlling Water
Flows and Sediment Losses (AR) (Beasley and Granillo, 1985)

Annual Stormflow (in) Annual Sediment Losses (lb/ac)

Water Year Treatment Mean Std Dev Mean Sid Dev

1981 Clearcut - Mechanical" 5.7 5.0 56 56
(Pretreatment) Clearcut - Chemicalb 4.7 5.5 39 50

Control 7.9 7.5 28 26

1982 Clearcut - Mechanical 12.8 10.7 477 460

Clearcut - Chemical 6.2 5.8 224 196

Control 6.3 5.4 64 79

1983 Clearcut - Mechanical 24.0 19.3 897 949

Clearcut - Chemical 15.6 15.8 183 157

Control 8.7 7.3 131 196

1984 Clearcut - Mechanical 19.7 16.6 275 160

Clearcut - Chemical 10.2 8.0 80 80

Control 10.3 7.2 41 59

Clearcutting followed by shearing, windrowing, and replanting with pine seedlings.
bClearcutting followed by chemical treatments (injection of residual trees and foliar and/or aerial spraying).

3-72 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai)l 1993

Chapter 3 U. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-46. Sediment Loss (kgfha) In Stormflow by Site Treatment from January I to
August 31, 1981 (TX) (Blackburn, DeHaven, and Knight, 1982)

Sediment Loss (kglha)

Treatment Watershed Suspended Bedload Total

1 815.2 643.5 1,458.7
2 1,217.0 920.4 2,137.4
Sheared and windrowed 3 736.7 2,270.8 3,007.5

Mean 923.0 1,278.2 2,201.2
5 5.3 0 5.3
7 10.7 0 10.7
Chopped 9 23.2 0 23.2
Mean 13.1 0 13.1

4 1.1 0 1.1
Undisturbed 6 7.2 0 7.2
8 0.8 0 0.8

Mean 3.0 0 3.0

nitrogen losses were nearly 20 times greater from sheared than from undisturbed watersheds, and three times greater
from sheared than from chopped (Table 3-47).

b. Cost Information

The way a site is prepared for reforestation can make a 3- to 14-foot difference in site index for pine in the Southeast
(Dissmeyer and Foster, 1987). In an analysis of different site preparation techniques, Dissmeyer and Foster
concluded that maintaining site quality yields larger trees and more valuable products (Table 3-48). The heavy site
preparation methods required a greater initial investment than did the light site preparation methods, but did not yield
a greater harvest. The cost-benefit for light site preparation was a 2.3 percent greater internal rate of return than that
for heavy site preparation. Dissmeyer (1986) evaluated the economic benefits of erosion control with respect to
different site preparation techniques. Increased timber production and savings in site preparation costs are returns
the landowner can enjoy if care is taken to reduce soil exposure, displacement, and compaction (Table 3-49). Using
light site preparation techniques such as chopping and light bum reduces erosion, increases the site index and the
value of timber, and costs less per unit area treated. Heavy site preparation techniques such as shearing and
windrowing remove nutrients, compact soil, increase erosion and site preparation costs, and result in a lower present
net value for timber.

Table 3-47. Nutrient Lose (kgtha) In Stormf low by Site Treatment from January 1 to
August 31, 1981 (TX) (Blackburn, DeHaven, and Knight, 1982)

Treatment Nitrates Ammonia Total-N Ortho-P Total-P K Ca Mg Na

Sheared and
windrowed 0.227 0.114 2.145 0.033 0.197 4.40 0.72 1.45 1.36

Chopped 0.066 0.042 0.759 0.010 0.012 2.48 1.19 0.71 0.79

Undisturbed 0.001 0.007 0.115 0.001 0.002 0.29 0.19 0.21 0.18

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-73

Chapter 3 /L Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-48. Analysis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site Productivity In
the Southeast (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1967)
Light Site Preparation' Heavy Site Preparation

Silviculture Investment Wood Produced Investment Wood Produced
Year Treatment Per Hectarec M3/ha Per Hectarec M3/ha

1984 Site Prep/Tree
Planting $297 $420
1999 Thinning $252 64.2 pulpwood $180 46.0 pulpwood
2010 Thinning $256 22.3 saw timber $331 5.3 saw timber
33.3 pulpwood 22.0 pulpwood
2020 Final Harvest $2,422 133.5 saw timber $2,071 112.3 saw timber
15.2 pulpwood 22.0 pulpwood
Present Net Value (@ 4%) $623 $304
Internal Rate of Return 12.40/.d 10.1%

Adapted from Patterson, T. 1984. Dollars in Your Dirt. Alabama's Treasured Forests. Spring: 20-21.
Ught site preparation includes chop and light burn or chop with herbicides, and reduces soil exposure and
erosion.
Heavy site preparation includes bulldozing or windrowing or shearing and windrowing, and increases erosion
and sediment yields over those for light site preparation.
1984 dollars.
d Based on 40/6 inflation rate assumed.

The U.S. Forest Service (1987) examined the costs of three alternatives to slash treatment: broadcast buirn and
protection of streamside management zones, yarding of unmerchantable material (YUM) of 15 inches in dimneter
or more, and YUM of 8 inches in diameter or more (Table 3-50). YUM alternatives cost approximately $435-
$820/acre, in comparison to broadcast burning at $900/acre. In addition, the YUM alternatives protect highly
erodible soils from direct rainfall and runoff impacts, reduce fire hazards, meet air and water quality standards, and
allow for the rapid establishment of seedlings on clearcuts.

Table 3-49. Site Preparation Comparison (VA, SC, NC) (Dissmayer, 1986)
Treatment Treatment Cost ($/acre) Erosion Inclexa

No site preparation $40 1.0

Burn only $45 1.1

Single chop and burn $80 2.3
Double chop and bum $120 3.0

Single shear and bum $145 4.3

Shear twice and burn $170 5.1

Rootrake and disk and burn $170 16.0

Rootrake and burn $170 16.0

The index is an expression of relative erosion potential resulting from each treatment.

3-74 EPA-840-B-92-002 JanuarV 1993

Chapter 3 11. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-50. Comparison of Costs for Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM) vs. Broadcast
Burning (OR) (USDA, 1987)

Broadcast Bum and YUM 15" in Diameter YUM 8" in Diameter
Activity Protect SMA and No Bum and No Bum

Broadcast burn $350/acre N/A N/A

SMA protection $450/acre N/A N/A

YUK fell hardwood, lop
and scatter N/A $305/acre $700/acre

Planting cost $100/acre $1130/acre $120/acre

Totals $900/acre $435/acre $820/acre

Tables 3-51 and 3-52 present comparisons of estimated total costs for different site preparation and regeneration
practices, respectively, for which cost-share assistance is provided by the State of Minnesota through its Stewardship
Incentives Program (SIP) (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991). Table 3-53 presents total costs of
forest regeneration by various methods, along with the cost-share amount provided by the State of Illinois' SIP.

4. Practices

a. Site Preparation Practices

0 Mechanical site preparation should not be applied on slopes greater than 30 percent.

On sloping terrain greater than 10 percent, or on highly erosive soils, operate mechanical site preparation equipment
on the contour.

M Mechanical site preparation should not be conducted in SMAs.

Construct beds along the contour (Huff and Deal, 1982). Avoid connecting beds to drainage ditches
or other waterways.

Use haystack piling where possible instead of windrows.

Leave sufficient slash and duff on the site to provide good ground cover and minimize erosion from the harvest site.
If the soil Basic Erosion Rate (BER) is low, leave at least 40 percent good ground cover; if the BER is medium,
leave at least 50 percent good ground cover; if the BER is high, leave at least 60 percent good ground cover.

minimize incorporation of soil material into windrows and piles during their construction.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-75

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-51. Estimated Costs for Site Preparation (1991 Costs)
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991)
Site Preparation Practice Total Cost'

Chemical $67.00/acre

Mechanical

Light (includes hand site preparation) $47.00/acre
Heavy' $107.00/acre
Chemical-Mechanicalb $113.00/acre

The costs shown represent the total cost of the practice. Calculations were made by dividing the
maximum Federal cost share by 0.75 to get the total cost.
b Where slope exceeds 20 percent or primary cover is standing hardwoods greater than 12 inches in
diameter, the above may be increased by $40.00 per acre.

Table 3-52. Estimated Costs for Regeneration (1991 Costs)
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991)
Regeneration Practice Total Cost'
Plantingb
Softwoods (when purchased from State nurseries) $21 .00/100 seedlings planted
Hardwoods (when purchased from State nurseries) $29.00/100 seedlings planted
Softwoods (when purchased from private nurseries) $28.00/100 seedlings planted
Hardwoods (when purchased from private nurseries) $41.00/100 seedlings planted
Shrubs $40.00/100 seedlings planted
Seeding (includes both purchase of seed and seeding)
Aerial seeding $23.00/acre
Cyclone seeding $40.00/acre
Hand or hot cap seeding $53.00/acre

The costs shown represent the total cost of the practice. Calculations were made by dividing the
maximum Federal cost share by 0.75 to get the total cost.
Where planting is to be done on areas of heavy slash from recent harvesting operations or on areas
with slopes over 30 percent or on sites having other particularly difficult planting conditions, the limits
may be increased an additional $10.00 per 100 seedlings planted and, where the planting has a
guaranteed end result, the above rates may be increased by $5.00 per 100 trees planted.

Table 3-53. Cost-Share Information for Revegetation/Tree Planting (Illinois
Administrative Code, 1990)

Practice Description Cost-Share Amount' Total Cost

Tree planting (trees and labor)

No-cost planting stock NTE $70.00/acre $87.50/acre
Purchased planting stock NTE $170.00/acre $212.50/acre
Direct seeding (including seed collected or NTE $40.00/acre $50.00/acre
purchased plus labor and any machinery use)

NTE = not to exceed.
a Cost-share amounts represent 80 percent of the actual cost.

3-76 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 3 Forestry Management Measures

This can be accomplished by using a rake or, if use of a blade is unavoidable, keeping the blade above the soil
surface and removing only the slash. Rapid site recovery and tree growth are promoted by the retention of nutrient-
rich topsoil, and the effectiveness of the windrow in minimizing sedimentation is increased.

Locate windrows and piles away from drainages to prevent movement of materials during high-runoff
concitions.

Avoid mechanical site preparation operations during periods of saturated soil conditions that may cause
rutting or accelerate soil erosion.

Do not place slash in natural drainages, and remove any slash that accidentally enters drainages.

Slash can clog the channel and cause alterations in drainage configuration and increases in sedimentation. Extra
organic material can lower the dissolved oxygen content of the stream. Slash also allows silt to accumulate in the
drainage and to be carried into the stream during storm events.

Provide filter strips of sufficient width to protect drainages that do not have SMAs from sedimentation
by the 10-year storm.

b. Practices for Regeneration

Distribute seedlings evenly across the site.

Order seedlings well in advance of planting time to ensure their availability.

Hand plant highly erodible sites, steep slopes, and lands adjacent to stream channels (SMAs)(Yoho,
1980).

Operate planting machines along the contour to avoid ditch formation.

� Soil conditions (slope, moisture conditions, etc.) should be suitable for adequate machine operation.
� Slits should be closed periodically to avoid channeling flow.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-77

A Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

1
i
011-

G. Fire Management

Prescribe fire for site preparation and control or suppress wildfire in a manner which
reduces potential nonpoint source pollution of surface waters:

(1) Intense prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedimentation due to the
combined effect of removal of canopy species and the loss of soil-binding abililty
of subcanopy and herbaceous vegetation roots, especially in SIVIAs, !in
strearnside vegetation for small ephemeral drainages, or on very steep slopes.
(2) Prescriptions for prescribed fire should protect against excessive erosion or
sedimentation to the extent practicable.
(3) All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and wildfire, should be plowed on contour
or stabilized with water bars and/or other appropriate techniques if needed to
control excessive sedimentation or erosion of the fireline.
(4) Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution
of watercourses, while recognizing the safety and operational priorities of
fighting wildfires.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to all prescribed burning conducted as part of normal silvicultural activities on harvested units
larger than 5 acres and for wildfire suppression and rehabilitation on forest lands.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to minimize potential NPS pollution and erosion resulting from prewribed
fire for site preparation and from the methods used for wildfire control or suppression.

Prescribed burning is aimed at reducing slash and competition for nutrients among seedlings and protecting against
wildfire. Slash burning destroys vegetation that reduces nitrogen-nitrate loadings. If uncontrolled, the bulm may
reach SMAs or highly erodible soils, causing increased sedimentation and erosion. Prescribed burning causes
changes in the chemical cycling of elements by influencing biological and microclimate changes, volatilization, and
mineralization processes.

The intensity and severity of burning and the proportion of the watershed burned are the major factors affecting the
influence of prescribed burning on streamflow and water quality (Baker, 1990). Fires that bum intensely on steep
slopes close to streams and that remove most of the forest floor and litter down to the mineral soil are most likely

3-78 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januajy 1993

Chapter 3 IL Foreshy Management Measures

to adversely affect water quality (Golden et al., 1984). The amount of erosion following a fire depends on the
following:

� Amount of ground cover remaining on the soil;
� Steepness of slope;
� Time, amount, and intensity of rainfall;
� Intensity of fire;
� Inherent erodibility of the soil; and
� Rapidity of revegetation.

Mersereau and Dymess (1972) found slash burning on steep slopes to contribute to surface soil movement by
removing litter and vegetation, and baring 55 percent of the mineral soil. Richter and others (1982), however, found
that periodic, low-intensity prescribed fires had little effect on water quality in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain.
Revegetation of burned areas also drastically reduces sediment yield from prescribed burning and wildfires (Baker,
1990).

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure is based in part on information and experience gained from studies and from the use of similar
management practices by States. To avoid many of the negative impacts from prescribed burning, Pope (1978)
recommends that those in charge of managing the fire construct water diversions on firelines in steep terrain to drain
the water away from the bum, leave an adequate strip of undisturbed surface between the prescribed bum area and
water sources, and avoid intense fires on soils that are uncoliesive and highly erodible.

Dymess (1963) studied the effects of slash burning in the Pacific Northwest, finding that severe burning decreases
soil porosity and infiltration capacity, thus increasing the potential for soil erosion. Clayton (1981) found that after
the helicopter logging and broadcast burning of slash in the Idaho batholith, erosion increased approximately 10 times
the natural rate for a short period of time as the result of to a high-intensity rain storm and then decreased
substantially within the following year.

Feller (1981) examined the effects of (1) clearcutting and (2) clearcutting and slash burning on stream temperatures
in southwestem British Columbia. Both treatments resulted in increased summer temperatures as well as daily
temperature fluctuations. These effects lasted for 7 years in the case of the clearcut stream but longer in the case
of the clearcut and slash-bumed stream. Clearcutting increased winter temperatures, while slash burning decreased
temperatures. The study concluded that clearcutting and slash burning had a greater impact on stream temperatures
than did clearcutting alone.

Biswell and Schultz (1957) found that surface runoff and erosion in northern California ponderosa pine forests are
not attributable to prescribed burning. While conducting observations during heavy rains, the authors found that the
duff and debris left after burning were effective in maintaining high infiltration and percolation capacity, and they
traced surface runoff to bare soil areas caused by human activity. A study by Page and Lindenmuth (1971) examined
the effects of prescribed fire on vegetation and sediment on a watershed in the oak-mountain mahogany chaparral
of central Arizona. The study found that the average sediment movement from the treated drainages during the 5-
year period was 0.30 acre-feet per square mile per year, which is substantially less than the sediment loss of 3.2 acre-
feet per square mile per year for the first 5 years following a wildfire in a comparable area in Arizona.

Stednick and others (1982) found increased concentrations of suspended sediments, phosphorus, and potassium in
strearnflows below the burned area after the slash burning of coastal hemlock-spruce forests of southeastern Alaska.
Stream monitoring indicated an immediate flush of elements, followed by a slower release of these elements into
surface water. No reduction in the nitrogen content or depth of the soil organic horizon was found, but there were
significant reductions in the potassium and magnesium contents of the soil.

Minnesota's Landowner Forest Stewardship Plan (1991) estimates the cost for prescribed burning to be $27/acre.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-79

/1. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

4. Practices

a. Prescribed Fire Practices

Carefully plan burning to adhere to weather, time of year, and fuel conditions that will help achieve the
desired results and minimize impacts on water quality.

Evaluate ground conditions to control the pattern and timing of the bum.

01 ntense prescribed fire for site preparation should not be conducted in the SMA.

Piling and burning for slash removal purposes should not be conducted in the SMA.

Avoid construction of firelines in the SMA.

In prescriptions for bums, avoid conditions requiring extensive blading of firelines by heavy equipment.

Use handlines, firebreaks, and hose lays to minimize blading of firelines.

Use natural or in-place barriers (e.g., roads, streams, lakes, wetlands) as an acceptable way to
minimize the need for firefine construction in situations where artificial construction of firefines wid result
in excessive erosion and sedimentation.

Construct firelines in a manner that minimizes erosion and sedimentation and prevents runoff from
directly entering watercourses.

� Locate firelines on the contour whenever possible, and avoid straight uphill-downhill placement.
� Install grades, ditches, and water bars while the line is being constructed.
� Install water bars on any fireline running up and down the slope, and direct runoff onto a filter strip or
sideslope, not into a drainage (Huff and Deal, 1982).
� Construct firelines at a grade of 10 percent or less where possible.
� Adequately cross-ditch all firelines at the time of construction (Megahan, 1983).
� Construct simple diversion ditches or turnouts at intervals as needed to direct surface water off the plowed
line and onto undisturbed forest cover for dispersion of water and soil particles.
� Construct firelines only as deep and wide as necessary to control the spread of the fire.

Maintain the erosion control measures on firelines after the bum.

Revegetate firefines with adapted herbaceous species (Megahan, 1983).

Refer to the Revegetation of Disturbed Areas management measure for more detailed information.

3-80 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januefy 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

0 Execute the bum with a trained crew and avoid intense burning.

Intense burning can accelerate erosion by consuming the organic cover.

0 Avoid burning on steep slopes with high-erosion-hazard areas or highly erodible soils.

b. Wildfire Practices

Whenever possible avoid using fire-retardant chemicals in SMAs and over watercourses, and prevent
their runoff into watercourses. Do not clean application equipment in watercourses or locations that
drain into watercourses.

Close water wells excavated for wildfire-suppression activities as soon as practical following fire control.

Provide advance planning and training for firefighters that considers water quality impacts when fighting
wildfires. This can include increasing awareness so direct application of fire retardants to waterbodies
is avoided and firelines are placed in the least detrimental position.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-81

H. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

. . . .........
.... ...... . . . .
... . . ... ..
:.::.1::.:_
... . . ......
H. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas

Reduce erosion and sedimentation by rapid revegetation of areas disturbed by
harvesting operations or road construction:

(1) Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after
completion of the earth-disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate
the timing for establishment of vegetative cover.
(2) Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful
vegetation establishment for the region or area.
(3) Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on priority areas such as disturbed
areas in SMAs or the steepest areas of disturbance near drainages.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to a disturbed areas resulting from harvesting, road building, and site preparation conducted
as part of normal silvicultural activities. Disturbed areas are those localized areas within harvest units or road
systems where mineral soil is exposed or agitated (e.g., road cuts, fill slopes, landing surfaces, cable corridors, or
skid trail ruts).

Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requimments
as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in
doing so. The application of this management measure by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Revegetation of areas of disturbed soil can successfully prevent sediment and pollutants associated with the sediment
(such as phosphorus and nitrogen) from entering nearby surface waters. The vegetation controls soil erosion by
dissipating the erosive forces of raindrops, reducing the velocity of surface runoff, stabilizing soil particles with roots,
and contributing organic matter to the soil, which increases soil infiltration rates. In areas such as the Pacific
Northwest, the construction of forest roads without revegetation has led to significant increases in stream
sedimentation. According to'Carr and Ballard (1980), studies have found that stream sedimentation increased 250
times during the first rainfalls following construction of a 2.5-km logging road within a 100-hectare watershed and
remained higher than an undisturbed companion watershed for the next 2 years.

Vegetation can trap and prevent dry ravel from moving further downslope, and it produces organic matter that is
incorporated into the soil, increasing infiltration rates (Berglund, 1978). Nutrient and soil losses to streams and lakes
also can be reduced by revegetating burned, cut over, or otherwise disturbed areas (Crumrine, 1977). In some cases,
double plantings are used: an early planting to establish erosion protection quickly and a later planting to provide
more permanent protection (Hynson et al., 1982).

3-82 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janua@y 1993

Chapter 3 IL Forestry Management Measures

3. Management Measure Selection

a. Effectiveness Information

This measure is based in part on information and experience gained from studies and from the use of similar
management practices by States. Significant reductions in soil erosion have been achieved by revegetating bare cut-
and-fill slopes alongside forest roads. A study of forest roadside slopes at two sites on Vancouver Island, Canada,
by Carr and Ballard (1980) found revegetation to be an effective management practice in preventing soil erosion.
At the control sites where no plant cover was present, the soil eroded to an average depth of 2-3 cm over 7 months,
amounting to an estimated soil loss of 345 cubic meters per kilometer of road. In contrast, sites with hydroseeding
had a net accumulation of soil material. In terms of practices, a single hydroseeding application of both seed and
fertilizer was as effective as sequential hydroseeding application of seed and fertilizer in terms of preventing soil
erosion. The practice of mulching on non-gully-prone soils, as a supplement to hydroseeding, was found to be
unnecessary because mulch is incorporated into the hydromulch.

Kuehn and Coboum (1989) studied the Basic Erosion Rate (BER) for soils on commercial forest land in the Eldorado
National Forest and concluded that good ground cover is key to reducing erosion. Figure 3-26 demonstrates the
relationship between percent ground cover and slope, and the resulting soil loss. Good ground cover is defined as
"living plants within 5 feet of the ground and litter or duff with a depth of 2 inches or more."

.36

.30

W
(L .20
U)
W

Z .16

0 .10

0
W

.05

0 20 40 60 so 100

PERCENT GROUND COVER
. 9lpe,
Figure 3-26. Relation of soil loss to good ground cover (Kuehn and
Cobourn, 1989).

EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993 3-83

IL Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Seeding was also cited by Berglund (1978) as a successful management practice for controlling erosion along
forest roads in Oregon. When establishing a revegetation erosion control program, the author suggested that the
program address criteria for seed selection, site preparation guidelines, timing of seeding, application methods,
fertilization, and mulching. Several guidelines for seed cover, fertilization, and mulching rates were also presented.
For example, Berglund suggests that a vegetative cover of 40 percent or more is necessary to significantly :reduce
soil erosion from disturbed areas.

Bethlahmy and Kidd (1966) described the extent to which revegetation controls erosion from steep road fills as
dependent upon the amount of protection given to the seeded slopes (Table 3-54). Seed and fertilizer alone (lid not
control erosion, but the addition of straw mulch reduced erosion by one-eighth to one-half Adding more protection,
netting as well as mulch, reduced erosion by almost 100 percent to nearly negligible levels.

b. Cost Information

Megahan (1987) found the costs of seeding with plastic netting placed over the seeded area to be almost 50 times
more than the costs of dry seeding alone (Table 3-55). The economic impacts of other revegetation management
measures were estimated by Dubensky (1991)(Table 3-56). Seeding firelines or rough logging roads adds $19.75
per 100 feet of road or fireline. Ripping, shaping, and seeding log decks costs about 178.50 per log deck. Fiber
for road and landing maintenance adds $4 per ton used, and water bars add $12.50 each for construction and seeding.

Lickwar (1989) compared the costs for revegetation of disturbed areas for various slope gradients in the Southeast.
He found that revegetation costs decreased slightly as slope decreased; however, costs remained fairly high
(Table 3-57). Minnesota's Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) estimated the costs of reestablishment of peri=ent
vegetation to vary from $80-00/acre to $147.00/acre of disturbed area, depending on type of vegetation (Table 3-58).

Table 3-54. Comparison of the Effectiveness of Seed, Fertilizer, Mulch, and Netting In
Controlling Cumulative Erosion from Treated Plots on a Steep Road Fill In Idaho
(Bethiahmy and Kidd, 1966)

Group B Group C
Group A (seed, mulch, (seed, fertilizer,
(seed, fertilizer) fertilizer) mulch, netting)
Cumulative Cumulative Erosion (in 1,000 lb/ac) by Plot Numberb
Elapsed Precipitation Control -
Time (days) (inches) Plot" 2 4 3 8 5 6 7

17 1.41 31.9 38.7 38.0 0.1 32.6 0 0 0

80 4.71 70.0 99.2 85.7 7.4 34.6 0.9 0 0.3

157 12.46 72.2 100.2 86.9 11.1 35.1 1.1 0 0.4

200 15.25 79.1 101.0 87.6 11.4 35.7 1.1 0 0.4

255 17.02 82.3 102.8 88.8 11.5 35.8 1.1 0 0.4

322 20.40 84.2 104.7 89.4 11.9 36.0 1.1 0 0.4

The control plot received no treatment at all.
Plot 2 had contour furrows, seed, fertilizer, holes.
Plot 3 had contour furrows, straw mulch, seed, fertilizer, holes.
Plot 4 had polymer, emulsion, seed, fertilizer.
Plot 5 had straw mulch, paper netting, seed, fertilizer.
Plot 6 had straw mulch, jute netting, seed, fertilizer.
Plot 7 had seed, fertilizer, straw mulch, chicken wire netting.
Plot 8 had seed, fertilizer, straw mulch with asphalt emulsion.

3-84 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-55. Costs of Erosion Control Measures (Megahan, 1987)

Measure' Cost ($/acre)

Dry seeding 124

Plastic netting placed over seeded area 5,662

Haber, D.F., and T. Kadoch. 1982. Costs of Erosion Control Measures Used on a Forest Road in the
Silver Creek Watershed in Idaho, University of Idaho, Dept. of Civil Engineering.

Table 3-66. Economic Impact of Implementation of Proposed Management Measures on
Road Construction and Maintenance (Dubensky, 1991)8

Management Practice Increased Cost

Fiber for road and landing con struction/m a intenance $4.00/ton
Ripping, shaping, and seeding log decks $178.50/deck
Seeding firelines or rough logging roads $19.75/100 ft

Construction and seeding of water bars $12.50 each

Construction of rolling dips on roads $19.75 each

Public comment information provided by the American Paper Institute and the National Forest Products
Association.

Table 3-57.* Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed,
Fertilizer, and Mulch (1987 Dollars) (Lickwar, 1989)
Practice Component Steep Sites" Moderate SiteSb Flat Sites'

Seed, fertilizer, and
mulch $13,625.00 (3.41%) $12,849.95 (2.72%) $12,258.70 (1.36%)

a Based on a 1,148-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $399,685. Slopes average over 9 percent.
b Based on a 1, 1 04-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $473,182. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to
8 percent.
Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $899,491. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to
3 percent.

Table 3-58. Estimated Costs for Revegetation (1991 Costs)
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1991)

Practice Total Cost'

Establishment of permanent vegetative cover
(includes seedbed preparation, fertilizer, chemicals and
application, seed, and seeding as prescribed in the plan)
Introduced grasses $80.00/acre
Native grasses $147.00/acre
a The costs shown represent the total cost of the practice. Calculations were made by dividing the
maximum Federal cost share by 0.75 to obtain the total cost.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993 3-85

l/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

4. Practices

As desciibed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Use seed mixtures adapted to the site, and avoid the use of exotic species (Larse, 1971). Species
should consist primarily of annuals to allow natural revegetation of native understory plants, and they
should have adequate soil-binding properties.

The selection of appropriate grasses and legumes is important for vegetation establishment. Grasses vary as to
climatic adaptability, soil chemistry, and plant growth characteristics (Berglund, 1978). USDA Soil Service tczhnical
guides at the State-wide level are excellent sources of information for seeding, mixtures and planting prescriptions
(Hynson et al., 1982). The U.S. Forest Service, State foresters, and County Extension agents can also provide helpful
suggestions (Kochenderfer, 1970). The use of native species is important and practical. Because non-native species
can take over and destroy native vegetation, use of non-native species often results in increased maintenance activities
and expense, and plenty of hardy native species are usually available (Hynson et al., 1982). In addition to selecting
a seeding mixture, the seeding rate must be determined so that adequate soil protection can be achieved without the
excess cost of overseeding. Berglund (1978) describes how to determine seeding rates in Seeding to Control Erosion
Along Forest Roads.

W On steep slopes, use native woody plants planted in rows, cordons, or wattles.
These species may be esta@lished more effectively than grass and are preferable for binding soils.

Seed during optimum periods for establishment, preferably just prior to fall rains (Larse, 1971).

Timing will depend on the species to be planted and the schedule of operations, which determines when protection
is needed (Hynson et al., 1982).

M Mulch as needed to hold seed, retard rainfall impact, and preserve soil moisture (Larse, 1971).
Critical, first-year mulch applications provide the necessary ground cover to curb erosion and aid plant establishment
(Berglund, 1978). Many different kinds of mulches can be used to improve conditions for germination (Rothwell,
1978). Various materials, including straw, bark, and wood chips, can be used to temporarily stabilize fill slopes and
other disturbed areas immediately after construction. In most cases, mulching is used in combination with seeding
and planting to establish stable banks. Both the type and the amount of mulch applied vary considerably between
regions and depend on the extent of the erosion potential and the available materials (Hynson et al., 1982). Figure
3-27 is a summary of mulching effectiveness in reducing erosion.

W Fertilize according to site-specific conditions.

Fertilization is often necessary for successful grass establishment because road construction commonly resullts in the
removal or burial of fertile topsoil (Berglund, 1978). To deterrrdne fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare
available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in the soils to be treated with the requirement-, of the species
to be sown (Rothwell, 1978). It may be necessary to refertilize periodically after vegetation establishment to
maintain growth and erosion control capabilities (Larse, 1971; Berglund, 1978).

3-86 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

M Protect seeded areas from grazing and vehicle damage until plants are weft established.

If the stand is over 60 percent damaged, reestablish it following the original specifications.

Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessafy repairs and reseed within the planting
season.

During non-growing seasons, apply interim surface stabilization methods to control surface erosion..

Possible methods include mulching (without seeding) and installation of commercially produced matting and blankets.
Alternative methods for planting and seeding include hand operations, the use of a wide variety of mechanical
seeders, and hydroseeding (Hynson et al., 1982).

Soil Loss (TIA-tons per acre) Application Rate

9 11 0 210 4P

39.6 No Mulchd

32.7 2 TIA Portland Cement

271 2 TIA woodchips.

25.6 15 TIA stone.

14.7 70 TIA gra-el

12.1 2.3 T/A straw

60 T/A stone
i 11.4 1

8.5 4 TIA woodchips

5.5 7 T/A woodchips.

3.5 135 TIA stone.

2 240 & 375 T/A stone.

12 & 25 TIA wooclchipsd

*Based an one replication only, Values for other treatments
based on average of two replications.

Soil Type: 6 inches sill loam topsoil underlain by compacted
calcareous till (AASHO A-4) (Unitied MQ.

Slopes: Uniform 20 percent

RainfalI Rate:
Simulated rainfall al rate of 2 112 Inches per hour , I hour the
first day followed by two 30-minute applications the second
day.

Figure 3-27. Soil losses from a 35-foot long slope by mulch type
(Hynson et al., 1982).
@14 7
2 ,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-67

/1. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

. .... ........
1. Forest Chemical Management

Use chemicals when necessary for forest management in accordance with the
following to reduce nonpoint source pollution impacts due to the movement of
forest chemicals off-site during and after application:

(1) Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed applicators
according to the registered use, with special consideration given to impacts to
nearby surface waters.
(2) Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect,
fungus, or herbaceous species.
(3) Prior to applications of pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading
process and the calibration of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather
conditions, the spray area, and buffer areas for surface waters.
(4) Establish and Identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially
important for aerial applications.)
(5) Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface
waters to the appropriate State agency. Develop an effective spill contingency
plan to contain spills.

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to lands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned or conducted. It
is intended to apply to all fertilizer and pesticide applications (including biological agents) conducted as 1,:)art of
normal silvicultural activities.

2. Description

Chemicals used in forest management are generally pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) and fertilizers.
Since pesticides may be toxic, they must be mixed, transported, loaded, and applied properly and their containers
disposed of properly in order to prevent potential nonpoint source pollution. Since fertilizers may also be toxic or
may shift the ecosystem energy dynamics, depending on the exposure and concentration, they must also be properly
handled and applied.

Pesticides and fertilizers are occasionany introduced into forests to reduce mortality of desired tree species, improve
forest production, and favor particular plant species. Many forest stands or sites never receive chemical treatment,
and of those that do receive treatment, typically no more than two or three applications are made during an entire

3-88 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

tree rotation (40 to 120 years) (Megahan, 1980). Despite the low rate of applications in an area, pesticides can still
accumulate within a watershed because there may be many forest sites that receive applications.

Although pesticides and fertilizers are used infrequently in forest operations, they can still pose a risk to the aquatic
environment depending on the application technique used (Feller, 1989; Neary, 1985). These chemicals can directly
enter surface waters through five major pathways: direct application, drift, mobilization in ephemeral streams,
overland flow, and leaching. The input from direct application is the most important source of increased chemical
concentrations and is also one of the most easily prevented.

Most adverse water quality effects related to the application of pesticides and fertilizers result from direct application
of chemicals to surface waters or from chemical spills (Golden et al., 1984; Fredriksen et al., 1973; Norris and
Moore, 197 1). Hand application of herbicides generally poses little or no threat to water quality in areas where there
is no potential for herbicides to wash into watercourses through gullies (Golden et al., 1984). Norris and Moore
(197 1) also found that providing buffer areas around streams and waterbodies effectively eliminated adverse water
quality effects from forestry chemicals.

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure is based in part on information and experience gained from studies and from use of similar
management practices by States. Information on the effects of various pesticide application and fertilization
techniques on water quality are summarized in Tables 3-59 through 3-62. Many of the data presented are site-
specific or lack clearly specified experimental conditions. However, general trends can be discerned among the
studies, and general conclusions on the effectiveness of stream protection practices can be drawn.

a. Pesticide Effects

Most data show that the delivery of pesticides to surface waters from forestry operations is variable, depending on
application technique, the presence or absence of buffers, and pesticide characteristics. The studies suggest that
negative effects can be greatly reduced by taking precautions to avoid drift or direct application of chemicals to
streams and other waterbodies. Norris and Moore (1971) noted that the concentration of 2,4-D in streams after aerial
application was one to two orders of magnitude greater in forestry operations without buffers than in areas with
buffers (Table 3-59). The elevated concentrations in the nonbuffered area returned to levels comparable to the
buffered area after roughly 81 hours from the time of application. Fredriksen and others (1973) noted that in 8 years
of monitoring Northwest forest streams for pesticide effects, no herbicide residues were detected in water column
samples more than I month after aerial application. However, neither aquatic organisms nor sediments were
sampled. Herbicide-induced changes in vegetation density and composition may cause indirect effects on streams
such as increases in water temperature or nutrient concentration after desiccation of strearnside vegetation. Use of
unsprayed buffer strips should minimize these effects (Fredriksen et al., 1973).

Riekerk and others (1989) also found that the greatest risk to water quality from pesticide application in forestry
operations occurs from aerial applications because of drift, wash-off, and erosion processes. As shown in Table 3-60,
they found that aerial applications of herbicides resulted in a surface runoff concentration roughly 3.5 times greater
than that of applications to the ground. They suggested that tree injection application methods would be considered
the least hazardous for water pollution, but would also be the most labor-intensive.

Norris and others (1991) compiled information from multiple studies that evaluated the peak concentrations of
herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers in soils, lakes, and streams (Table 3-61). These studies were conducted from
1967 to 1987. Norris (1967) found that application of 2,4-D to marshy areas lead to higher-than-normal levels of
stream contamination. When ephemeral streams were treated, residue levels of hexazinone and picloram. greatly
increased with storm-generated flow. Glyphosate was aerially applied (3.3 kg/hectare) to an 8-hectare forest
ecosystem in the Oregon toast Range. The study area contained two ponds and a small perennial stream. All were
unbuffered and received direct application of the herbicide. Glyphosate residues were detected for 55 days after
application with peak stream concentrations of 0.27 mg/L. It was demonstrated that the concentration of insecticides

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-89

11. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-59. Concentrations of 2,4-D After Aerial Application In Two Treatment Areas (OR)
(Norris and Moore, 1971)

Treatment Without Buffers Treatment With Buffers

Time After Time After
Spraying (hr) 2,4-D (mg/l) Spraying (hr) 2,4-D (mg/1)

4.7 0.085 5.4 0.001

6.0 0.010 8.7 0.001

7.0 0.026 84.5 0.003

8.0 0.075 168.0 0

9.0 0.059

13.9 0.051

26.9 0.003

37.9 0.009

78.0 0.008

80.8 0.001

168.0 0

in streams was significantly greater when the chemicals were applied without a buffer strip to protect the
watercourse. When streams were unbuffered, the peak concentrations of malathion ranged from 0.037-0.042 mg/1--
However, when buffers were provided, the concentrations of malathion were reduced to levels that ranged from
undetectable to 0.0 17 mgAL. The peak concentrations of carbaryl ranged from 0.000-0.0008 mg/L when watercourses
were protected with a buffer, but increased to 0.016 mg/L when watercourses were unbuffered.

Another study concluded that the effects of a pellet formulation of picloram applied to an Appalachian mountain
forest did not produce any adverse effect on water quality within the 2-year study period (Neary et al.,. 1985).
Similar results were found for a study on the application of sulfometuron methyl. in Coastal Plain flatwoods (Neary
et al., 1989). These researchers concluded that chemical application should not pose a threat to water quality, when
chernicals are applied at rates established on the product label and well away from flowing streams.

b. Fertilizer Effects

Moore (197 1), as cited in Norris et al. (199 1), compared nitrogen loss from a watershed treated with 224 kg urea-N
per hectare to nitrogen lois from an untreated watershed. The study demonstrated that the loss of nitrogen from the
fertilized watershed was 28.02 kg per hectare while the loss of nitrogen from the unfertilized watershed was only
2.15 kg per hectare (Table 3-62).

Table 3-60. Peak Concentrations In Streamflow from Herbicide Application Methods
(Southeastern United States) (Riekerk at. al., 1989)
Method Residue Levels in Surface Runoff (gg/l)

Ground < 36

Aerial < 130

3-90 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januat],, 1993

Chapter 3 1/. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-61. Peak Concentrations of Forest Chemicals In Soils, Lakes, and Streams After Application
(Norris at al., 1991)

Concentration
Application (mg/L or mglkg*) Time to
Rate Time Non-
Chemicals" and SysteMb (kg/hectare) Peak Subsequent intervalc detection Source'

Herbicides

2,4-D 2.24 0.001-0.13 1-168 he 17
Marsh 2.24 0.09 17,18
2,4-D BE
Built pond 23.0 1
Water 3.0 1.0 85 d
0.2 180 d
Sediment 8.0* 4.0* 13+ d
0.4-0.6* 82-182 d
Aquatic plants 206* 7 d
8* 82 d 182 d
2,4-D AS
Reservoir 3.6 0 13 d 7
Picloram
.Runoff 0.078 .19
Runoff 0.038 23
Ephemeral stream 2.8 0.32 157 d 915 d 9
Stream 0.37 3
Hexazinone
Stream (GA) 1.68 0.044 3-4 m 11
Forest (GA) 1.68 14
Liter 0. 177* <0.01* 60+ d
Soil 0. 108* <0.01* 90 d
Ephemeral 0.514 3 d
stream
Perennial stream 0.442 3 d
Atrazine
Stream 3.0 0.42 0.02 17 d 16
Built ponds 10
Water 0.50 0.05 14 d
0.005 56 d
Sediments 0.50* 0.9* 4 d
0.50* 0.25* 56 d
Triclopyr
Pasture (OR) 3.34 0.095* 20
Glyphosate
Water 3.3 0.27 0.09 5.5 h is
<0.01 3 d
Dalapon
Field irrigation
water 0.023-3.65 <0.01 Sev h 5

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-91

/L Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-61. (Continued)

Concentration
Application (mg/L or mg/kg*) Time
Rate Time to Non-
Chemicals' and System' (kg/hectare) Peak Subsequent Intdrvalc detection Source d

Insecticides

Malathion
Streams 0.91 24
Unbuffered 0.037-0.042
Buffered 0-0-017
Carbaryl
Streams & ponds 0-0-03 24.
(E)
Streams, unbuffered 0.005-0.011 48 h 24.
(PNW)
Water 0.84 0.026-0.042 8
Brooks with buffei 0.84 0.001-0.008 22:
Rivers with buffer 0.84 0.000-0.002 22'.
Streams, unbuffered 0.84 0.016 22'.
Ponds 0.84 6
Water 0.254 100-400 d
Sediment <0.01-5.0*'
Acephate
Streams 0.003-0-961 4
Streams 0.56 0.113-0.135 0.013-0.065 1 d 21
Pond sediment & fish 14 d 2

Fertilizers

Urea 224
Urea-N
Forest stream (OR) 0.39 0.39 48 h 12
Dollar Cr (WA) 44.4 13
NH4+_N
Forest stream (OR) <0.10 12
Tahuya Cr (WA) 1.4 13
N03+_N
Forest stream (OR) 0.168 12
Elochoman R (WA) 4.0 13

2,4-D BE = 2,4-D butoxyethanol ester; 2,4-D AS 2,4-D amine salt + ester.
b E = eastern USA; Cr = Creek; GA = Georgia; PNW = Pacific Northwest; OR = Oregon; R = River;
WA = Washington; buffer = wooded riparian strip.
c d = day: h = hours; m = months; sev h = several hours. Intervals are times from application to measurement of pealk or
subsequent concentration, whichever is the last measurement indicated.
d 1 = Birmingham and Colman (11985); 2 = Bocsor and O'Connor (11975); 3 = Davis et al. (1968); 4 = Flavell et al. (11977); 5
Frank et al. (11970); 6 = Gibbs et al. (11984); 7 = Hoeppel and Westerdahl (11983); 8 = Hulbert (11978); 9 = Johnsen (1980); 10
= Maier-Bode (11972); 11 = Mayack et al. (11982); 12 = Moore (11970); 13 = Moore (11 975b); 14 = Neary et al. (1983); 15 =
Newton et al. (1984); 16 = M. Newton (Oregon State University, personal communication, 1967); 17 = Norris (1967); 18 =
Norris (1968); 19 = Norris (11969); 20 = Norris et al. (1987); 21 = Rabeni and Stanley (11979); 22 = Stanley and Trial (11980);
23 = Suff ling et al. (1974); 24 = Tracy et al. (1977).
Normally less than 48 h,
One extreme case: 23.8 mgtkg peak concentration, 16 months to nondetection.

Studies by Moore (Table 3-61) indicated that the concentrations of urea-N in runoff varied greatly, but that the
greatest opportunity for water quality damage from fertilizer application occurred when the chemical directly entered

3-92 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuar 1993
Y

Chapter 3 11. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-62. Nitrogen Losses from Two Watersheds in Umpqua Experimental Watershed
(OR) (Norris at al., 1991)

Loss Locus or Statistic Urea-N NH,-N NO,-N Total

Absolute lose (kg/hectare)

Watershed 2 (treated) 0.65 0.28 27.09 28.02

Watershed 4 (untreated) 0.02 0.06 2.07 2.15

Net loss (2-4) 0.63 0.22 25.02 25.87

Proportional loss

Percent of total 2.44 0.85 96.71 100.00

the waterbody. The peak concentrations were directly proportional to the amount of open surface water within the
treated areas, and increases resulted almost entirely from direct applications to surface water. Megahan (1980)
summarized data from Moore (1975), who examined changes in water quality following the fertilization of various
forest stands with urea. The major observations from this research are summarized as follows (Megahan, 1980):

� Increases in the concentration of urea-N ranged from very low to a maximum of 44 ppm, with the highest
concentrations attributed to direct application to water surfaces.

� Higher concentrations occurred in areas where buffer strips were not left beside streambanks.

Chemical concentrations of urea and its by-products tended to be relatively short-lived due to transport
downstream, assimilation by aquatic organisms, or adsorption by stream sediments.

Based on his literature review, Megahan (1980) concluded that the impacts of fertilizer application in forested areas
could be significantly reduced by avoiding application techniques that could result in direct deposition into the
waterbody and by maintaining a buffer area along the streambank. Malueg and others (1972) and Hetherington
(1985) also presented information in support of Megahan's conclusions.

4. Practices

OFor aerial spray applications maintain and mark a buffer area of at least 50 feet around all
watercourses and waterbodies to avoid drift or accidental application of chemicals directly to surface
water.

A wider buffer may be needed for major streams and lakes and for application of pesticides with high toxicity to
aquatic life. A 100-foot buffer should be used for aerial applications and a 25-foot buffer used for ground spray.
Aerial application methods require careful and precise marking of application areas to avoid accidental contamination
of open waters (Riekerk, 1989). For specific applications such as hypo hatchet or wick applicator, buffer area widths
used for spray applications may be reduced.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-93

ft. Forestty Management Measures Chapter 3

M Apply pesticides and fertilizers during favorable atmospheric conditions.

� Do not apply pesticides when wind conditions increase the likelihood of significant drift.

� Avoid pesticide application when temperatures are high or relative humidity is low because these conditions
influence the rate'of evaporation and enhance losses of volatile pesticides.

M Users must abide by the current pesticide label which may specify. whether users must be trained and
certified in the proper use of the pesticide; allowable use rates, safe handling, storage, and disposal
requirements, and whether the pesticide can only be used under the provision of an approved Pesticide
State Management Plan, management measures and practices forpesticides should be consistent with
and(or complement those in the approved Pesticide State Management Plans.

M Locate mixing and loading areas, and clean aft mixing and loading equipment thoroughly after, each
use, in a location -where pesticide residues will not enter streams or other waterbodies.

M Dispose of pesticide wastes and containers according to State and Federal laws.

M Take precautions to prevent leaks andlor spills.

M Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spffl containment and cleanug@ and
notification of proper authorities.

An adequate spill and cleaning kit that includes the following should be maintained:

� Detergent or soap;
� Hand cleaner and water;
� Activated charcoal, adsorptive clay, vermiculite, kitty litter, sawdust, or other adsorptive materials;
� Lime or bleach to neutralize pesticides in emergency situations;
* Tools such as a shovel, broom, and dustpan and containers for disposal; and
� Proper protective clothing.

M Apply slow-release fertilizers, when possible.

This practice will reduce potential nutrient leaching to ground water, and it will increase the availability of nutrients
for plant uptake.

M Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching.

M Base fertilizer type and application rate on soil andlor foliar analysis.

To determine fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in
the soils to be treated with the requirements of the species to be sown (Rothwell, 1978).

M Consider the use of pesticides as part of an overall program to control pest problems.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies have been developed to control forest pests without total reliance on
chemical pesticides. The IPM approach uses all available techniques, including chemical and nonchemical. An
extensive knowledge of both the pest and the ecology of the affected environment is required for EPM to be effective.

3-94 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Forestfy Management Measures

A more in-depth discussion of IPM strategies and components can be found in the Pesticide management measure
section of the Agriculture chapter of this guidance.

N Base selection of pesticide on site factors and pesticide characteristics.

These factors include vegetation height, target pest, adsorption to soil organic matter, persistence or half-life, toxicity,
and type of formulation.

Check all application equipment carefully, particularly for leaking hoses and connections and plugged
or worn nozzles. Calibrate spray equipment periodically to achieve uniform pesticide distribution and
rate.

M Always use pesticides in accordance with label instructions, and adhere to aft Federal and State policies
and regulations governing pesticide USe.2

S. Relationship of Management Measure Components for Pesticides to Other
Programs

EPA's Pesticides and Groundwater Strategy (USEPA, 199 1) describes the policies and regulatory approaches EPA
will use to protect the Nation's ground-water resources from risks of contamination by pesticides under FIFRA. The
objective of the strategy is the prevention of ground-water contamination by regulating the use of certain pesticides
(i.e., use according to EPA-approved labeling) in order to reduce and, if necessary, eliminate releases of the pesticide
in areas vulnerable to contamination. Priority for protection will be based on currently used and reasonably expected
sources of drinking water supplies, and ground water that is closely hydrogeologically connected to surface waters.
EPA will use Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act as "reference points" for
water resource protection efforts when the ground water in question is a current or reasonably expected source of
drinking water.

, The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act governs the storage and application of pesticides.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-95

H. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

In the absence of such an approved Plan, affected pesticides could not be legally used in the State.

Since areas to be managed under Pesticide State Management Plans and Coastal Nonpoint Source Programs can
overlap, State coastal zone and nonpoint source agencies should work with the State lead agency for pesticides (or
the State agency that has a lead role in developing and implementing the Pesticide State Management Plan) in the
development of pesticide management measure components and practices under both programs. This is necessary
to avoid duplication of effort and conflicting pesticide requirements between programs. Further, ongoing coordination
will be necessary since both programs and management measures will evolve and change with increasing technology
and data.

3-96 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 A Forestry Management Measures

J. Wetlands Forest
I
Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities (including harvesting,
road design and construction, site preparation and regeneration, and chemical
management) to adequately protect the aquatic functions of forested wetlands.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended for forested wetlands where silvicultural or forestry operations are planned
or conducted. It is intended to apply specifically to forest management activities in forested wetlands and to
supplement the previous management measures by addressing the operational circumstances and management
practices appropriate for forested wetlands. Chapter 7 provides additional information on wetlands and wetland
management measures for other, nonforestry source categories and activities.

Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in
doing so. The application of this management measure by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

This management measure applies specifically to forest management activities in forested wetlands, including those
currently undertaken under the exemptions of section 404(f) (40 CFR, Part 232). Many normal, ongoing forestry
activities are exempt under section 404(f)(1) unless recaptured under the provisions of section 404(f)(2). This
management measure is not intended to prohibit these silvicultural activities but to reduce incidental or indirect
effects on aquatic functions as a result of these activities. Chapter 7 provides additional information on wetlands
and wetland management measures for other, nonforestry source categories and activities.

2. Description

Forested wetlands provide many beneficial functions that need to be protected. Among these are floodflow alteration,
sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, provision of important habitat for fish and wildlife, and provision
of timber products (Clairain and Kleiss, 1989). The extent of palustrine (forested) wetlands in the continental United
States has declined greatly in the past 40 years due to conversion to other land uses, with a net annual loss of
300,000 acres occurring between 1950 and 1970 (Frayer et al., 1983). Forested wetland productivity is dependent
upon hydrologic conditions and nutrient cycling, and alteration of a wetland's hydrologic or nutrient-cycling processes
can adversely affect wetland functions (Conner and Day, 1989). Refer to Chapter 7 for a wetland definition and a
more complete description of the values and functions of wetlands.

The primary difference between forestry activities on wetland sites as compared to activities on upland sites is the
result of flooding that occurs in most wetlands during some or most of the year. Potential impacts of forestry
operations in wetlands include:

Sediment production as a result of road construction and use and equipment operation;
I

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-97

/I. Forestty Management Measures Chapter 3

� Drainage alteration as a result of improper road construction;

� Stream obstruction caused by failure to remove logging debris;

� Soil compaction caused by operation of logging vehicles during flooding periods or wet weather (skid trails,
haul roads, and log landings are areas where compaction is most severe); and

� Contamination from improper application and/or use of pesticides.

The primary adverse impacts associated with road construction in forested wetlands are alteration of drainage and
flow patterns, increased erosion and sedimentation, habitat degradation, and damage to existing timber stands. In
an effort to prevent these adverse effects, section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires usage of
appropriate BMPs for road construction and maintenance in wetlands so that flow and circulation patterns and
chemical and biological characteristics are not impaired. Additional section 404(f) BMPs specific to forestry can
be found at 40 CFR 232.3.

Harvest planning and selection of the right harvest system are essential in achieving the management objectives of
timber production, ensuring stand establishment, and avoiding adverse impacts to water quality and wetland habitat.
The potential impacts of reproduction methods and cutting practices on wetlands include changes in water quality,
temperature, nutrient cycling, and aquatic habitat (Toliver and Jackson, 1989). Streams can also become blocked
with logging debris if SMAs are not properly maintained or if appropriate practices are not employed in SMAs.

Site preparation includes but is not limited to the use of prescribed fire, chemical, or mechanical site preparation.
Extensive site preparation on bottoms where frequent flooding occurs can cause excessive erosion and stream
siltation. The degree of acceptable site preparation is governed by the amount and frequency of flooding, soil type,
and species suitability, and is dependent upon the regeneration method used.

Clean Water Act section 404 establishes a permit program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States, including certain forested areas that meet the criteria for wetlands. Section 404(f)(1)
of the Act provides an exemption from the permitting requirement for discharges in waters of the United States
associated with normal, ongoing silviculture operations, including such practices as placement of bedding, cultivation,
seeding, timber harvesting, and minor drainage. Section 404(f)(2) clarifies that discharges associated with silviculture
activities identified at 404(f)(1) as exempt, are not eligible for the exemption if the proposed discharge involve,: toxic
materials or if they would have the effect of converting waters of the United States, including wetlands, to dr), land.
Regulations implementing section 404(f), as well as describing applica@le best management practices for avoiding
impairment of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the waters of the United States, were
promulgated by EPA at 40 CFR Put 232.

3. Management Measure Selection

Mader and others (1989) assessed the relative impacts of various timber harvesting methods on different parameters
in a forested wetland. On-site ecological responses on a clearcut site following timber harvesting with helicopter
and rubber-tired skidder systems were compared to a clearcut, harvested, herbicide-treated area and an undisturbed
stand in southwest Alabama. They found total nitrogen concentrations in soil water to be significantly lower for the
skidder treatment when compared with all other treatments (Table 3-63). Total phosphorus concentrations were also
significantly different for the helicopter treatment as compared to the control stand. Sediment accumulation was
greatest for the helicopter treatment and least for the herbicide treatment, and all differences between treatmenLs were
significant.

3-98 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 /1. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-63. Total Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concentrations in Sol[ Water,
and Sedimentation During Wet Season Flooding' (Mader at al., 1989)

Nutrient Concentration
(parts per million) Sediment
Accumulation
Treatment n b TNc Tpd n (millimeters)

Herbicide 36 11.1 (2.1) 9.8(2.6) 81 0.7(0.3)

Skidder 36 7.4(l.0) 10.1 (2.1) 81 1.2(0.5)

Helicopter 36 10.6(l.4) 11.4(2.0) 81 2.2(0.6)

Undisturbed 36 11.0(1.6) 8.8(2.0) 81 1.1 (0.1)

aValues are treatment means (�SE) of nine replications.
bn = Number of samples.
cTN = Total nitrogen in soil water.
dTP = Total phosphorus in soil water.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as apractical
matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by applying
one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth below
have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve
the management measure described above.

a. Road Design and Construction Practices

Locate and construct forest roads according to preharvest planning.

Improperly constructed and located forest roads may cause changes in hydrology, accelerate erosion, reduce or
degrade fisheries habitat, and destroy or damage existing stands of timber.

Utilize temporary roads in forested wetlands.

Permanent roads should be constructed only to serve large and frequently used areas, as approaches to watercourse
crossings, or as access for fire protection. Use the minimum design standard necessary for reasonable safety and
the anticipated traffic volume.

Construct fill roads only when absolutely necessary for access since fill roads have the potential to
restrict natural flow pattems.

Where construction of fill roads is necessary, use a permeable fill material (such as gravel or crushed rock) for at
least the first layer of fill. The use of pervious materials maintains the 'natural flow regimes of subsurface water.
Figures 3-28 and 3-29 demonstrate the impact of impervious and pervious road fills on wetland hydrology.
Permeable fill material is not a substitute for using bridges where needed, or for installation of adequately spaced
culverts present at all natural drainageways. This practice should be used in conjunction with cross drainage
structures to ensure that natural wetland flows are maintained (i,e,, so that fill does no, become clogged by sediment
and obstruct flows (Hynson et al., 1982).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-99

1/. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

material Displaced Ground Water
By Fill Forced 10 the Surface Rocktill
Section

Roa I
JU
F
_jusew2ay".=@p-
found Water Flow
_=C'r= 01
:O@orectlonoi_
found Water Flow
SEEM= _=.G.
Bedrock/ / /@ / --;,--29@@@@@77 7
L ------ I
Figure 3-28. Impervious roadfill section placed on Agure 3-29. Pervious roadfill section on wetland
wetlands consisting of soft organic sediments with allows movement of ground water through it and
sand lenses. The natural material consolidates and minimizes flow changes (Hynson et al., 1982).
restricts ground-water flow (Hynson et al., 1982).

Provide adequate cross drainage to maintain the natural surface and subsurface flow of the wetland.

This can be accomplished through adequate sizing and spacing of water crossing structures, proper choice of the type
of crossing structure, and installation of drainage structures at a depth adequate to pass subsurface flow. Bridges,
culverts, and other structures should not perceptibly diminish or increase the duration, direction, or magnitude of
minimum, peak, or mean flow of water on either side of the structure (Hynson et al., 1982).

0 Construct roads at natural ground level to minimize the potential to restrict flowing water.

Float the access road fill on the natural root mat. If the consequences of the natural root mat failing are serious, use
reinforcement materials such as geotextile fabric, geo-grid mats, or log corduroy. Figure 3-30 depicts a cross s,.-ction

Protect the natural
root mat (do not grub)
Use low granular fill
Reinforce mat with
log corduroy, brush
.... ....... mat or synthetic fabric

4,
7

0"
7

Select crossing site where the swamp depth is least
and there is a good root mat to support mad Soft organic layer

Solid bottom

Figure 3-30. Cross section of a Welland road (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988).

3-100 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 . //. Forestry Management Measures

of the "floating the road" practice. Protect the root mat beneath the roadway from equipment damage. This can be
facilitated by diverting through traffic to the edge of the right-of-way, shear-blading stumps instead of grubbing, and
using special wide-pad equipment. Also, protect the root mat from damage or puncture by using fill material that
does not contain large rocks or boulders.

b. Harvesting Practices

0 Conduct forest harvesting according to preharvest planning designs and locations.

Planning and close supervision of harvesting operations are needed to protect site integrity and enhance regeneration.
Harvesting without regard to season, soil type, or type of equipment can damage the site productivity; retard
regeneration; cause excessive rutting, churning, and puddling of saturated soils; and increase erosion and siltation
of streams.

M Establish a streamside management area adjacent to natural perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and
other standing water in the forested wetland following the components of the SMA management
measure.

0 Ensure that planned harvest activities or chemical use do not contribute to problems of cumulative
effects in watersheds of concern.

M Select the harvesting method to minimize soil disturbanc e and hydrologic impacts to the wetland.

In seasonally flooded wetlands, a guideline is to use conventional skidder logging that employs equipment with low-
ground-pressure tires, cable logging, or aerial logging (Doolittle, 1990). Willingham (1989) compared cable logging
to helicopter logging and concluded that helicopter operations caused less site disturbance, were more economical,
and provided greater yield. Table 3-64 depicts harvesting systems recommended by the Florida Division of Forestry
by type of forested wetland. These recommendations are based on both water quality and economic considerations.
Another alternative is to conduct harvesting during winter months when the ground is frozen.

M When groundskidding, use low-ground-pressure tires or tracked machines and concentrate skidding
to a few primary skid trails to minimize site disturbance, soil compaction, and rutting.

0 When soils become saturated, suspend groundskidding harvesting operations. Use of groundskidding
equipment during excessively wet periods may result in unnecessary site disturbance and equipment
damage.

c. Site Preparation and Regeneration Practices

M Select a regeneration method that meets the site characteristics and management objectives.

Choice of regeneration method has a major influence on the stand composition and structure and on the silvicultural
practices that will be applied over the life of the stand (Toliver and Jackson, 1989). Natural regeneration may be
achieved by clearcutting the existing stand and relying on regeneration from seed from adjacent stands, the cut trees,
or stumps and from root sprouts (coppice). Successful regeneration depends on recognizing the site type and its
characteristics; evaluating the stocking and species composition in relation to stand age and site capability; planning
regeneration options; and using sound harvesting methods. Schedule harvest during the dormant season to take
advantage of seed sources and to favor coppice regeneration. Harvest trees at a stump height of 12 inches or less
when practical to encourage vigorous coppice regeneration. Artificial regeneration may be accomplished by planting
seedlings or direct seeding. Table 3-65 contains the regeneration system recommendations of the Georgia Forestry
Association.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-101

11. Forestry Management Measures Chapter 3

Table 3-64. Recommended Harvesting Systems by Forested Wetland Sitea
(Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1988)

Conventional with Cable or Barge or High
Site Type Conventional Controlled AcceSSb Aerial Flotation Boom

Flowing Water

Mineral Soil

Alluvial River Bottom B A C C

Organic Soil

Black River Bottom B A C C

Branch Bottom Ac B C C

Cypress Strand B A A A
Muck Swamp C A A A

Nonflowing Water

Mineral Soil

Wet Hammock B A C C

Organic Soil
Cypress Dome B A A A

Peat Swamp C A A A

A = recommended; B = recommended when dry; C not recommended.
Recommendations include cost considerations
Preplanned and designated skid trails and access roads.
Log from the hill (high ground).

Conduct mechanized site preparation and planting sloping areas on the contour.

To reduce disturbance, conduct bedding operations in high-water-lable areas during dry periods of the
year.

The degree of acceptable site preparation depends on the amount and frequency of flooding, the soil type, and the
species suitability.

Minimize soil degradation by limiting operations on saturated soils.

d. Chemical Management Practices

Apply herbicides by injection or application in pellet form to individual stems.

M For chemical and aerial fertilizer applications, maintain and mark a buffer area of at least 50 feet
around all surface water to avoid drift or accidental direct application.

Avoid application of pesticides with high toxicity to aquatic life, especially aerial applications.

3-102 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 il. Forestry Management Measures

Table 3-65. Recommended Regeneration Systems by Forested Wetland Type
(Georgia Forestry Association, 1990)

Natural Regeneration Artificial Regeneration

Group Shelter Seed' Mechanical Direct
Type Clearcut Selection Wood Tree Site Prep. Plant Seed

Flood Plains, Terraces, Bottomiand

Black River A B B C D C C
Red River A B B C D B B
Branch Bottoms A B B C D C C
Piedmont Bottoms A B B C D B B
Muck Swamps A C C C D C C

Wet Flats

Pine Hammocks & Savannahs A B B B A A B
Pocosins or Bays A C B B B B B
Cypress Strands A C C C D C C

Cypress Domes: Peat Swamps
Peat Swamps A C C C C C C
Cypress Domes A C C C D C C
Gulfs, Coves, Lower Slopes A B B C C B C

A = highly effective; B = effective; C = less effective; Dnot recommended.
Seed tree cuts are not recommended on first terraces of flood plains, terraces, and bottomland.

M Apply slow-release fertilizers, when possible.

This practice will reduce the potential of the nutrients leaching to ground water, and it will increase the availability
of nutrients for plant uptake.

Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching.

Base fertilizer type and application rate on so# andlor foliar analysis.

To determine fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in
the soils to be treated with the requirements of the species to be sown.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-103

Glossaiy Chapter 3

Ill. GLOSSARY

Access road: A temporary or permanent road over which timber is transported from a loading site to a public: road.
Also known as a haul road.

Alignment: The horizontal route or direction of an access road.

Allochthonous: Derived from outside a system, such as leaves of terrestrial plants that fall into a stream.

Angle of repose: The maximum slope or angle at which a material, such as soil or loose rock, remains stable (stable
angle).

Apron: Erosion protection placed below the streambed in an area of high flow velocity, such as downstream from
a culvert.

Autochthonous: Derived from within a system, such as organic matter in a stream resulting from photosynthesis by
aquatic plants.

Bedding: A site preparat ion technique whereby a small ridge of surface soil is formed to provide an elevated
planting or seed bed. It is used primarily in wet areas to improve drainage and aeration for seeding.

Berm: A low earth fill constructed in the path of flowing water to divert its direction, or constructed to act as a
counterweight beside the road fill to reduce the risk of foundation failure (buttress).

Borrow pit: An excavation site outside the limits of construction that provides necessary material, such as fill
material for embankments.

Broad-based dip: A surface drainage structure specifically designed to drain water from an access road while
vehicles maintain normal travel speeds.

Brush barrier. A sediment control structure created of slash materials piled at the toe slope of a road or at the
outlets of culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars.

Buck: To saw felled trees into predetermined lengths.

Buffer area: A designated area around a stream of waterbody of sufficient width to minimize entrance of forestry
chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, and fire retardants) into the waterbody.

Cable logging: A system of transporting logs from stump to landing by m6ns of steel cables and winch. This
method is usually preferred on steep slopes, wet areas, and erodible soils where tractor logging cannot be carried
out effectively.
Check dam: A small darr@ constructed in a gully to decrease the flow velocity, minimize channel scour, and promote
deposition of sediment.

Chopping: A mechanical treatment whereby vegetation is -concentrated, near the ground and incorporated into the
soil to facilitate burning or seedling establishment.

Clearcutting: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are harvested within a specified area in one
operation to create an even-aged stand.

Contour: An imaginary line on the surface of the earth connectinj points of the same elevation. A line dra%vn on
a map connecting the points of the same elevation.

3-104 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 3 /11. Glossary

Crown: A convex road surface that allows runoff to drain to either side of the road prism.

Culvert: A metal, wooden, plastic, or concrete conduit through which surface water can flow under or across roads.

Cumulative effect: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of an action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such
action.

Cut-and-fill: Earth-moving process that entails excavating part of an area and using the excavated material for
adjacent erpbankments or fill areas.

DBH: Diameter at breast height; the average diameter (outside the bark) of a tree 4.5 feet above mean ground level.

Disking (harrowing): A mechanical method of scarifying the soil to reduce competing vegetation and to prepare a
site to be seeded or planted.

Diversion: A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across or at the bottom of a slope for
the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.

Drainage structure: Any device or land form constructed to intercept and/or aid surface water drainage.

Duffi. The accumulation of needles, leaves, and decaying matter on the forest floor.

Ephemeral stream: A channel that carries water only during and immediately following rainstorms. Sometimes
referred to as a dry wash.

Felling: The process of cutting down standing trees.

Fill slope: The surface formed where earth is deposited to build a road or trail.

Firebreak: Naturally occurring or man-made barrier to the spread of fire.

Fireline: A barrier used to stop the spread of fire constructed by removing fuel or rendering fuel inflammable by
use of fire retardants.

Ford: Submerged strewn crossing where tread is reinforced to bear intended traffic.

Forest filter strip: Area between a stream and construction activities that achieves sediment control by using the
natural filtering capabilities of the forest floor and litter.

Forwarding: The operation of moving timber products from the stump to a landing for further transport.

Geotextile: A product used as a soil reinforcement agent and as a filter medium. It is made of synthetic fibers
manufactured in a woven or loose nonwoven manner to form a blanket-like product.

Grade (gradient): The slope of a road or trail expressed as a percentage of change in elevation per unit of distance
traveled.

Harvesting: The felling, skidding, processing, loading, and transporting of forest products.

Haul road: See access road.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 3-105

Glossary Chapter 3

Intermittent stream: A watercourse that flows in a well-defined channel only in direct response to a precipiitation
event. It is dry for a large part of the year.

Landing (log deck): A place in or near the forest where logs are gathered for further processing or transpoil.

Leaching: Downward movement of a soluble material through the soil as a result of water movement.

Logging debris (slash): The unwanted, unutilized, and generally unmerchantable accumulation of woody material,
such as large limbs, tops, cull logs, and stumps, that remains as forest residue after timber harvesting.

Merchantable: Forest products suitable for marketing under local economic conditions. With respect to a single tree,
it means the parts of the bole or stem suitable for sale.

Mineral soil: Organic-ftee soil that contains rock less than 2 inches in maximum. dimension.

Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue or other materials covering the land surface that conserves
moisture, holds soil in place, aids in establishing plant cover, and minimizes, temperature fluctuations.

Mulching: Providing any loose covering for exposed forest soils, such as grass, straw, bark, or wood fibers, W help
control erosion and protect exposed soil.
Muskeg: A type of bog @hat has developed over thousands of years in depressions, on flat areas, and on gentle to
steep slopes. These bogs have poorly drained, acidic, organic soils supporting vegetation that = be
(1) predominantly sphagnum moss; (2) herbaceous plants, sedges, and rushes; (3) predominantly sedges and rushes;
or (4) a combination of sphagnurn moss and herbaceous plants. These bogs may have some shrub and stunted
conifers, but not enough to classify them as forested lands.

Ordinary high water mark: An elevation that marks the boundary of a lake, marsh, or streambed. It is the highest
level at which the water has remained long enough to leave its mark on the landscape. Typically, it is the point
where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.

Organic debris: Particles of vegetation or other biological material that can degrade water quality by decreasing
dissolved oxygen and by releasing organic solutes during leaching.

Outslope: To shape the road surface to cause drainage to flow toward the outside shoulder.

Patch cutting method: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are harvested over a specified area. at
one time.

Perennial stream: A watercourse that flows throughout a majority of the year in a well-defined channel.

Persistence: The relative ability of a pesticide to remain active over a period of time.

Pioneer roads: Temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access when building permanent
roads.

Prescribed buming: Skillful application of fire to natural fuels that allows confinement of the fire to a predeterrruined
area and at the same time produces certain planned benefits.

Raking: A mechanical method of removing stumps, roots, and slash from a future planting site.

Regeneration: The process of replacing older trees removed by harvest or disaster with young trees.

3-106 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Ill. Glossary

Residual trees: Live trees left standing after the completion of harvesting.

Right-of-way: The cleared area along the road alignment that contains the roadbed, ditches, road slopes, and back
slopes.

Riprap: Rock or other large aggregate that is placed to protect strearnbanks, bridge abutments, or other erodible sites
from runoff or wave action.

Rut: A depression in access roads made by continuous passage of logging vehicles.
Salvage harvest: Remov@ of trees that are dead, damaged, or imminently threatened with death or damage in order
to use the wood before it is rendered valueless by natural decay agents.

Sanitation harvest: Removal of trees that are under attack by or highly, susceptible to insect and disease agents in
order to check the spread of such agents.

Scarification: The process of removing the forest floor or mixing it with the mineral soil by mechanical action
preparatory to natural or direct seeding or the planting of tree seedlings.

Scour. Soil erosion when it occurs underwater, as in the case of a streambed.

Seed bed: The soil prepared by natural or artificial means to promote the germination of seeds and the growth of
seedlings.

Seed tree method: Removal of the mature timber in one cutting, except for a limited number of seed trees left sing@y
or in small groups,

Selection method: An uneven-aged silvicultural system in which mature trees are removed, individually or in small
groups, from a given tract of forestland over regular intervals of time.

Shearing: A site preparation method that involves the cutting of brush, trees, or other vegetation at ground level
using tractors equipped with angles or V-shaped cutting blades.

Shelterwood method: Removal of the mature timber in a series of cuttings that extend over a relatively short portion
of the rotation in order to encourage the establishment of essentially even-aged reproduction under the partial shelter
of seed trees.

Silt fence; A temporary barrier used to intercept sediment-laden runoff from small areas.

Silvicultural system: A process, following accepted silvicultural principles, whereby the tree species constituting
forests are tended, harvested, and replaced. Usually defined by, but not limited to, the method of regeneration.

Site preparation: A silvicultural activity to remove unwanted vegetation and other material, and to cultivate or
prepare the soil for regeneration.

Skid: Short-distance moving of logs or felled trees from the stump to a point of loading.

Skid trail: A temporary, nonstructural pathway over forest soil used to drag felled trees or logs to the landing.

Slash: See logging debris.

Slope: Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, measured as a numerical ratio, as a percent, or in
degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal distance (run) and the second number is the vertical

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 3-107

111. Glossary ChaPter 3

distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the
horizontal plane, with a 90 degree slope being vertical (maximum) and a 45 degree slope being a 1: 1 slope.

Stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes, and
condition to be a homogeneous and distinguishable unit.

Streamside management area (SMA): A designated area that consists of the stream itself and an adjacent area of
varying width where management practices that might affect water quality, fish, or other aquatic resources are
modified. The SMA is not an area of exclusion, but an area of closely managed activity. It is an area that acts as
an effective filter and absorptive zone for sediments; maintains shade; protects aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitats;
protects channels and streainbanks; and promotes floodplain stability.

Tread: Load-bearing surface of a trail or road.

Turnout: A drainage ditch that drains water away from roads and road ditches.

Water bar. A diversion ditch and/or hump installed across a trail or road to divert runoff from the surface before
the flow gains enough volume and velocity to cause soil movement and erosion, and deposit the runoff into a
dispersion area. Water bars are most frequently used on retired roads, trails, and landings.

Watercourse: A definite channel with bed and banks within which concentrated water flows continuously, frequently
or infrequently.

Windrow: Logging debris and urunerchantable woody vegetation that has been piled in rows to decompose or to be
burned; or the act of constructing these piles.

Yarding: Method of transport from harvest area to storage landing.

3-108 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 IV. References

IV. REFERENC@S

Adams, P.W. 1991. Maintaining Woodland Roads. The Woodland Workbook. Oregon State University Extension
Service, Extension Circular 1139.

Alabama Forestry Commission. 1989. Water Quality Management Guidelines and Best Management Practices for
Alabama Wetlands.

Baker, M.B. 1990. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report RM-191, pp. 31-42.

Beasley, R.S. 1979. Intensive Site Preparation and Sediment Loss on Steep Watersheds in the Gulf Coast Plain. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 43(3):412-417.

Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1985. Water Yields and Sediment Losses from Chemical and Mechanical Site
Preparation. In Forestry and Water Quality - A Mid-South Symposium, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service,
pp. 106-116.

Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1988. Sediment and Water Yields from Managed Forests on Flat Coastal Plain
Soils. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(2):361-366.

Beasley, R.S., E.L. Miller, and S.C. Gough. 1984. Forest Road Erosion in the Ouachita Mountains. In Mountain
Logging Symposium Proceeding, June 5-7, 1984, ed, P.A. Peters and J. Luckok, pp.203-213. West Virginia
University.

Berglund, E.R. 1978. Seeding to Control Erosion Along Forest Roads. Oregon State University Extension Service,
Extension Circular 885.

Bethlahmy, N., and W.J. Kidd, Jr. 1966. Controlling Soil Movement from Steep Road Fills. USDA Forest Service
Research Note INT-45.

Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of Woody Debris May Affect Stream Channel Stability. Journal of Forestry, 609-613.

Biswell, H.H., and A.M. Schultz. 1957. Surface Runoff and Erosion as Related to Prescribed Burning. Journal of
Forestry, 55:372-374.

Blackburn, W.H., M.G. DeHaven, and R.W. Knight. 1982. Forest Site Preparation and Water Quality in Texas. In
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management, ASCE, Orlando,
Florida, July 20-23, 1982, ed. E.G. Kruse, C.R. Burdick, and Y.A. Yousef, pp. 57-66.

Brazier, J.R., and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Stripsfor Stream Temperature Control. Oregon State University School
of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, Research Paper 15.

Brown, G.W. 1972. Logging and Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest. In Watersheds in Transition Symposium
Proceedings, Urbana, IL, pp. 330-334. American Water Resources Association.

Brown, G.W. 1974. Fish Habitat. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-24, pp. EI-E15.

Brown, G.W. 1985. Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution from Silvicultural Operations: What We Know and Don't
Know. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, pp. 332-333. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clearcutting on Stream Temperature. Water Resources Research,
6(4):1133-1140.

EPA-840-6-92-002 January 1993 3-109

IV. References Chapter 3

Brown, G.W.. and J.T. Krygier. 1971. Clear-cut Logging and Sediment Production in the Oregon Coast Range. Water
Resources Research, 7(5):1189-1199.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1991. California Forest Practice Rules.

Carr, W.W., and T.M. Ballard. 1980. Hydroseeding Forest Roadsides in British Columbia for Erosion Control.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(l):33-35.

Clairain, E.J., and B.A. Kleiss. 1989. Functions and Values of Bottornland Hardwood Forests Along the Cache River,
Arkansas: Implications for Management. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern
United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 27-33.

Clayton, J.L. 198 1. Soil Disturbance Caused by Clearcutting and Helicopter Yarding in the Idaho Batholith. USDA
Forest Service Research Note INT-305.

Coats, R.N., and T.O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative Silvicultural Impacts on Watersheds: A Hydrologic and Regulatory
Dilemma. Environmental Management, 5(2):147-160.

Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Forestry Committee. 1990. A Practical Guide for Protecting
Water Quality While Harvesting Forest Products.

Conner, W.H., and J.W. Day, Jr. 1989. Response of Coastal Wetland Forests to Human and Natural Changes in the
Environment With Emphasis on Hydrology. In Proceedings of the Symposium The Forested Wetlands of the
Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50,
pp. 34-43.

Corbett, E.S., and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Strearnside Zones on Municipal Watersheds. In Conference on
Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses, April 16-18, Tucson, Arizona,
pp. 187-190.

Crumrine, J.P. 1977. Best Management Practices for the Production of Forest Products and Water Quality. In "208"
Symposium on Non-Point Sources of Pollution from Forested Land, ed. G.M. Aubertin, Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale, IL, pp. 267-274.

Cubbage, F.W., W.C. Siegel, and P.M. Lickwar. 1989. State Water Quality Laws and Programs to Control Nonpoint
Source Pollution from Forest Lands in the South. In Water. Laws and Management, ed. F.E. Davis, pp. 8A-29 to
8A-37. American Water Resources Association.

Cullen, J.B. Undated. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New
Hampshire, Resource Manual. New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, Division of
Forests and Lands, Forest Information and Planning Bureau.

Curtis, J.G., D.W. Pelren, D.B. George, V.D. Adams, and J.B. Layzer. 1990. Effectiveness of Best Management
Practices in Preventing Degradation of Streams Caused by Silvicultural Activities in Pickett State Forest, Tennessee.
Tennessee Technological University, Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water Resources.

Delaware Forestry Association. 1982. Forestry Best Management Practices for Delaware.

Dickerson, B.P. 1975. Stormflows and Erosion after Tree-Length Skidding on Coastal Plains Soils. Transactions of
the ASAE, 18:867-868,872.

3-110 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janual@v 1993

Chapter 3 IV. References

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1980. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities and Conditions in the Southeast.
In U.S. Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? Proceedings, Richmond, VA, June 19-20, 1980,
pp. 42-49. Water Pollution Control Federation.

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1986. Economic impacts of erosion control in forests. In Proceedings of the Southern Forestry
Symposium, November 19-21, 1985, Atlanta, GA, ed. S. Carpenter, Oklahoma State University Agricultural
Conference Series, pp. 262-287.

Dissmeyer, G.E., and B. Foster. 1987. Some Economic Benefits of Protecting Water Quality. In Managing Southern
Forests for Wildlife and Fish: A Proceedings. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-65, pp. 6-11.

Dissmeyer, G.E. and E. Frandsen. 1988. The Economics of Silvicultural Best Management Practices. American Water
Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. pp. 77-86.

Dissmeyer, G.E., and R. Miller. 1991. A Status Report on the Implementation of the Silvicultural Nonpoint Source
Program in the Southern States.

Dissmeyer, G.E. and R.F. Stump. 1978. Predicted Erosion Ratesfor Forest Management Activities in the Southeast.
USDA Forest Service.

Doolittle, G.B. 1990. The Use of Expert Assessment in Developing Management Plans for Environmentally Sensitive
Wetlands: Updating A Case Study in Champion International's Western Florida Region. Best Management Practices
for Forested Wetlands: Concerns, Assessment, Regulation and Research. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 583,
pp. 66-70.

Douglass, J.E., and W.T. Swank. 1975. Effects of Management Practices on Water Quality and Quantity: Coweeta
Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. In: Municipal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings. USDA
Forestry Service. General Technical Report NE-13, pp. 1-13.

Dubensky, M.M. 1991. Public comment information provided by the American Paper Institute and National Forest
Products Association.

Dunford, E.G. 1962. Logging Methods in Relation to Stream Flow and Erosion. In Fifth World Forestry Congress
1960 Proceedings, 3:1703-1708.

Dykstra, D.P., and Froehlich, H.A. 1976a. Costs of Stream Protection During Timber Harvest. Journal of Forestry,
74(10):684-687.

Dykstra, D.P., and H.A. Froehlich. 1976b. Stream protection: What does it cost? In Loggers Handbook, Pacific
Logging Congress, Portland, OR.

Dymess, C.T. 1963. Effects of Burning on Soil. In Symposium on Forest Watershed Management, Society of
American Foresters and Oregon State University, March 25-28, 1963, pp. 291-304.

Dymess, C.T. 1967. Mass Soil Movements in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper PNW-42.

Dymess, C.T. 1970. Stabilization of Newly Constructed Road Backslopes by Mulch and Grass-Legume Treatments.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. PNW-123.

Ellefson, P.V., and P.D. Miles. 1984. Economic Implications of Managing Nonpoint Forest Sources of Water
Pollutants: A Midwestern Perspective. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia
University, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luchok, pp. 107-119.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-111

IV. References Chapter 3

Ellefson, P.V., and R.E. Weible. 1980. Economic Impact of Prescribing Forest Practices to Improve Water Quality:
A Minnesota Case Study Minnesota. Forestry Research Notes.

Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of Strearnside Buffer Strips for Protecting Xquatic
Organisms. California Water Resources Center, University of California, Davis, CA.

Eschner, A.R., and J. Larmoyeux. 1963. Logging and Trout: Four Experimental Forest Practices and their Effect on
Water Quality. Progress in Fish Culture, 25:59-67.

Essig, D.A. 199 1. Implementation of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs in the United States, Report of Survey
Results. National Association of State Foresters.

Everst, F.H., and W.R. Meehan. 1981. Forest Management and Anadromous Fish Habitat Productivity. In
Transactions of the 46th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 521-530. Wildlife
Management Institute, Washington, DC.

Feller, M.C. 1981. Effects of Clearcutting and Slash Burning on Stream Temperature in Southwestern British
Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin, 17(5):863-866.

Feller, M.C. 1989. Effects of Forest Herbicide Applications on Strearnwater Chemistry in Southwestern British
Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin, 25(3):607-616.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry and Florida Forestry Asso-.iation.
1988. Management Guidelines for Forested Wetlands in Florida.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry. 199 1. Silviculture Best Management
Practices.

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and Trends of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats in the Conterminous United States, 1950's to 1970's. Colorado State University Department of Foitst and
Wood Sciences, Fort Collins, CO.

Fredriksen, R.L., and R.N. Ross. 1974. Timber Production and Water Quality - Progress in Planning for the Bull
Run, Portland Oregon's Municipal Watershed. In Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, pp. 1158-186.

Fredriksen, R.L., D.G. Moore, and L.A. Norris. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest, Fertilization, and Herbicide
Treatment on Strearnwater Quality in Western Oregon and Washington. In Forest Soils and Forest Land
Management, Proceedings of the Fourth North American Forest Soils Conference, ed. B. Bernier and C.H. Winget,
pp. 283-313.

Froehlich, H.A. 1973. Natural and man-caused slash in headwater streams. Loggers Handbook, Pacific Logging
Congress, Vol. XXXIII.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance. Influences of Forest and
Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication
19, pp. 297-324.

Gardner, R.B. 1967. Major Environmental Factors That Affect the Location, Design, and Construction of Svibilized
Forest Roads. Loggers Handbook, vol. 27. Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, OR.

Georgia Forestry Association, Wetlands Committee. 1990. Best Management Practices for Forested Wetlands in
Georgia.

3-112 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 IV. References

Georgia Forestry Commission. 1988. Recommended Best Management Practices for Forestry in Georgia.

Gibson, H.E., and C.J. Biller. 1975. A Second Look at Cable Logging in the Appalachians. Journal of Forestry,
73(10):649-653.

Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Kush, and J.M. Bradley. 1984. Forestry Activities and Water Quality in Alabama:
Effects, Recommended Practices, and an Erosion-Classified System. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 555.
Hall, J.D., G.W. Brown, an@ R.L. Lantz. 1987. The Alsea Watershed Study - A Retrospective. In Managing
Oregon's Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 35-40.

Hartman, G., J.C. Scrivener, L.B. Holtby, and L. Powell. 1987. Some Effects of Different Streamside Treatments
on Physical Conditions and Fish Population Processes in Carnation Creek, A Coastal Rain Forest Stream in British
Columbia. In Streamside Management.- Forestry and Fishery Interactions, ed. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. College
of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp. 330-372.

Haussman, R.F., and E.W. Pruett. 1978. Permanent Logging Roadsfor Better Woodlot Management. USDA Forest
Service, State and Private Forestry, Eastern Region.

Henly, R.K., and P.V. Ellefson. 1987. State-administered Forestry Programs: Current Status and Prospects for
Expansion. Renewable Resources Journal, 5(4):19.

Hetherington, E.D. 1985. Streamflow Nitrogen Loss Following Forest Fertilization in a Southern Vancouver Island
Watershed. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research, 15(l):34-41.

Hornbeck, JW., and K.G. Reinhart. 1964. Water Quality and Soil Erosion as Affected by Logging in Steep Terrain.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 19(l):23-27.

Hornbeck, J.W., C.W. Martin, and C.T. Smith. 1986. Protecting Forest Streams During Whole-Tree Harvesting.
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 3:97-100.

Huff, J.L., and E.L. Deal. 1982. Forestry and Water Quality in North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural
Extension Service, North Carolina State University.

Hynson, J., P. Adamus, S. Tibbetts, and R. Darnell. 1982. Handbook for Protection of Fish and Wildlife from
Construction of Farm and Forest Roads. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/18.

Ice, G. 1985. The Status of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 223-226.

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1990. Forestry Development Cost-Share Program. Illinois Administrative Code,
Title 17, Chapter 1, subcapter d, Part 1536.

King, J.G. 1984. Ongoing Studies in Horse Creek on Water Quality and Water Yield. NCASI Technical Bulletin 435,
pp. 28-35.

Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians. USDA Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper NE-158.

Kochenderfer, JX and Helvey, J.D. 1984. Soil Losses from a "Minimum-Standard" Truck Road Constructed in the
Appalachians. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, June 5-7, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luckok, West
Virginia University.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-113

IV. References Chapter 3

Kochenderfer, J.N. and G.W. Wendel. 1980. Costs and Environmental Impacts of Harvesting Timber in Appalachia
with a Truck-mounted Crane. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-456.

Kochenderfer, J.N., G.W. Wendel, and H.C. Sirnith. 1984. Cost of and Soil Loss on "Minimum-Standard" Forest
Truck Roads Constructed in the Central Appalachians. USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Research Paper NE-544.

Kuehn, M.H., and J. Cobourn. 1989. Summary Reportfor the 1988 Cumulative Watershed Effects Analyses,17n the
Eldorado National Forest - Final Draft.

Kundt, J.F., and T. Hall. 1988. Streamside Forests: The Vital Beneficial Resource. University of Maryland
Cooperative Extension Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Lantz, R.L. 1971. Guidelt -nes for Stream Protection in Logging Operations. Oregon State Game Commission.

Larse, R.W. 197 1. Prevention and Control of Erosion and Stream Sedimentation. ftom. Forest Roads. In Proceedings
of the Symposium of Forest Land Uses and the Stream Environment, pp, 76-83. Oregon State University.

Lickwar, P.M. 1989. Estimating the Costs of Water Quality Protection on Private Forestlands in the South. Master's
thesis submitted to the University of Georgia.

Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher, and R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects of Forest Cutting and
Herbicide Treatment on Nutrient Budgets in the Hubbard Brook Watershed-Ecosystem. Ecological Monographs,
40(l):23-47.

Louisiana Forestry Association. 1988. RecommendedForestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana. Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry.

Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint-Source
Pollution on Forested Watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41(t):164-167.

Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for Controlling Nonpoint Pollution
from Silvicultural Operations. Water Resources Bulletin, 26(l):41-52.

Mader, S.F., W.M. Aust, and R. Lea. 1989. Changes in Functional Values of a Forested Wetland Following Timber
Harvesting Practices. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States,
Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 149-154.

Maine Forest Service, Department of Conservation. 199 1. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbookfor Maine Timber
Harvesting Operations: Best Management Practices.

Malueg, K.W., C.F. Powers, and D.F. Krawczyk. 1972. Effects of Aerial Forest Fertilization with Urea Pellets on
Nitrogen Levels in a Mountain Stream. Northwest Science, 46:52-58.

Maryland Department of the Environment. Undated. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Forest
Harvest Operations in Maryland.

McClurkin, D.C., P.D. Duffy, and N.S. Nelson. 1987. Changes in Forest Floor and Water Quality Following Thinning
and Clearcutting of 20-year-old Pine. Journal of Environmental Quality, 16(3)-237-291.

McMinn, J.W. 1984. Soil Disturbance by Fuelwood Harvesting with a Conventional Ground System and a Cable
Miniyarder in Mountain Hardwood Stands. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. P.A. Peters and J.
Luchok, June 5-7, 1984. West Virginia University, pp. 93-98.

3-114 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 3 IV. References

Megahan, W.F. 1980. Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry Activities in the Western United States: Results of
Recent Research and Research Needs. In U.S. Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s?, Proceedings
of the Water Pollution C6ntrol Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 92-151.

Megahan, W.F. 1981. Effects of Silvicultural Practices on Erosion and Sedimen.tation in the Interior West-A Case
for Sediment Budgeting. In Interior West Watershed Management Sympqsium Proceedings, ed. D.M Baumgartner.
Washington State University, Cooperative Extension, pp. 169-182.

Megahan, W.F. 1983. Appendix C: Guidelines for Reducing Negative Impacts of Logging. In: Tropical Watersheds:
Hydrologic and Soils Response to Major Uses or Conversions, ed. L.S. Hamilton and P.N. King. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO, pp. 143-154.

Megahan, W.F. 1986. Receut Studies on Erosion and Its Control on Forest Lands in the United States. In: , pp. 178-
189.

Megahan, W.F. 1987. Effects of Forest Roads on Watershed Function in Mountainous Areas. In Environmental
Geotechnics and Problematic Soils and Rocks, ed. Balasubramaniam et al. pp. 335-348.

Mersereau, R.C., and C.T. Dymess. 1972. Accelerated Mass Wasting after Logging and Slash Burning in Western
Oregon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 27:112-114.

Miller, J.H., and D.L. Sirois. 1986. Soil Disturbance by Skyline Yarding vs. Skidding in a Loamy Hill Forest. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 50(6):1579-1583.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1999. Water Quality in Forest Management, "Best
Management Practices in Minnesota. "

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1991. Minnesota Forest Stewardship Program.

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 1989. Mississippi's Best Management Practices Handbook.

Moore, D.G. 1975. Impact of Forest Fertilization on Water Quality in the Douglass Fir Region-A Surnmary of
Monitoring Studies. In Proceeding Forestry Issues in Urban America, New York, NY, September 22-26, 1974. Society
of American Foresters.

Murphy, M.L., K.V. Koski, J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, D. Kirchhofer, and J.F. Thedinga. 1984. Role of Large Organic
Debris as Winter Habitat for Juvenile Salmonids in Alaska Streams. In Western Proceedings of the 64th Annual
Conference of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Victoria, British Columbia, July 16-19, 1984,
pp. 251-262.

Narver, D.W. 197 1. Effects of Logging Debris on Fish Production. In Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment,
ed. J.T. Krygier and J.D. Hall, School of Forestry and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University,
October 19-2 1, pp. 100- 111.

Neary, D.G. 1985. Fate of Pesticides in Florida's Forests: An Overview of Potential Impacts in Water Quality. In
Proceedings Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, pp. 18-24.

Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush, J.E. Douglass, and R.L. Todd. 1985. Piclorarn Movement in an Appalachian Hardwood
Forest Watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality, 14(4):585-591.

Neary, D.G., W.T. Swank, and H. Riekerk. 1989. An Overview of Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Southern United
States. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14, 1988,
Orlando, FL. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 1-7.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-115

IV. References Chapter 3

Norris, L.A., and D.G. Moore. 197 1. The Entry and Fate of Forest Chemicals in Streams. In Forest Land Uses and
Stream Environment - Symposium Proceedings, ed. J.T. Krygier and J.D. Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR, pp. 138-158.

Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. Influences of Forest and Rangeland
Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 207-
296.

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources.

Nutter, W.L., and J.W. Gaskin. 1989. Role of Strearnside Management Zones in Controlling Discharges to Wetlands.
In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, July, 12-14, 1988, Orlando,
Florida. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 81-84.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. BMPs for Erosion Control on Logging Jobs. Silvicultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Technical Advisory Committee.

Olsen, E.D. 1987. A Case Study of the Economic Impact of Proposed Forest Practices Rules Regarding Strearn
Buffer Strips on Private Lands in the Oregon Coast Range. In Managing Oregon's Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish
and Wildlife, NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 52-57.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1988. Environmental Guidelines for Access Roads and Water Crossings.
Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979a. Waterbars. Forest Practices Notes No. 1. Oregon Department of Forestry,
Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979b. Reforestation. Forest Practices Notes No. 2. Oregon Department of Forestry,
Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1981. Road Maintenance. Forest Practices Notes No. 4. Oregon Department of
Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1982. Ditch Relief Culverts. Forest Practices Notes No. 5. Oregon Department of
Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR..

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1991. Forest Practices Rules, Eastern Oregon Region. Oregon Department of
Forestry, Forestry Practices Section, Salem, OR.

Page, C.P., and A.W. Lindenmuth, Jr. 197 1. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Vegetation and Sediment in Oak-Mo untain
Mahogany Chaparral. Journal of Forestry, 69:800-805.

Pardo, R. 1980. What is Forestry's Contribution to Nonpoint Source Pollution? In U.S. Forestry and Water Quality:
What Course in the 80s? Proceedings of the Water Pollution Control Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19,
1980, pp. 31-41.

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Joumal of Forestry, 74(10):671-677.

Patric, J.H. 1980. Effects of Wood Products Harvest on Forest Soil and Water Relations. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 9(l):73-80.

3-116 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januatjl 1993

Chapter 3 IV. References

Patric, J.H. 1984. Some Environmental Effects of Cable Logging in the Eastern Hardwoods. In Mountain Logging
Symposium Proceedings, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luchok, June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia University, pp. 99-106.

Pennsylvania Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation. 1990. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

Pope, P.E. 1978. Forestry and Water Quality: Pollution Control Practices. Forestry and Natural Resources, FNR
88, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Services.

Rice, R.M., J.S. Rothacher, and W.F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional Consequences of Timber Harvesting: An Appraisal.
In Watersheds in Transition Symposium Proceedings, AWRA, Urbana, IL, pp. 321-329.

Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston, and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water Quality and Forest Nutrient
Cycling (Hydraulic Systems, Pine Litter, USA). Science, 215:661-663.

Riekerk, H. 1983. Environmental Impacts of Intensive Silviculture in Florida. In LU.F.R.O. Symposium on Forest
Site and Continuous Productivity. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
General Technical Report PNW-163, pp. 264-271.

Riekerk, H. 1983. Impacts of Silviculture on Flatwoods Runoff, Water Quality, and Nutrient Budgets. Water
Resources Bulletin, 19(l):73-80.

Riekerk, H. 1985. Water Quality Effects of Pine Flatwoods Silviculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
40(3):306-309.

Riekerk, H. 1989. Forest Fertilizer and Runoff-Water Quality. In Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida
Proceedings, September 20-22, 1988, Marco Island, FL, Vol. 48, pp. 99-102.

Riekerk, H., D.G. Neary, and W.J. Swank. 1989. The Magnitude of Upland Silviculture Nonpoint Source Pollution
in the South. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14,
Orlando, FL, pp. 8-18.

Rothwell, R.L. 1978. Watershed Management Guidelines for Logging and Road Construction in Alberta. Canadian
Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre, Alberta, Canada. Information Report NOR-X-208.

Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and Sediment Control at Road-Stream Crossings (Forestry). The Forestry Chronicle,
59(2):62-66.

Rygh, J. 1990. Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project Final Report. Payette National Forest.

Salazar, D.J. and F.W. Cubbage. 1990. Regulating Private Forestry in the West and South. Journal of Forestry,
88(l):14-19.

Sidle, R.C. 1980. Impacts of Forest Practices on Surface Erosion. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW-
195, Oregon State Univ. Extension Service.

Sidle, R.C. 1989. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices on Erosion and Sedimentation. In Forestry on the Frontier
Proceedings of the 1989 Society of American Foresters, September 24-27, Spokane, WA, pp. 108-112.

Stednick, J.D., L.N. Tripp, and R.J. McDonald. 1982. Slash Burning Effects on Soil and Water Chemistry in
Southeastern Alaska. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 37(2):126-128.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-117

IV. References Chapter 3

Stone, E. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest on Soils and Water. Report of the President's Advisory Panel on
Timber and the Environment, Arlington, VA, pp. 427-467.

Swank, W.T., L.W. Swift, Jr., and J.E. Douglass. 1988. Strearnflow Changes Associated with Forest Cutting, Species
Conversions and Natural Disturbances. In Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Chapter 22, ed. W.T. Swank
and D.A. Crossley, Jr., pp.297-312. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984a. Gravel and Grass Surfacing Reduces Soil Loss from Mountain Roads. Forest Science,
30(3):657-670.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984b. Soil Losses from Roadbeds and Cut and Fill Slopes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 8(4):209-215.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In Forestry anti Water
Quality: A Mid-South Symposium, May 8-9, 1985, Little Rock, AR, ed. B.G. Blackmon, pp. 141-151. University of
Arkansas Cooperative Extension.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter Strip Widths for Forest Roads in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry, 10(l):27-34.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest Access Roads: Design, Maintenance, and Soil Loss. In Forest Hydrology and Ecology
at Coweeta, Chapter 23, ed. W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, Jr., pp. 313-324. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry. 1990. Best Management Practices for Protection of
the Forested Wetlands of Tennessee.

Texas Forestry Association. 1989. Texas Best Management Practices for Silviculture.

Toliver, J.R., and B.D. Jackson. 1989. Recommended Silvicultural Practices in Southern Wetland Forests. In
Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, Jul), 12-14,
1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 72-77.

Trimble, G.R., and S. Weitzman. 1953. Soil Erosion on Logging Roads. Soil Science Society ofAmerica Proceedings,
17:152-154.

USDA, Forest Service. 1987. Soil and Water Resource Management: A Cost or a Benefit? Approaches to Watershed
Economics through Example.

USEPA. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 199 1. Pesticides and Groundwater Strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992a. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution, Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act (1989). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-506/9-90.

USEPA. 1992b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. 1987. Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining
Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont.

3-118 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 19.93

Chapter 3 IV. References

Virginia Department of Forestry. Forestry Best Management Practicesfor Water Quality in Virginia.

Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1988. Washington Forest Practices Rules and Regulations. Washington
Annotated Code, Title 222; Forest Practices Board Manual, and Forest Practices Act.

Weitzman, S., and G.R. Trimble, Jr. 1952. Skid-road Erosion Can Be Reduced. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, 7:122-124.

Whitman, R. 1989. Clean Water or Multiple Use? Best Management Practices for Water Quality Control in the
National Forests. Ecology Law Quarterly, 16:909-966.

Willingham, P.W. 1989. Wetlands Harvesting Scott Paper Company. Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested
Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical
Report SE-50, pp. 63-66.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Forest Practice Guidelines for Wisconsin. Bureau of Forestry,
Madison, W1. PUBL-FR-064-89.

Yee, C.S., and T.D. Roelofs. 1980. Planning Forest Roads to Protect Salmonid Habitat. USDA Forest Service.
General Technical Report PNW-109.

Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest Management and Sediment Production in the South-A Review. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry, 4(l):27-36.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-119

Appendix 3A

Examples of State Processes
Useful for Ensuring Implementation of
0 Management Measures

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 3-121

Chapter 3 Appendix 3A

3A-1: Examples from Florida

RIVRR
SRW`MD PERMIT NUMBER WATRIt
10 APPLICATION FOR AGRICULTURE OR FORE�TRY MANAGMENT
GENERAL SURFACEWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT OUTRICT
FORM 40B-4-1 VMTR 3. KW 44
UV6 OAK FLORDA 3=
TELEPHWE 04) 362-iom
LAAdowmec/Applicast:

address.,
Street - Rout* - Box City St&te UP Code

person Rospom*Lble:

3pboso: 34II&AL" oat*:

project LocatLeal Sometime Sketch:
County

Township Range Section

Parcel ID Number (from county records)

Preject Acres owned or
,me&: in management
block

Acre& in project
&CGA (&QT1al
photograph copy
with project are*
Outlined Is
svqqestod.)

Wetlands WqtlAAd acres
Area: in project area

watland acres
affected by the
work

VosotLptLoa of the proposed work to Include aLzem and dLmessioset_

TAX OWERAIL SUMACSIMISR NAVAGNOWT FINNIT K021103LISRD BY $9.402-4.2010(l),
n*JUMA A=n2STSAZXVZ CODS, (F.A.C.), MQUIRS8 PRAS11222AS to COWLY WINE
5322 KANAQZXZNT AND ACCZPIZD CONSZRVATZON RRACTURS. ABOXVIONAL
I.XMITATIONS, AND/02 STAWD"DS AM CONTATTID IN 80.405-4.261041)(C)I. TZKO"s
6. & COPY Of CM21M 408-4. F.A.C., AM MIT MMUSSMST VXACTICZS =NVASS
Ali AvAz&nLa AT NO cancz rmw via ozenrev, OR Quievzon may as vivac2rm
to 21M 8VWhXNB3 AZTSA WA21R WANAGWRI12 DISTRXC2 AT 2*t/342-1901 OR
1-000-242-1902. A DIBTXXCT 99ANIT DONS NOT IZZZNVX A PRAUXTUS FROM
OBTAINING APPROVALS 2R&T WAN 99 RZOUTARD BY MY UNIT Or LOCALL. STATZ. OR
TRUNRAL 4OVZRXVXVT.

TRIM AVILICA21011 IS NOT TO ZZ V8XD FOR SVIDWISIOGM, COMMIRCIA& IROJBCTS,
OR ANN 01221 VON-AQRZCVLTURA1 OR TORS11111T XORZ.

Landownsr/Apiplicant's siqp%atvre Title Data

BROW Staff Si4pature Title Date ApprQV%d

GXWW Form 400-4-1 (REV. '12190)

EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993 3-123

Appendix 3A Chapter 3

Authorization No.

NOTWAST FLORIDA WATER NANAGMMT DISTRICT

FORESTRY SaMIZATION NOTIFICATION FORN

Instructions:
1. Do( Iver or mail to the appropriate District Office identified an the attached sheet at toast two (2) working days before
ing activity.
2. Emergency authorizations way be requested by calling the appropriate District office.
3. See attached ghost for list of qualifying projects, Limiting conditions, and District offices.

Application is for: 13 Construction Replacement 0 Noint a

owner's Name: Phone:

Address:

City: State: zip:

Agent's Name: Phone:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

only the minor works listed in Section 404-".052(1), F.A.C. (No attached sh"t), my qualify for an authorization. After
reviewing the attached list, which Letter identifies the minor work you propose? Please circle the sWopriate one(s):

A S C D E F

Detailed description of the pr,p, work, Include water quot I ty. protection and site stabilization methods:

Location Sketch
Starting Date:

Location of Proposed Work:

County:

Section:

Township:

Range:

.Water Body Affected:

A copy of Chapter 4GA-", F.A.C., is aveltable at any 0 Istrict office. A District authorization does not ratio" a pormittin
from obtaining the necessary approvals of any local, state, or federal goverrment.
I have read and will comply with the requirements of Section 4DA-".052, F.A.C. I understand that this Forestry
Authorization Notice is available only under limited circumstances as set forth in Section 4GA-44.052, I.A.C., mid that
pormittoes are required to comply with sit Limiting conditions Listed In Section 4OA-".052, F.A.C.

Signature of: (Circle one) Printed W&W Date

. Owner Agent
Signing by someone other then the owner is also certification that the person is authorized to act as the owner's &wt.

wWFWMD Form A"-F
4OA-" .052(2)(a), F.A.C.
Effective 7-1-92 White - District Cow, Yellow , Applicant's CODY

3-124 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaf), 1993

CA) C)
ED

A
63 m
x
SIDE ONE 0)

NOTIFICATION OF OPERATION APPLICATION FOR PtRMTS
STATE OF OREGON NOTIFICATION NUMBER:
DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Date Pecolved:
(A
Chwb Apwaprhm So- (2A. 28,2C. TIM Tkm Riscolved:
CID 2A NOTCE TO THE STATE FORESTER THAI OPERATION V42LL BE CONDUCTED ON LARM DESCRIMI) ON REVERSE MRS 527 670) Dh*kt
1 -28 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO OPGRATE POWER DRIVEN MAC#WdERV PAS All GH) Ep...,.M .1 c.WW. ".
(40 2C APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CLEM FUGHTS-OF-WAY tORS 477 W) 01&*:
IN) NOTCE TO THE STATE FORESTER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENLIE OF THE INTENT TO HARVEST TWISER JORS 221 $50
3 ft-N. APPLICANT REMARKS:
PLEASEPRINTI

CHECK ONE BOX IN THE FAR LEFT COLUMN TO INDICATE WHO FILLED OUT THE APPLICAnom
-i k-firmew,
4 OPW&%w
C--P-Y N-

mm.0 Adckam. - om

I COV. S(ew SW BIT Codo ph-Ab

H-pift
5 LmndoWNW FIC:
C-w" ft-
ED:
M." Ad*- - SUM
S:
CAIJ. stw " zip Cft

ft-flift
TwpbwoAAVir
C..WW, It-

povw

CRT. SIAN, od zip cHi* P.- N.

so" S-ft N..b.

I TkbW Sol*
kow%swWor NO
III WESTERN OREGON MWATE "NO ONLYI WOSTOTC-aws N@
ft"@WNV@@s@c*rW&pdu@OmWesWnO"mSmMT,KtOpl@ta@(WOSTOTIMoW,m?
IN_ I pw I AD I
*P&,I AA ;*w-ft1Mnut-bW. VVOSJOT'c.,IftsV,ft.Hbb@.

SIDE TWO
9 @Z-T I v I TY -co,6i-s 13 SITE CONOiliql%iS
----------- Il 12 WEST
ACTIVOY ACTWIFY OREGON DIM DI 02 (13
I' "
FPF Uw Ach* Mff@ Ou."lov Apprk G-.- S T R ESTIMATED SEVERANCE S2 S-1 USE
(by UrAO MBF -A w N E N IN s w S E E IN G STARTING ENDING TM UNIT S I.. AREA
Ows
N* (11 N-b., C@, U.W @.wfw R-oi,cl Nunlb.. E DATE DATE NUMBER A; SH cc IC?
C- P

------- --- -----

-1 -J-
14 !M Pr.,,. of pp-I. 1-. 15 1, 1 appk-Ij -14 lluIs aP 1@ (S,--,O..I

L6_ ATTACH MAP AND/ RAERIALPHOTOSI
WRITTEN ft- .1 P,.-.d F.-- C-t.
Subwribw. PLANS
AM
Sub-biv: PRIOR APPROVALS

W R SbWMW:

IN A S-acrMw. 15 dy pww -s by. D..ft

-- - ------------

Chapter 3 Appendix 3A

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT
"NOTIFICATION OF OPERATION / APPLICATION FOR PERMITS"

The instructions are numbered to match the numbered form areas. Please print or type the information on the form. Do not fill
out any space shaded gray. File notice with the State Forester at least 15 days prior to the date you would like to start operating.
A notification is not considered accepted until it is received by the appropriate office. Mail or deliver the form to one of the
following offices:

Office Address Phone Number Office Address Phone Number

ASTORIA: At. 1, Box 960.97103 325-6451 MOLALLA: 14995 S. H@y. 211, 97038 829-2216
BAKER. At. 1, Box 211, 97814 523-5831 MONUMENT: P 0. Box 386. 97WA (May Street) 93,t-2300
CENTRAL POINT: 5286 Table Rock Road. 97502 664-3328 PENDLETON: 1055 Airporl Rd.. 97801 276-3491
COLUMBIA CITY: 405 E. St., 97018 397-2636 PHILOMATH: 24633 Alsea Hwy., 97370 929-3266
COOS BAY: 300 Fifth St., Bay Park, 97420 267-3161 PRINEVILLE: 220710 OChooo Hwy, 97754 "7-5658
DALLAS: 825 Oak Villa Rd. 97338 623-8146 ROSEBURG: 1758 N.E. Airciort Road, 97470-1499 "0-3412
FOREST GROVE. 801 Gales Cr. Rd. 97116-1199 357-2191 SISTERS: P.O. Box 190.9T759 (221 SW Washington) 549-2731
FOSSIL: Star Route. 97830 763-2575 SPRINGFIELD: 31 SO E. Main St., 97478 726-3588
GOLD BEACH: P.O. Box 603, 974" 247-6565 SWEET HOME: 4690 Hwy. 20,97386' 367-6108
GRANTS PASS: 5375 Monument Or., 97526 474-3152 THE OALLES: 3701 W. 13th St.. 97058 296-4626
JOHN DAY: P.O. Box 546, 976451400 NW 9th) 575-1139 TILLAMOOK: 4907 E. Third St.. 97141-2999 842-2545
KLAMATH FALLS: 3400 Greensprings Dr., 97601 883-5681 TOLEDO: 763 N.W. Forestry Rd.. 97391 336-2273
LA GRANDE: 611 20th St.. 97850 963-3168 VENETA: P.O. Box 157.97487 935-2283
LAKEVIEW: 2290 N. 4th St., 97630 947-3311 WALLOWA: At. 1. Box 80. 97885 886-2881
MEHAMA: 22965 N. Fork Rd. S.E_. Lyons 97358 859-2151

SIDE ONE - Notification of Operation/Application for Permits
1. "County (Enter only one)". Fill in the county where the operation will take place. lfan operation spans two or more counties.
file a separate notification for each county.

An operation can be any combination of the following activities: harvest of forest crops: road construction or reconstruction: site
preparation; chemical application; clearing for land use change; treatment of slashing; pro-commerciai thinning; or other
activities which require separate explanation.

2. "Check Appropriate Boxes (2A, 213, 2C, or 2D)" next to the notice you are giving and/or the permit(s) you need.

3. "Person to be contacted in case of Fire Emergency (Designated Representative). Phone No." Print the name and telephone
number of the person to contact in case a fire starts on this operation. This person should know what resources you have
available to fight the fire, and have the authority to commit those resources in case of a fire.

"Check one box in the left column to indicate who filled out the application."

4. "Operator Information" 5. "Landowner Information" 6. "Timberowner and Harvest Tax Payer." You must fill in either a
person's or a company's name, address and phone number. Fill in EITHER the timberowner's Employer Identification number or
the timberowner's social security number, not both. The person who owns timber at the time of severance from the stump
(harvest) is the timberowner, and is responsible for paying the harvest tax.

7. "Timber Sale Name and/or No." Fill in the sale name and/or number. This information is required for all state and federal
timber sales and is optional for private land timber sales.

8. "Western Oregon Private Land Only!" If the timber to be harvested Is from public land, do not fill out this portioni If it is from
private land, check with the landowner to see whether the timber has been certified under the Western Oregon Small Tract
Optional Tax (WOSTOT) law. Timber removed from land certified under WOSTOT is normally exempt from the Western Oregon
Severance Tax. If you have chocked "Part" or "All", please list the certificate number in the WOSTOT Certificate Number box.

SIDE TWO - Site Information

9. "Activity Codes". There are six columns here. You assign a one- or two-digit unit number. beginning with 1 and going
sequentially up to 99. Or, if there is a unit number associated with a state or federal timber sale, use that number in the unit
column. A unit can be:
an operating area with a state or federal sale unit number; or
a single operating area within a continuous boundary; or
an operating area with a separate harvest tax number: or
a separate area within your total operation area on which you plan to conduct a single type of activity (for example, 30
acres of clear cut only).

ORM 62941-2.1 -OM (Roy 11/91)

EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualry 1993 3-127

Appendix 3A Chapter 3
in all cases. all activities you plan on that piece of land should be listed under the unit hummer. For example, road construction
activity needed prior to starting a commercial timber harvest should be described under the unit number along with the
harvesting activity. It there will be more activities happening in the unit than you can fit on one line straight across, continue on the
lines below. Leave a blank under the unit number. See the example below.

Activity Code. Write the codes for all activities taking place in one unit under this heading. Use the numbers, code names and
associated methods shown below.

Activity Code Methods Used Activity Code Methods Used

4a. Herbicide Application Ground/Aerial/Name/Rate/Carrier
1a. Partial Cut Cable/Ground/Other 4b. Insecticide Application Ground/Aerial/Name/Rate/Carrier
(Partial Cut coca must not be used for a pre-commercial 4c. Rodonecide Application Ground/Aerial/Name/Rate/Carrier
thinning operation.) 4d. Fertilizer Application Ground/Aerial/Name/Rate/Carrier
1b. Clear Cut Cable/Ground/other 5 Clearing for Land Use Change (Local land use rules may apply.)
1c. Cutting only 6. Treatment of Slashing Burning/Mechanical
2a. Road Construction Dozer/Backhoe/other 7. Pro-Commercial Thinning manual/Chemical
2b. Road Reconstruction Dozer/backhoe/Other 8. Others Explain
3. Site Preparation Manual/mechanical/Buring

Write the methods you will use in the "Methods Used" column next to the Code for the act", in the same order as the activity
codes are listed. If you need more space, go to the next row down in the same column. Write in the name ofthe spray product. In
Applicant Remarks column list the carrier and rate of application. See the example below.
Quantity Column. Fill in either the acres (A) or lineal feet (F) involved in the activity. The example shows 65 acres of harvest and
3000 ft. of road construction.
Approximate Thousand Board Feet (MBF) Removed. List the approximate MBF to be removed for each unit with commercial
timber harvesting.

Government Lot Numbers. List the government lot numbers for each unit. (Not tax lot numbers.)

SIDE TWO

10. "Location of Operation" (Legal Descriptions). Enter the legal descriptions for each unit number. If you have several rows
worth of activities that will take place at one location, REPEAT THE CODES, not the legal descriptions.

11.a. & 11.b. "Activity Starting and Activity Estimated Ending Date". The starting date should beat least 15 days after the date
ft form is received by the appropriate Department office.

12. "Western Oregon Severance Tax Unit Number". Large landowners will have a list of harvest tax numbers which apply to the
site(s).

13. "Site Conditions". Fill in a D, T, and S code for each unit, as shown in the example. Fill in DWS, WG or SW codes when
necessary.
D - Distance to Class 1 waters. A Class I water is "any portions of streams. lakes. estuaries, significant wetlands. or other waters of the state which are
significant for (a) domesitic use, including drinking, culinary and other household human use; (b) angling; (c) water dependent recreation: or (d) spawning. rearing
or migration of anadromous or game Ran."
D1 00 - Clan I waters are within two foot of the operation.
D1 - Class 1 waters are within 1/2 mile but greater, than 100 feet from the operation.
D2 - Class 1 waters are within 1/4 - 1/2 mile of the operation.
D3 None within 1/4 mile. DWS -The operation affects a Domestic Water Supply.
T - Topography. . . WG -The operation takes place in the Wilternette Greenway.
T1 Is a slope of 0 to 35% (percent) SW -The operation takes place near a Scenic Waterway.
T2 Is a slope of 36% to 65% UGS -The operation takes place in an Urban Good
T3 is a slope greater than 65% Boundary.
S - Slops Stability ... SH -The operation takes place near a Scenic Highway.
S1 - No evidence of mass soil movement (landslides, slips. slumps). CC -The operation will result in a single clearcut or continue-
S2 - Evidence of old slides. small failures. tion Of contiguous clearcuts that exceed 120 acres.
S3 - Recent or active movement: wet areas. IC2 -The operation takes Place now an influential Class 11
stream.
14. If you request a waiver of the 15 day waiting period, check the box and contact the Forest Practice Forester (FPF). The FPF
will decide it a waiver can be granted.

15.a. & 15. b. Print your name in 15. a. and sign your name and write the date in 15. b.

16. ATTACH MAP AND/OR AERIAL PHOTOS! The notification form is not complete unless a map or aerial photo of
operation area is attached!

3-128 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 3 Appendix 3A

3A-3: Examples from New Hampshire

-r--
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PA-7
Notice of Intent to Cut Wood or Timber 1992- 1993
(RSA 79:10)
TAX YEAR APRIL 1, 1992 TO MARCH 31,1993
SEE INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILLING OUT THIS FORM ON REVERSE DRA USE ONLY
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
1. To Selectmen/Assessors 10. DESCRIPTION OF WOOD OR TIMBER TO BE CUT
TowniCity of N. H. Species -Estimated Amount To Be Cut
White Pine BF
2. Name & Tax Map # by which lot is commonly known. Hemlock
Red Pine
3. Is this Intent an: Original El Supplemental L-1 Spruce & Fir
Hard Maple
Orig. Oper. III White Birch
4. Name of road from which accessible: Yellow Birch
Oak
Ash
5. Number of acres to be cut: Beech & Soft Maple
6. Type of ownership (check only one): Pallet or Tie Logs
Others
a. Owner of land and stumpage .............. (Specify)
b. Owner of stumpage only .................. Pulpwood: Tons or Cords
c. Right of possession with authority to cut. . -j
(including public lands) Spruce & Fir
Hardwood & Aspen
T Is any of the wood or timber cut for own use? Pine
(See Item #11) Hemlock
8. if required. has a welland notification Total Tree Chips
or application been filed: YES 1: Miscellaneous:
Birch Bolts Cords
9. Ilwe hereby assume responsibility for any yield tax Cordwood & Fuelwood
which may be assessed. (if Corporation, An Officer
Must Sign) 11. AMOUNT OF WOOD OR TIMBER FOR PERSONAL USE
A
SIGNATURE OF OWNERS) OATE
B
SIGNATURE 12. PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING:

PRINT OWNER(S) NAME CLEARLY
(SIGNATURE OF LOGGER. FORESTER. RESPONSIBLE FOR OKAVION) WEI

MAILING ADORESS
,PFIINT LOGGER. FORESTERS NAME
rOWNICITY ZIPCODE

Corp. MAILING ADORESS
Tel. No. HAVE BECOME FAMILIAR WITH FISA 485-A. RSA 224:44A, 224:448,
Federal Identification No. or 482-A AND RELATED RULES, AND HEREBY AGREE TO ABIDE BY
Social Security No. of Landowner APPROPRIATE, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO INCLUDE
ALL STATE LAWS PERTAINING TO LOGGING OPERATIONS.

13. CERTI FICATE/R E PORT TO BE SENT TO El LANDOWNER
CHECK ONE: Corporation LOGGER/FORESTER
for!
St
Piropne hip Landowner.
L- Partnership I
SPACE BELOW FOR ASSESSING OFFICIALS ONLY

Amount of Security Required and Posted: $ - Type of Security Posted (Bond, Certified Check, etc.)

(Selectmen/Assessors)

of Date

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 3-129

CHAPTER 4: MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR
URBAN AREAS

1. INTRODUCTION

A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect coastal waters from urban sources of nonpoint pollution.
"Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to our coastal waters, which
reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint
pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conforrnity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. Ile
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for '
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measures generally
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.
The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can
be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these practices, or
appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and economic impacts
of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures are addressed in a separate
document entitled Economic lMpacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
the management measure.

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter addresses six major categories of sources of urban nonpoint pollution that affect surface waters:

(1) Runoff from developing areas;
(2) Runoff from construction sites;

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-1

L Introduction Chapter 4

(3) Runoff from existing development;
(4) On-site disposal systems;
(5) General sources (households, commercial, and landscaping); and
(6) Roads, highways, and bridges.

Each category of sources is addressed in a separate section of this guidance. Each section contains (1) the
management measure; (2) an applicability statement that describes, when appropriate, specific activities and locations
for which the measure is suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis for the
management measure's selection; (5) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or in
combination with other practices, to achieve the management measure; (6) information on the effectiveness of the
management measure and/or of practices to achieve the measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or
practices to achieve the measure.

D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EEPA
Documents

1. Chapter I of this document contains detailed information on the legislative background for this guidance, the
process used by EPA to develop this guidance, and the technical approach used by EPA in the guidance.

2. Chapter 6 of this document contains information and management measures for addressing nonpoint source
impacts resulting from hydromodification, which often occurs to accommodate urban development.

3. Chapter 7 of this document contains management measures to protect wetlands and riparian areas that provide
a nonpoint source pollution abatement function. These measures apply to a broad variety of sources, including
urban sources.

4. Chapter 8 of this document contains information on recommended monitoring techniques to (1) ensure proper
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the management measures and (2) assess over time the success
of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

5. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifting Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

6. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains details on how State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on:

� The basis and process for EPANOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to provide for the implementation of management measures
"in conformity" with this management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

� Requirements concerning how States are to implement their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

4-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 1. Introduction

E. Overlap Between This Management Measure Guidance for
Control of Coastal Nonpoint Sources and Storm Water Permit
Requirements for Point Sources

Historically, overlaps and ambiguity have existed between programs designed to control urban nonpoint sources and
programs designed to control urban point sources. For example, runoff that originates as a nonpoint source may
ultimately may be channelized and become a point source. Potential confusion concerning coverage and
implementation of these two programs has been heightened by Congressional enactment of two important pieces of
legislation: section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, which establishes permit requirements for certain municipal and
industrial storm water discharges, and section 6217 of CZARA, which requires EPA to promulgate and States to
provide for the implementation of management measures to control nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. The
discussion below is intended to clarify the relationship between these two programs and describe the scope of the
coastal nonpoint program and its applicability to storm water in coastal areas.

1. The Storm Water Permit Program

The storm water permit program is a two-phased program enacted by Congress in 1987 under section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act. Under Phase 1, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required
to be issued for municipal separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000
or 100,000 people, respectively) and for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. Permits are also
to be issued, on a case-by-case basis, if EPA or a State determines that a storm water discharge contributes to the
violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. EPA
published a rule implementing Phase I on November 16, 1990.

Under Phase 11, EPA is to prepare two reports to Congress that assess remaining storm water discharges; determine,
to the maximum extent practicable, the nature and extent of pollutants in such discharges; and establish procedures
and methods to control storm water discharges to the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water quality. Then,
EPA is to issue regulations that designate storm water discharges, in addition to those addressed in Phase 1, to be
regulated to protect water quality and is to establish a comprehensive program to regulate those designated sources.
The program is required to establish (1) priorities, (2) requirements for State storm water management programs,
and (3) expeditious deadlines.

These regulations were to have been issued by EPA not later than October 1, 1992. However, because of EPA's
emphasis on Phase 1, the Agency has not yet been able to complete and issue appropriate regulations as required
under section 402(p). The completion of Phase 11 is now scheduled for October 1993.

2. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs

As discussed more fully earlier, Congress enacted section 6217 of CZARA in late 1990 to require that States develop
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs that are in conformity with the management measures guidance
published by EPA.

3. Scope and Coverage of This Guidance

EPA is excluding from coverage under this section 6217(g) guidance all storm water discharges that are covered by
Phase I of the NPDES storm water permit program. Thus, EPA is excluding any discharge from a municipal
separate storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more; any discharge of storm water associated with
industrial activity; any discharge that has already been permitted; and any discharge for which EPA or the State
makes a determination that the storm water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a
significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. All of these activities are clearly addressed by
the storm water permit program and therefore are excluded from the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-3

1. Introduction Chapter 4

EPA is adopting a different approach with respect to other (Phase II) storm water discharges. At present, EPA has
not yet promulgated regulations that would designate additional storm water discharges, beyond those regulated in
Phase 1, that will be required to be regulated in Phase II. It is therefore not possible to determine at this point which
additional storm water discharges will be regulated by the NPDES program and which will not. Furthermore,
because of the great number of such discharges, it is likely that it would take many years to permit all of' these
discharges even if EPA allows for relatively expeditious State permitting approaches such as the use of general
permits.

Therefore, to give effect to the Congressional intent that coastal waters receive special and expeditious attention from
EPA, NOAA, and the States, storm water runoff that potentially may be ultimately, covered by Phase 11 of the storm
water permits program is subject to this management measures guidance and will be addressed by the States' Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. Any storm water runoff that ultimately is regulated under an NPDES permit
will no longer be subject to this guidance once the permit is issued.

In addition, it should be noted that some other activities are not presently covered by the NPDES permit requirements
and thus would be subject to a State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Most importantly, construction
activities on sites that result in the disturbance of less than 5 acres, which are not currently covered by Phase I storm
water application requirements,' are covered by the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Similarly, runoff
from wholesale, retail, service, or commercial activities, including gas stations, which are not covered by Phase I
of the NPDES storm water program, would be subject instead to a State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program. Further, onsite disposal systems (CISDS), which are generally not covered by the storm water perrnit
program, would be subject to a State's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

Finally, EPA emphasizes. that while different legal authorities may apply to different situations, the goals of the
NPDES and CZARA programs are complementary. Many of the techniques and practices used to control storm
water are equally applicable to both programs. Yet, the programs do not work identically. In the interest of
consistency and comprehensiveness, States have the option to implement the CZARA section 6217(g) management
measures throughout the State's 6217 management area as long as the NPDES storm water requirements continue
to be met by Phase I sources in that area.

F. Background

The prevention and control of urban nonpoint source pollution in coastal areas pose a distinctive challenge to the
environmental manager. Increasing water quality problems and degraded coastal resources point to the no:d for
comprehensive solutions to protect and enhance coastal water quality. This chapter presents a framework for
preventing and controlling urban nonpoint sources of pollution.

Urban runoff management requires that a number of objectives be pursued simultaneously. These objectives include
the following:

� Protection and restoration of surface waters by the minimization of pollutant loadings and negative impacts
resulting from urbanization;

� Protection of environmental quality and social well-being;

� Protection of natural resources, e.g., wetlands and other important aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems;

On May 27, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated EPA's exemption of construction sites smaller
than 5 acres from the storm water permit program in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759 (9th Cit. 1992). EPA
is conducting further rulemaking proceedings on this issue and will not require permit applications for construction activities under 5
acres until further rulemaking has been completed.

4-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 4 1. Introduction

Minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation problems;

Maintenance of the predevelopment hydrologic conditions;

Protection of ground-water resources;

Control and management of runoff to reduce/prevent flooding; and

Management of aquatic and riparian resources for active and passive recreation (APWA, 1981).

1. Urbanization and Its Impacts

Urbanization first occurred in coastal areas and this historical trend continues. Approximately 80 percent of the
Nation's population lives in coastal areas. The negative impacts of urbanization on coastal and estuarine waters has
been well documented in a number of sources, including the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and the
States' �305(b) and �319 reports.

During urbanization, pervious spaces, including vegetated and open forested areas, are converted to land uses that
usually have increased areas of impervious surface, resulting in increased runoff volumes and pollutant loadings.
While urbanization may enhance the use of property under a wide range of environmental conditions (USEPA, 1977),
urbanization typically results in changes to the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the watershed.
Vegetative cover is stripped from the land and cut-and-fill activities that enhance the development potential of the
land occur. For example, natural depressions that temporarily pond water are graded to a uniform slope, increasing
the volume of runoff during a storm event (Schueler, 1987). As population density increases, there is a
corresponding increase in pollutant loadings generated from human activities. These pollutants typically enter surface
waters via runoff without undergoing treatment.

a. Changes in Hydrology

As urbanization occurs, changes to the natural hydrology of an area are inevitable. Hydrologic and hydraulic changes
occur in response to site clearing, grading, and the addition of impervious surfaces and maintained landscapes
(Schueler, 1987). Most problematic are the greatly increased runoff volumes and the ensuing erosion and sediment
loadings to surface waters that accompany these changes to the landscape. Uncontrolled construction site sediment
loads have been reported to be on the order of 35 to 45 tons per acre per year (Novotny and Chesters, 1981; Wolman
and Schick, 1967; Yorke and Herb, 1976, 1978). Loadings from undisturbed woodlands are typically less than I
ton per year (Leopold, 1968).

Hydrological changes to the watershed are magnified after construction is completed. Impervious surfaces, such as
rooftops, roads, parking lots, and sidewalks, decrease the infiltrative capacity of the ground and result in greatly
increased volumes of runoff. Elevated flows also necessitate the construction of runoff conveyances or the
modification of existing drainage systems to avoid erosion of streambanks and steep slopes. Changes in stream
hydrology resulting from urbanization include the following (Schueler, 1987):

0 Increased peak discharges compared to predevelopment levels (Leopold, 1968; Anderson, 1970);

0 Increased volume of urban runoff produced by each storm in comparison to predevelopment conditions;

0 Decreased time needed for runoff to reach the stream (Leopold, 1968), particularly if extensive drainage
improvements are made;

* Increased frequency and severity of flooding;

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1,993 4-5

1. Introduction Chapter 4

0 Reduced streamflow during prolonged periods of dry weather due to reduced level of infiltration in the
watershed; and

* Greater runoff velocity during storms due to the combined effects of higher peak discharges, rapid time of
concentration, and the smoother hydraulic surfaces that occur as a result of development.

In addition, greater runoff velocities occur during spring snowmelts and rain-on-snow events in suburban watersheds
than in less impervious rural areas (Buttle and Xu, 1988). Major snowmelt events can produce.peak flows a3 large
as 20 times initial flow runoff rates for urban areas (Pitt and McLean, 1992).

Figures 4-1 and 4-2 illustrate the changes in runoff characteristics resulting from an increasing percentage of
impervious areas. Other physical characteristics of aquatic systems that are affected by urbanization include die total
volume of watershed runoff baseflow, flooding frequency and severity, channel erosion and sediment generation, and
temperature regime (Klein, 1985).

b. Water Quality Changes

Urban development also causes an increase in pollutants. The pollutants that occur in urban areas vary wide A Hy,
from common organic material to highly toxic metals. Some pollutants, such as insecticides, road salts, and
fertilizers, are intentionally placed in the urban environment. Other pollutants, including lead from automobile
exhaust and oil drippings from trucks and cars, are the indirect result of urban activities (USEPA, 1977).

Many researchers have linked urbanization to degradation of urban waterways (e.g., Klein, 1985, Livingston and
McCarron, 1992, Schueler, 1987). The major pollutants found in runoff from urban areas include sediment@ nuiTients,
oxygen-demanding substances, road salts, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses.
Livingston and McCarron (1992) concluded that urban runoff was the major source of pollutants in pollutant loadings
to Florida's lakes and streams. Table 4-1 illustrates examples of pollutant loadings from urban areas.- Table 4-2
describes potential sources of urban runoff pollutants.

00 %6
40% AP
TR SPIRAT N EVAPO-'
NSPIRATION
0 RUNOFF 20 RUNOF

25% SHALLOW 25% DEEP 21% SHALLOW DEEP
INFILTRATION INFILTRATION INFILTRATION TRATION

NATURAL GROUND COVER 10% - 20% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE

35% EVAPO- 30% EVAPO_
00 %ZRANSPIRATION TRANSPIRATION

3
C F

20% SHALLOW
INFILTRATION le< 00 10% SHALLOW 5% DEEP
I INFILTRATION
I INFILTRATION

35% - 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 75% - 100% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
38%
8%
T
T
RA4
@0
4RU.OFF
SHALLOW 21%
T ."L
INFILTRA IN INFIL

Figure 4-1. Changes in runoff flow resulting from increased impervious area (NC Dept. of Nat. Res.
and Community Dev., in Livingston and McCarron, 1992).

4-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai)l 1993

Chapter 4 1. Introduction

Mqtw and %Iwo
P180od Peak 018Cha%*
mWe A Volum Stenn
LOWW and LOSS
Rapid p"k
169aftw IGNOW
Remako"

Figure 4-2. Changes in stream hydrology as a result of urbanization (Schueler, 1992).

2. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts

The following discussion identifies the principal types of pollutants found in urban runoff and describes their
potential adverse effects (USEPA, 1990).

Sediment. Suspended sediments constitute the largest mass of pollutant loadings to surface waters. Sediment has
both short- and long-term impacts on surface waters. Among the immediate adverse impacts of high concentrations
of sediment are increased turbidity, reduced light penetration and decreases in submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
(Chesapeake Implementation Committee, 1988), reduced prey capture for sight-feeding predators, impaired respiration
of fish and aquatic invertebrates, reduced fecundity, and impairment of commercial and recreational fishing resources.
Heavy sediment deposition in low-velocity surface waters may result in smothered benthic communities/reef systems

Table 4-1. Estimated Mean Runoff Concentrations for Land Uses, Based an the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (Whalen and Cullum, 1989)

Parameter Residential Commercial Industrial

TKN (mgA) 0.23 1.5 1.6
N03 + NO, (mgA) 1.8 0.8 0.93
Total P (mg/1) 0.62 2.29 0.42
Copper (gg/1) 56 so 32

Zinc (gg/1) 254 418 1,063

Lead (mg1l) 293 203 115

COD (mg/1) 102 84 62

TSS (mg/1) 228 168 108

BOD (mg1l) 13 14 62

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1,993 4-7

L Introduction Chapter 4

Table 4-2. Sources of Urban Runoff Pollutants
(Adapted from Woodward-Clyde, 1990)

Source Pollutants of Concern

Erosion Sediment and attached soil nutrients, organic matter, and other adsorbed
pollutants
Atmospheric deposition Hydrocarbons emitted from automobiles, dust, aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, and
other chemicals released from industrial and commercial activities

Construction materials Metals from flashing and shingles, gutters and downspouts, galvanized pipes and
metal plating, paint, and wood :

Manufactured products Heavy metals, halogenated aliphatics, phthalate esters, PAHs, other volatiles, and
pesticides and phenols from automobile use, pesticide use, industrial use, and
other uses

Plants and animals Plant debris and animal excrement

Non-storm water Inadvertent or deliberate discharges of sanitary sewage and industrial wastewater
connections to storm drainage systems
Onsite disposal systems Nutrients and pathogens from failing or improperly sited systems

(CRS, 199 1), increased sedimentation of waterways, changes in the composition of bottom substrate, and degradation
of aesthetic value. The primary cause of coral reef degradation in coastal areas is attributed to land disturbances and
dredging activities due to urban development (Rogers, 1990). Additional chronic effects may occur where sediments
rich in organic matter or clay are present. These enriched depositional sediments may present a continued risk to
aquatic and benthic life, especially where the sediments are disturbed and resuspended.

Nutrients. The problems resulting from elevated levels of phosphorus and nitrogen are well known and are
discussed in detail in Chapter 2 (agriculture). Excessive nutrient loading to marine ecosystems can result in
eutrophication and depressed dissolved oxygen (DO) levels due to elevated phytoplankton populations.
Eutrophication-induced hypoxia and anoxia have resulted in fish kills and widespread destruction of benthic habitats
(Harper and Gullient, 1989). Surface algal scum, water discoloration, and the release of toxins from sediment may
also occur. Species composition and size structure for primary producers may be altered by increased nutrient levels
(Hecky and Kilham, 1988; GESAMP, 1989; Thingstad and Sakshaug, 1990).

Occurrences of eutrophication have been frequent in several coastal embayments along the northeast coast
(Narragansett and Barnegat Bays), the Gulf Coast (Louisiana and Texas), and the West Coast (California and
Washington) (NOAA, 1991). High nitrate concentrations have also been implicated in blooms of nuisance algae in
Newport Bay, California (NRC, 1990b). Nutrient loadings in Louisiana coastal waters have decreased productivity,
increased hypoxic events, and decreased fisheries yields (NOAA, 1991).

Oxygen-Demanding Substances. Proper levels of DO are critical to maintaining water quality and aquatic life.
Decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms may deplete DO levels and result in the impairment of the
waterbody. Data have shown that urban runoff with high concentrations of decaying organic matter can severely
depress DO levels after storm events (USEPA, 1983). The NURP study found that oxygen-demanding substances
can be present in urban runoff at concentrations similar to secondary treatment discharges.

Pathogens. Urban runoff typically contains elevated levels of pathogenic organisms. The presence of pathogens
in runoff may result in waterbody impairments such as closed beaches, contaminated drinking water sourm;, and
shellfish bed closings. OSDS-related pathogen contamination has been implicated in a number of shellfish bed
closings. Table 4-3 shows the adverse impacts of septic systems and urban runoff on shellfish beds, resulting in
closure. This problem may be especially prevalent in areas with porous or sandy soils.

4-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 1, Introduction

Table 4-3. Percent of Limited or Restricted Classified Shellfish Waters
Affected by Types of Pollution (Leonard at al., 1991)

Septic Urban Ag.
Systems Runoff Runoff POTWs Boats Industry

North Atlantic 26 23 3 67 17 7

Mid-Atlantic 11 58 12 57 31 20

South Atlantic 34 34 28 44 17 21

Gulf 48 35 8 27 14 14

Pacific 19 36 13 25 15 42

Nationwide 37 38 11 37 18 17

Road Salts. In northern climates, road salts can be a major pollutant in urban areas. Klein (1985) reported on
several studies by various authors of road salt contamination in lakes and streams and cases where well
contamination had been attributed to road salts in New England. Snow runoff produces high salt/chlorine
concentrations at the bottom of ponds, lakes, and bays. Not only does this condition prove toxic to benthic
organisms, but it also prevents crucial vertical spring mixing (Bubeck et al., 1971; Hawkins and Judd, 1972).

Hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons are derived from oil products, and the source of most such pollutants found
in urban runoff is vehicles-auto and truck engines that drip oil. Many do-it-yourself auto mechanics dump used oil
directly into storm drains (Klein, 1985). Concentrations of petroleum-based hydrocarbons are often high enough to
cause mortalities in aquatic organisms.

Oil and grease contain a wide variety of hydrocarbon gompounds. Some polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are known to be toxic to aquatic life at low concentrations. Hydrocarbons have a high affinity for sediment, and they
collect in bottom sediments Where they may persist for long periods of time and result in adverse impacts on benthic
communities. Lakes and estuaries are especially prone to this phenomenon.

Heavy Metals. Heavy metals are typically found in urban runoff. For example, Klein (1985) reported on a study
in the Chesapeake Bay that designated urban runoff as the source for 6 percent of the cadmium, I percent of the
chromium, I percent of the copper, 19 percent of the lead, and 2 percent of the zinc.

Heavy metals are of concern because of toxic effects on aquatic life and the potential for ground-water
contamination. Copper, lead, and zinc are the most prevalent NPS pollutants found in urban runoff. High metal
concentrations may bioaccumulate in fish and shellfish and impact beneficial uses of the affected waterbody.

Toidcs. Many different toxic compounds (priority pollutants) have been associated with urban runoff. NURP studies
(USEPA, 1983) indicated that at least 10 percent of urban runoff samples contained toxic pollutants.

a. Pollutant Loading

Nonpoint source pollution has been associated with water quality standard violations and the impairment of
designated uses of surface waters (Davenport, 1990). The 1990 Report to Congress on �319 of the Clean Water Act
reported that:

Siltation and nutrients are the pollutants most responsible for nonpoint source impacts to the Nation's
surface waters, and

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-9

L Introduction Chapter 4

Wildlife and recreation, (in particular, swimming, fishing, and shellfishing) are the uses most affected by
nonpoint source pollution.

The pollutants described previously can have a variety of impacts on coastal resources. Examples of waterbodies
that have been adversely impacted by nonpoint source pollution are varied.

� The Miami River and Biscayne Bay in Florida have experienced loss of habitat, loss of recreational and
commercial fisheries, and decrease in productivity partly as the result of urban runoff (SFWMD, 1988).

� Shellfish beds in Port Susan, Puget Sound, Washington, have been declared unsafe for the conunercial
harvest of shellfish in part because of bacterial contamination from onsite disposal systems (USEPA, '1991).

� Impairment due to toxic pollution from urban runoff continues to be a problem in the southern part of San
Francisco Bay (USEPA, 1992).

� Nonpoint sources of pollution have been implicated in degradation of water quality in Westport River,
Massachusetts, a tributary of Buzzards Bay. High concentrations of coliform bacteria have been observed
after rainfall events, and shellfish bed closures in the river have been attributed to loadings from surface
runoff and septic systems (USEPA, 1992).

� In Brenner Bay, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, populations of corals and shellfish and marine habitat have
been damaged due to increased nutrient and sediment loadings. After several years of rapid urban
development, less than 10 percent of original grass beds remain as a result of sediment shoaling,
eutrophication, and algae blooms (Nichols and Towle, 1977).

b. Other Impacts

Other impacts not related to a specific pollutant can also occur as a result of urbanization. Temperature changes
result from increased flows, removal of vegetative cover, and increases in impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces
act as heat collectors, heating urban runoff as it passes over the impervious surface. Recent data indicate that
intensive urbanization can increase stream temperature as much as 5 to 10 degrees Celsius during storm events (Galli
and Dubose, 1990). Thermal loading disrupts aquatic organisms that have finely tuned temperature limits. &9inity
can also be affected by urbanization.

Freshwater inflows due to increased runoff can impact estuaries, especially if they occur in pulses, disrupting the
natural salinity of an area. Increased impervious surface area and the presence of storm water conveyance systems
commonly result in elevated peak flows in streams during and after storm events. These rapid pulses or influxes
of fresh water into the watershed may be 2 to 10 times greater than normal (ABAG, 1991) This may lead to a
decrease in the number of aquatic organisms living in the receiving waters (McLusky, 1989).

The alteration of natural hydrology due to urbanization and the accompanying runoff diversion, channelization, and
destruction of natural drainlige systems have resulted in riparian and tidal wetland degradation or destruction. Deltaic
wetlands have also been impacted by changes in historic sediment deposition rates and patterns. Hydromodification
projects designed to prevent flooding may reduce sedimentation rates and decrease marsh aggradation, which would
normally offset erosion and apparent changes in sea level within the delta (Cahoon et al., 1983).

3. Opportunities

This chapter was organized to parallel the development process to address the prevention and treatment of nonpoint
source pollution loadings during all phases of urbanization. (NOTE: The control of nonpoint source pollution
requires the use of two primary strategies: the prevention of pollutant loadings and the treatment of unavoidable
loadings. The strategy in this chapter relies primarily on the watershed approach, which focuses on pollution
prevention or source reduction practices. While treatment options are an integral component of this chapter, a

4-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janual), 1993

Chapter 4 introduction

combination of pollution prevention and treatment practices is favored because planning, design, and education
practices are generally more effective, require less maintenance, and are more cost-effective in the long term.)

The major opportunities to control NPS loadings occur during the following three stages of development: the siting
and design phase, the construction phase, and the postdevelopment phase. Before development occurs, land in a
watershed is available for a number of pollution prevention and treatment options, such as setbacks, buffers, or open
space requirements, as well as wet ponds or constructed urban runoff wetlands that can provide treatment of the
inevitable runoff and associated pollutants. In addition, siting requirements/restrictions and other land use ordinances,
which can be highly effective, are more easily implemented during this period. After development occurs, these
options may no longer be practicable or cost-effective. Management Measures ILA through ILC address the
strategies and practices that can be used during the initial phase of the urbanization process.

The control of construction-related sediment loadings is critical to maintaining water quality. The implementation
of proper erosion and sediment control practices during the construction stage can significantly reduce sediment
loadings to surface waters. Management Measures ILA and 11.13 address construction-related practices.

After development has occurred, lack of available land severely lin-dts the implementation of cost-effective treatment
options. Management Measure VLA focuses on improving controls for existing surface water runoff through
pollution prevention to mitigate nonpoint sources of pollution generated from ongoing domestic and commercial
activities.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-11

H. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

11. URBAN RUNOFF

A. New Development Management Measure

(1) By design or performance:

(a) After construction has been completed and the site is permanentIly
stabilized, reduce the average annual total suspended solid (TSS) loadings
by 80 percent. For the purposes of this measure, an 80 percent TSS
reduction is to be determined on an average annual basis,* or

(b) Reduce the postclevelopment loadings of TSS so that the average annual
TSS loadings are no greater than predevelopment loadings, and

(2) To the extent practicable, maintain postclevelopment peak runoff rate and
average volume at levels that are similar to predevelopment levels.

Sound watershed management requires that both structural and nonstructural
measures be employed to mitigate the adverse impacts of storm water.
Nonstructural Management Measures ILB and ILC can be effectively used !in
conjunction with Management Measure ILA to reduce both the short- and long-terim
costs of meeting the treatment goals of this management measure.

Based on the average annual TSS loadings from all storms less than or equal to the 2-year/24-
hour storm. TSS loadings from storms greater than the 2-year/24-hour storm are not expecto
to be Included In the calculation of the average annual TSS loadings.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to control urban runoff and treat associated pollutants
generated from new development, redevelopment, and new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges. Under the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements ELS they
develop coastal nonpoint source (NPS) programs in conformity with this management measure and will have
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

For design purposes, postdevelopment peak runoff rate and average volume should be based on the 2-year/24-hour
storm.
)d
==J

4-12 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januat.y 1993

Chapter 4 IL Urban Runoff

2. Description

This management measure is intended to accomplish the following: (1) decrease the erosive potential of increased
runoff volumes and velocities associated with development-induced changes in hydrology; (2) remove suspended
solids and associated pollutants entrained in runoff that result from activities occurring during and after development;
(3) retain hydrological conditions to closely resemble those of the predisturbance condition; an d (4) preserve natural
systems including in-stream habitat.' For the purposes of this management measure, "similar" is defined as
resembling though not completely identical."

During the development process, both the existing landscape and hydrology can be significantly altered. As
development occurs, the following changes to the land may occur (USEPA, 1977):

� Soil porosity decreases;
� Impermeable surfaces increase;
� Channels and conveyances are constructed;
� Slopes increase;
� Vegetative cover decreases; and
� Surface roughness decreases.

These changes result in increased runoff volume and velocities, which may lead to increased erosion of streambanks,
steep slopes, and unvegetated areas (Novotny, 1991). In addition, destruction of in-streani and riparian habitat,
increases in water temperature (Schueler et aL, 1992), streambed scouring, and downstream siltation of streambed
substrate, riparian areas, estuarine habitat, and reef systems may occur. An example of predicted effects of increased
levels of urbanization on runoff volumes is presented in Table 4-4 @USDA-SCS, 1986). Methods are also available
to compute peak runoff rates (USDA-SCS, 1986).

The annual TSS loadings can be calculated by adding the TSS loadings that can be expected to be generated during
an average I-year period from precipitation events less than or equal to the 2-year/24-hour storm. The 80 percent
standard can be achieved by reducing, over the course of the year, 80 percent of these loadings. EPA recognizes
that 80 percent cannot be achieved for each storm event and understands that TSS removal efficiency will fluctuate
above and below 80 percent for individual storms.

Management Measures ILA, ILB, and ILC were selected as a system to be used to prevent and mitigate the problems
discussed above. In combination, these three management measures applied on-site and throughout watersheds can
be used to provide increased watershed protection and help prevent severe erosion, flooding, and increased pollutant
loads generally associated with poorly planned development. Implementation of Management Measures 11.13 and ILC
can help achieve the goals of Management Measure II.A.

Structural practices to control urban runoff rely on three basic mechanisms to treat runoff: inrdtration, filtration,
and detention. Table 4-5 lists specific urban runoff control practices that relate to these and includes information
on advantages, disadvantages, and costs. Table 4-6 presents site-specific considerations, regional limitations,
operation and maintenance burdens, and longevity for these practices.

2Several issues require clarification to fully understand the scope and intent of this management measure. First, this management
measure applies only to postdevelopment loadings and not to construction-related loadings. Management measure options ILA.(I)(a)
and (b) both apply only to the TSS loadings that are generated after construction has ceased and the site has been properly stabilized
using permanent vegetative and/or structural erosion and sediment control practices. Second, for the purposes of this guidance, the term
predevelopment refers to the sediment loadings and runoff volumes/velocities that exist onsite immediately before the planned land
disturbance and development activities occur. Predevelopment is not intended to be interpreted as that period before any human-induced
land disturbance activity has occurred. 11ird, management measure option 1l.A.(l)(b) is not intended to be used as an alternative to
achieving an adequate level of control in cases where high sediment loadings are the result of poor management of developed sites (not
"natural" sites), e.g., farmlands where the erosion control components of the USDA conservation management system are not used or
sites where land disturbed by previous development was not permanently stabilized.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-13

/L Urban Runoff Chapter 4

Table 4-4. Example Effects of Increased Urbanization on Runoff Volumes
(USDA-SCS, 1986)

Development Scenario Predicted Runoff

100 percent open space 2.81 inches (baseline)

70 percent of the total area divided into 1/2-acre lots; each 3.28 inches (24 percent increase)
lot is 25 percent impervious; 30 percent of the total area is
open space

70 percent of the total area is divided into 1/2-acre lots; 3.48 inches (24 percent increase)
each lot is 35 percent impervious; 30 percent of the total
area is open space

30 percent of the total area is divided into 1/2-acre lots - 3.19 inches (14 percent increase)
each lot is 25 percent impervious and contiguous; 40
percent is divided into 1/2-acre lots - each lot is 50 percent
impervious and discontinuous; 30 percent of the total area
is open space

Infiltration devices, such as infiltration trenches, infiltration basins, filtration basins, and porous and concrete! block
pavement, rely on absorption of runoff to treat urban runoff discharges. Water is percolated through soils, where
filtration and biological action remove pollutants. Systems that rely on soil absorption require deep permeable soils
at separation distances of at least 4 feet between the bottom of the structure and seasonal ground water levels. The
widespread use of infiltration in a watershed can be useful to maintain or restore predevelopment hydrology, increase
dry-weather baseflow, and reduce bankfull flooding frequency. However, infiltration systems may not be apprDpriate
where ground water requires protection. Restrictions may also apply to infiltration systems located above sole source
(drinking water) aquifers. Where such designs are selected, they should be incorporated with the recognition that
periodic maintenance is necessary for these areas. Long-term effectiveness in most cases will depend on proper
operation and maintenance of the entire system.

NOTE: Infiltration systems, some filtration devices, and sand filters should be installed after construction has been
completed and the site has been permanently stabilized. The State of Maryland has observed a high failure rate for
infiltration systems. Many of these failures can be attributed to clogging due to sediment loadings generated during
the construction process and/or the premature use of the device before proper stabilization of the site has occurred.
In cases where construction of the infiltration system is necessary before the cessation of land-disturbing activities,
diversions, covers, or other means to prevent sediment-laden runoff from entering and clogging the infiltration system
should be used (State of Maryland DNR, personal communication, 1991).

Filtration practices such as filter strips, grassed swales, and sand filters treat sheet flow by using vegetationor sand
to filter and settle pollutants. In some cases infiltration and treatment in the subsoil may also occur. After passing
through the filtration media, the treated water can be routed into streams, drainage channels, or other waterbodies;
evaporated; or percolated into ground water. Sand filters are particularly useful for ground-water protection. The
influence of climatic factors must be considered in the process of selecting vegetative systems.

Detention practices temporarily impound runoff to control runoff rates, and settle and retain suspended solids and
associated pollutants. Extended detention ponds and wet ponds fall within this category. Constructed urban runoff
wetlands and multiple-pond systems also remove pollutants by detaining flows that lead to sedimentation
(gravitational settling of suspended solids). Properly designed ponds protect downstream channels by controlling
discharge velocities, thereby reducing the frequency of bankfull flooding and resultant bank-cutting erosion. If
landscaped and planted with appropriate vegetation, these systems can reduce nutrient loads and also -provide
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat. When considering the use of these devices, potential negative impacts such
as downstream wam-ting, reduced baseflow, trophic shifts, bacterial contamination due to waterfowl, hazards to

4-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

0 9 0

Table 4-5. Advantages and Disadvantages of Management Practices

Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler, Kumble,
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)
Infiltration Basin * Provides ground-water recharge 0 Possible risk of contaminating Construction cost moderate but
0 Can serve large developments ground water rehabilitation cost high
0 High removal capability for particulate Only feasible where soil is
pollutants and moderate removal for permeable and there is sufficient
soluble pollutants depth to rock and water table
0 When basin works, it can replicate 0 Fairly high failure rate
predevelopment hydrology more closely * If not adequately maintained, can
than other BMP options be an eyesore, breed mosquitoes,
e Basins provide more habitat value than and create undesirable odors
other infiltration systems 0 Regular maintenance activities
cannot prevent rapid clogging of
infiltration basins
Infiltration Trench 0 Provides ground-water recharge * Possible risk of contaminating Cost-effective on smaller sites.
0 Can serve small drainage areas ground water Rehabilitation costs can be
0 Can fit into medians, perimeters, and * Only feasible where soil is considerable.
other unused areas of a development permeable and there is sufficient
site depth to rock and water table
0 Helps replicate predevelopment * Since not as visible as other BMPs,
hydrology, increases dry weather less likely to be maintained by
baseflow, and reduces bankfull flooding residents
frequency 0 Requires significant maintenance

Vegetated Filter Strip (VFS) 0 Low maintenance requirements 0 Often concentrates water, which Low
0 Can be used as part of the runoff significantly reduces effectiveness
conveyance system to provide 0 Ability to remove soluble pollutants
pretreatment highly variable
* Can effectively reduce particulate * Limited feasibility in highly
pollutant levels in areas where runoff urbanized areas where runoff
velocity is low to moderate velocities are high and flow is
Provides excellent urban wildlife habitat concentrated
* Requires periodic repair, regrading,
Economical and sediment removal to prevent
channelization

Table 4-5. (Continued)

Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler, Kumble,
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)
Grassed Swale & Requires minimal land area 0 Low pollutant removal rates Low compared to curb and gutter
* Can be used as part of the runoff a Leaching from culverts and
conveyance system to provide fertilized lawns may actually
pretreatment increase the presence of trace
0 Can provide sufficient runoff control to metals and nutrients
replace curb and gutter in single-family
residential subdivisions and on highway
medians
0 Economical
Porous Pavement 9 Provides ground-water recharge 0 Requires regular maintenance Cost-effective compared to
0 Provides water quality control without 0 Possible risk of contaminating conventional asphalt when working
additional consumption of land ground water properly
0 Can provide peak flow control - Only feasible where soil is
0 High removal rates for sediment, permeable, there is sufficient depth
nutrients, organic matter, and trace to rock and water table, and there
metals are gentle slopes
0 When operating properly can replicate e Not suitable for areas with high
predevelopment hydrology traffic volume
& Eliminates the need for stormwater * Need extensive feasibility tests,
drainage, conveyance, and treatment inspections, and very high level of
systems off-site construction workmanship
(Schueler, 1987)
- High failure rate due to clogging
En * Not suitable to serve large off-site
pervious areas
ell
9 Concrete Grid Pavement 0 Can provide peak flow control * Requires regular maintenance Information not available
0 Provides ground-water recharge # Not suitable for area with high
0 Provides water quality control without traffic volume
additional consumption of land 0 Possible risk of contaminating
ground water
Only feasible where soil is
permeable, there is sufficient depth
X to rock and water table, and there
are gentle slopes

Table 4-5. (Continued)

@D Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler. Kumble,
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)
Filtration Basin * Ability to accommodate medium-size Requires pretreatment of storm Information not available
development (3-80 acres) water through sedimentation to
0 Flexibility to provide ornot provide prevent filter media from
ground-water recharge prematurely clogging
to 0 Can provide peak volume control
1
(40
Water Quality Inlets * Provide high degree of removal Not feasible for drainage area Information not available
Catch Basins efficiencies for larger particles and greater than 1 acre
debris as pretreatment Marginal removal of small particles,
0 Require minimal land area heavy metals, and organic
* Flexibility to retrofit existing small pollutants
drainage areas and applicable to most * Not effective as water quality
urban areas control for intense storms
e Minimal nutrient removal
Water Quality Inlet * Provide high removal efficiencies of 9 Not feasible for drainage area Information not available
Catch Basins with Sand Filter particulates greater than 5 acres
0 Require minimal land area * Only feasible for areas that are
e Flexibility to retrofit existing small stabilized and highly impervious
drainage areas a Not effective as water quality
Higher removal of nutrient as compared control for intense storms
to catch basins and oil/grid separator
Water Quality Inlet Captures coarse-grained sediments and * Not feasible for drainage area High, compared to trenches and
Oil/Grit Separator some hydrocarbons greater than 1 acre sand filters
Requires minimal land area 0 Minimal nutrient and organic matter
Flexibility to retrofit existing small removal
drainage areas and applicable to most * Not effective as water quality
urban areas control for intense storms
Shows some capacity to trap trash, 0 Concern exists over the pollutant
debris, and other floatables toxicity of trapped residuals
Can be adapted to all regions of the Require high maintenance
country

OD C::
Table 4-5. (Continued) lab
73
:]D
Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler, Kumble.
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)

Extended Detention * Can provide peak flow control 0 Removal rates for soluble pollutants Lowest cost alternative in size
Dry Pond * Possible to provide good particulate are quite low range
removal 0 Not economical for drainage area
- Can serve large development less than 10 acres
* Requires less capital cost and land area e If not adequately maintained, can
when compared to wet pond be an eyesore, breed mosquitoes,
* Does not generally release warm or and create undesirable odors
anoxic: water downstream
* Provides excellent protection for
downstream channel erosion
* Can create valuable wetland and
meadow habitat when property
landscaped

Wet Pond * Can provide peak flow control * Not economical for drainage area Moderate to high compared to
* Can serve large developments; most less than 10 acres conventional storm water detention
cost-effective for larger, more * Potential safety hazards if not
intensively developed sites property maintained
0 Enhances aesthetics and provides o If not adequately maintained, can
recreational benefits be an eyesore, breed mosquitoes,
o Little ground-water discharge and create undesirable odors
0 Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to 0 Requires considerable space,
M prevent scour and resuspension of which limits use in densely
sediments urbanized areas with expensive
o Provides moderate to high removal of land and property values
both particulate and soluble urban o Not suitable for hydrologic soil
stormwater pollutants groups "A' and "B" (SCS
classification)
0 With possible thermal discharge
and oxygen depletion, may
severely impact downstream
aquatic life

Table 4-5. (Continued)

Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler, Kumble,
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)
Extended Detention Can provide peak flow control Not economical for drainage area
Wet Pond Can serve large developments; most less than 10 acres
cost-effective for larger, more * Potential safety hazards it not
intensively developed sites properly maintained
0 Enhances aesthetic and provide 0 If not adequately maintained, can
recreational benefits be an eyesore, breed mosquitoes,
0 Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to and create undesirable odors
prevent scour and resuspension of 0 Requires considerable space,
sediments which limits use in densely
0 Provides better nutrient removal when urbanized areas with expensive
compared to wet pond land and property values
0 Not suitable for hydrologic soil
groups 'A' and "B"(SCS
classification)
e With possible thermal discharge
and oxygen depletion, may
severely impact downstream
aquatic life

:33

Table 4-5. (Continued)

Comparative
Management Cost (Schueler, Kumble,
Practice Advantages Disadvantages and Heraty, 1992)

Constructed Stormwater Wetland e Can serve large developments; most 0 Not economical for drainage area Marginally higher than wet ponds
cost-effective for larger, more less than 10 acres
intensively developed sites 0 Potential safety hazards if not
� Provides peak flow control property maintained
� Enhances aesthetics and provides 0 If not adequately maintained can be
recreational benefits an eyesore, breed mosquitoes, and
� The marsh fringe also protects shoreline create undesirable odors
from erosion 0 Requires considerable space,
� Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to which limits use in densely
prevent scour and resuspension of urbanized areas with expensive
sediments land and property values
� Has high pollutant removal capability * With possible thermal discharge
and oxygen depletion, may
severely impact downstream
aquatic life
0 May contribute to nutrient loadings
during die-down periods of
vegetation

tri

Chapter 4 /L Urban Runoff

Table 4-6. Regional, Site-Specific, and Maintenance Considerations for Structural
Practices to Control Sediments in Storm Water Runoff (Schueler et al., 1992)

Size of . Regional Maintenance
BMP Option Drainage Area Site Requirements Restrictions Burdens Longevity

Infiltration basins Moderate to Deep permeable Arid and cold High Low
large soils regions

Infiltration trenches Moderate Same as for infiltration basins

Vegetated filter strips Small Low-density areas Arid and cold Low Low if poorly
with low slopes regions maintained

Grassed swales Small Low-density areas Arid and cold Low High if
with <15% slope regions maintained

Porous pavement Small Deep permeable Arid and cold High Low
soils, low slopes, regions or high
and restricted traffic wind erosion
rates

Concrete grid Small Same as for porous pavement Moderate to High
pavement high

Filtration basins and Widely Widely applicable Arid and cold Moderate Low to
sand filters applicable regions moderate

Water quality inlets Small Impervious Few restrictions Cleaned twice High
catchments a year

Extended detention Moderate to Deep soils Few restrictions Dry ponds High
ponds large have relatively
high burdens

Wet ponds Moderate to Deep soils Arid regions Low High
large

Constructed storm Moderate to Poorly drained soils, Arid regions Annual High
water wetlands large space may be harvesting of
limiting vegetation

nearby residents, and nuisance factors such as mosquitoes and odor should be considered. Siting development in
wetlands and floodplains should be avoided. Where drainage areas are greater than 250 acres and ponds are being
considered, inundation of upstream channels may be of concern.

Constructed wetlands and multiple-pond systems also treat runoff through the processes of adsorption, plant uptake,
filtration, volatilization, precipitation, and microbial decomposition (Livingston and McCarron, 1992; Schueler et al.,
1992). Multiple-pond systems in particular have shown potential to provide much higher levels of treatment
(Schueler et al., 1992). In general, the potential concerns and drawbacks applicable to wet ponds apply to these
systems. Many of these systems are currently being designed to include vegetated buffers and deep-water areas to
provide habitat for wildlife and aesthetic benefits. Where such designs are selected, they should be incorporated with
the recognition that periodic maintenance is necessary. Long-term effectiveness in most cases will depend on proper
operation and maintenance of the entire system. Refer to Chapter 7 for additional information on constructed
wetlands.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-21

/1. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

Water quality inlets, like ponds, rely on gravity settling to remove pollutants before ponds discharge water to the
storm sewer or other collection system. Water quality inlets are designed to trap floatable trash and debris. 'When
inlets are coupled with oil/grit separators, hydrocarbon loadings from areas with high traffic/parking volumes can
be reduced. However, experience has shown that these devices have limited pollutant-removal effectiveness and
should not be used unless coupled with frequent and effective clean-out methods (Schueler et al., 1992). Although
no costs are currently available, proper maintenance of water quality inlets must include proper disposal of trapped
coarse-grained sediments and hydrocarbons. The costs of clean-out and disposal may be significant when
contaminated sediments require proper disposal.

Inadequate maintenance is often cited as one of the major factors influencing the poor effectiveness of structural
practices. The cost of long-term maintenance should be evaluated during the selection process. In aWition,
responsibility for maintenance should be clearly assigned for the life of the system. Typical maintenance
requirements include:

� Inspection of basins and ponds after every major storm for the first few months after construction and
annually thereafter;

� Mowing of grass filter strips and swales at a frequency to prevent woody growth and promote dense
vegetation;

� Removal of litter and debris from dry ponds, forebays, and water quality inlets;

� Revegetation of eroded areas;

� Periodic removal and replacement of filter media from infiltration trenches and filtration ponds;

� Deep tilling of infiltration basins to maintain infiltrative capability;

� Frequent (at least quarterly) vacuuming or jet hosing of porous pavements or concrete grid pavements;

� Quarterly clean-outs of water quality inlets;

� Periodic removal of floatables and debris from catch basins, water quality inlets, and other collection-type
controls; and

� Periodic removal and proper disposal of accumulated sediment (applicable to all practices). Sediments in
infiltration devices need to be removed frequently enough to prevent premature failure due to clogging.

Operation and Maintenance

Proper operation and maintenance of structural treatment facilities is critical to their effectiveness in mitigating
adverse impacts of urban runoff. The proper installation and maintenance of various BMPs often determines their
success or failure (Reinalt, 1992).

During a field study of 51 urban runoff treatment facilities, the Ocean County, New Jersey, planning and engineering
departments determined that the major source of urban runoff problems was a failure of the responsible party to
provide adequate facility maintenance. The causes of this failure are complex and include factors such as lack of
funding, manpower, and equipment; uncertain or irresponsible ownership; unassigned maintenance responsibility; and
ignorance or disregard of potential consequences of maintenance neglect (Ocean County, 1989). The analysis of the
field data collected during the study indicated the following trends:

Bottoms, side slopes, trash racks, and low-flow structures were the primary sources of maintenance
problems.

4-22 EPA-840-B-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 4 Urban Runoff

Infiltration facilities seemed to be more prone to maintenance neglect and were generally in the poorest
condition overall.

� Retention facilities appeared to receive the greatest amount of maintenance and generally were in the best
condition overall.

� Publicly owned facilities were usually better maintained than those that were privately maintained.

� Facilities located at office development sites were better maintained than those at commercial or institutional
sites; facilities in residential areas received average maintenance.

� Highly visible urban runoff facilities were generally better maintained that those in more remote, less visible
locations (Ocean County, 1989).

The following program elements should be considered to ensure the proper design, implementation, and operation
and maintenance of runoff treatment and control devices (adapted from The State of New Jersey Ocean County
Demonstration Study's Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Manual):

� Adoption, promulgation, and implementation of planning and design standards that eliminate, reduce, and/or
facilitate facility maintenance; coordination with other regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over runoff
facilities;

� Establishment of a comprehensive design review program, which includes training and education to ensure
adequate staff competency and expertise;

� Design standards published in a readily understandable format for all permittees and responsible parties
including regulatory authorities; the provision of clear requirements to promote the adoption of planning and
standards wid expedite facility review and approval;

� Publication of specific obligations and responsibilities of the runoff facility owner/operator including
procedures for the identification of owners/operators who will have long-term responsibility for the facility;

� Development of a procedure for addressing maintenance default by negligent owner/operators;

� Periodic review and evaluation of the runoff management program to ensure continued program
effectiveness and efficiency;

� Runoff facility construction inspection program; and

� Provisions for public assumption of runoff control facilities.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because of the following factors.

(1) Removal of 80 percent of total suspended solids (TSS) is assumed to control heavy metals, phosphorus,
and other pollutAnts.

(2) A number of coastal States, including Delaware and Florida, and the Lower Colorado River Authority
(Texas) require and have implemented a TSS removal treatment standard of at least 80 percent for new
development.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-23

IL Urban Runoff Chapter 4

(3) Analysis has shown that constructed wetlands, wet ponds, and infiltration basins can remove 80 percent
of TSS, provided they are designed and maintained properly. Other practices or combinations of practices
can be also used to achieve the goal.

(4) The control of postdevelopment volume and peak runoff rates to reduce or prevent streambank eirosion
and stream scouring and to maintain predevelopment hydrological conditions can be accomplished using
a number of water quality and flood control practices. Many States and local governments have
implemented requirements that stipulate that, at a minimum, the 2-year/24-hour storm be controlled.

Management Measure II.A.(I)(b) was selected to provide a descriptive alternative to Management Measure
II.A.(I)(a). Where preexisting conditions do not already present a water quality problem, preservation of
predevelopment TSS loading levels is intended to promote TSS loading reductions that adequately protect surface
waters and are equivalent to or greater than the levels achieved by Management Measure option II.A.(I)(a). IV, some
cases, local conditions (e.g., mountainous areas with arid, steep slopes) may preclude the implementat].on of
Management Measure II.A.(l)(a). Where local conditions do not allow the implementation of BMPs such as grassed
swales or detention basins, and preconstruction/predevelopment (existing conditions) TSS loadings from the site are
significant, it may not be cost-effective or beneficial to require 80 percent TSS postdevelopment loading reductions.
Management Measure option II.A.(I)(b) was provided to allow flexibility where such conditions exist. This
flexibility will be especially important in cases where loadings from surrounding undeveloped areas dwarf the TSS
loadings generated from the new development. (NOTE: Predevelopment is defined, in the context of Management
Measure ILA.(I)(b), as the sediment loadings and runoff volumes/velocities that exist onsite immediately before the
planned land disturbance and development occur.)

4. Practices

Cost and effectiveness information for these practices is shown in Tables 4-7 and 4-8. Many of these practices can
be used during site development, but the focus of this section is the abatement of postdevelopment impacts.

a. Develop training'and education programs and materials for public officials, contractors, and others
involved with the design, installation, operation, inspection, and maintenance of urban runoff
facilities.

Training programs and educational materials for public officials, contractors, and the public are crucial to
implementing effective urban runoff management programs. Contractor certification, inspector training, and
competent design review staff are important for program implementation and continuing effectiveness. The State
of New Jersey Ocean County Demonstration Study's Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Afanual
addresses many of these issues and provides guidance on programmatic elements necessary for the proper opt-ration
and maintenance of urban runoff facilities. Several other States and local governments, including Virginia, Maryland,
Washington, Delaware, Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, and the City of Alexandria, Virginia, have
developed manuals and training materials to assist in implementation of urban runoff requirements and regulations.

The State of Delaware passed legislation requiring that "all responsible personnel involved in a construction project
will have a certificate of attendance at a Departmental sponsored or approved training course for the control of
sediment and storm water before initiation of land disturbing activity." The State provides personnel training and
educational opportunities for contractors to meet this requirement and has delegated program elements to conservation

4-24 EPA-640-B-92-002 Januaf3e 1,993

Table 4-7. Effectiveness of Management Practices for Control of Runoff From Newly Developed Areas
-01

Removal Efficiency
tp
I
re Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Factors References
6
INFILTRATION BASIN Average: 75 65 60 65 65 65 - Soil percolation NVPDC, 1979; EPA,
rates 1977; Schueler, 1987;
Reported Range: 45-100 45-100 45-100 45-100 45-100 45-100 - Basin surface area Griffin, et al, 1980; EPA,
- Storage volume 1983; Woodward-Clyde,
Probable Range:' 1986

SCS Soil Group A 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100
SCS Soil Group B 50-80 50-80 50-80 50-80 50-80 50-80

No. Values Considered: 7 7 7 4 4 4

INFILTRATION TRENCH Average: 75 60 55 65 65 65 - Soil percolation NVPDC, 1979; EPA,
rates 1977; Schueler, 1987;
Reported Range: 45-100 40-100 (-10)-100 45-100 45-100 45-100 * Trench surface Griffin, et al, 1980; EPA,
area 1983; Woodward-Clyde,
Probable Range:b * Storage volume 1986; Kuo et al., 1988;
Lugbill, 1990
SCS Soil Group A 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100 60-100
SCS Soil Group B 50-90 50-90 50-90 50-90 50-90 50-90

No. Values Considered: 9 9 9 4 4 4

VEGETATED FILTER STRIP Average: 65 40 40 40 45 60 - Runoff volume IEP, 1991 ; Casman,
- Slope 1990; Glick et al., 1991;
Reported Range: 20-80 0-95 0-70 0-80 20_90H 30-90' * Soil infiltration VADC, 1987; Minnesota
rates PCA,-1989; Schueler,
Probable Range:' 40-90 30-80 20-60 30-80 20-50 * Vegetative cover 1987; Hartigan et al.,
- Buffer length 1989
No. Values Considered: 7 4 3 2 3 3

GRASS SWALE Average: 60 20 10 25 70 60 - Runoff volume Yousef et al., 1985;
3-1 OOH * Slope Dupuis, 1985;
Reported Range: 0-100 0-100 0-40 25 50-6d' - Soil infiltration Washington State, 1988;
10-20 rates Schueler, 1987; British
Probable Range:d 20-40 20-40 10-30 10-20 - Vegetative cover Columbia Res. Corp.,
10 * Swale length 1991; EPA, 1983;
No. Values Considered: 10 8 4 1 7 * Swale geometry Whalen, et al., 1988; Pitt, z
1986; Casman, 1990

Z-
Table 4-7. (Continued) Q

Removal Efficiency (%)
Zt

Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Factors References

POROUS PAVEMENT Average: 90 65 85 80 100 100 * Percolation rates Schueler, 1987
* Storage volume
Reported Range: 80-95 65 80-85 80 100 100

Probable Range: 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90

No. Values Considered: 2 2 2 2 2 2

CONCRETE GRID Average: 90 90 90 90 90 90 Percolation rates Day, 1981; Smith, at at,
PAVEMENT 1981; Schueler, 1987
Reported Range: 65-100 65-100 65-100 65-100 65-100 65-100

Probable Range: 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90 60-90

No. Values Considered: 2 2 2 2 2 2

SAND FILTER/FILTRATION Average: 80 50 3@ 55 60 65 - Treatment volume City of Austin, 1988;
BASIN # Filtration media Environmental and
Reported Range: 60-95 0-90 20-40 45-70 30-90 50-80 Conservation Service
Department, 1990
Probable Range: 60-90 0-80 20-40 40-70 40-80 40-80

rri No. Values Considered: 10 6 7 3 5 5

WATER QUALITY INLET9 Average: 35 5 20 5 15 5 * Maintenance Pitt, 1896; Field, 1985;
* Sedimentation Schueler, 1987
Reported Range: 0-95 5-10 5-55 5-10 10-25 5-10 storage volume

Probable Range: 10-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10

No. Values Considered: 3 1 2 1 2 1

Table 4-7. (Continued)

Removal Efficiency

Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Factors References

WATER QUALITY INLET Average: 80 NA 35 55 80 65 e Sedimentation Shaver, 1991
WITH SAND FILTER9 storage volume
Reported Range: 75-85 NA 30-45 45-70 70-90 50-80 - Depth of filter
CID Probable Range: 70-90 -- 30-40 40-70 70-90 50-80 media
10

No. Values Considered: 1 0 1 1 1 1

OILIGRIT SEPARATOR9 Average: 15 5 5 5 15 5 - Sedimentation Pitt, 1985; Schueler,
storage volume 1987
Reported Range: 0-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10
0 Outlet
Probable Range: 10-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10 configurations

Number of References 2 1 1 1 1 1

EXTENDED DETENTION Average: 45 25 30 20 50 20 * Storage volume MWCOG, 1983; City of
DRYPOND - Detention fime Austin, 1990; Schueler
Reported Range: 5-90 10-55 20-60 0-40 25-65 (-40)-65 * Pond shape and Helfrich, 1988; Pope
and Hess, 1989; OWML,
Probable Range:' 70-90 10-60 20-60 30-40 20-60 40-60 1987; Wolinski and
Stack, 1990
No. Values Considered: 6 6 4 5 4 5

WET POND Average: 60 45 35 40 75 60 0 Pool volume Wotzka and Oberta,
- Pond shape 1988; Yousef et aL,
Reported Range: (-30)-91 10-85 5-85 5-90 10-95 10-95 1986; Cullum, 1985;
Driscoll, 1983; Driscoll,
Probable Range: 50-90 20-90 10-90 10-90 10-95 20-95 1986; MWCOG, 1983;
OWML, 1983; Yu and
No. Values Considered: 18 Is 9 7 13 13 Benemouffok, 1988;
Holler, 1989; Martin,
1988; Dorman et al.,
1989; OWML, 1982; City 9b
of Austin, 1990

Table 4-7. (Continued)
OD

33
Removal Efficiency
Zt

Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Factors References

EXTENDED DETENTION Average: 80 65 55 NA 40 20 . Pool volume Ontario Ministry of the
WETPOND - Pond shape Environment, 1991, cited
Reported Range: 50-100 50-80 55 NA 40 20 - Detention time in Schueler et al., 1992

Probable Range: 50-95 50-90 10-90 10-90 10-95 20-95

No. Values Considered: 3 3 1 0 1 1

CONSTRUCTED Average: 65 25 20 50 65 35 . Storage volume Harper et al., 1986;
STORMWATER WETLANDS * Detention time Brown, 1985; Wotzka
Reported Range: (-20)-100 (-120)-100 (-15)-40 20-80 30-95 (-30)-80 - Poolshape and Obert, 1988; Hickock
* Wetland's biota et al., 1977; Barten,
Probable Range!: 50-90 (-5)-80 0-40 30-95 --- * Seasonal variation 1987; Melorin, 1986;
Morris et al., 1981;
No. Values Considered: 23 24 8 2 10 8 Sherberger and Davis,
1982; ABAG, 1979;
Oberts.et al., 1989;
Rushton and Dye, 1990;
Hey and Barrett, 1991;
Martin and Smoot, 1986,
Reinelt et al., 1990, cited
in Woodward-Clyde,
rt] 1991

NA - Not available.
.Design criteria: storage volume equals 90% avg runoff volume, which completely drains in 72 hours; maximum depth 8 ft; minimum depth 2 ft.
bDesign criteria: storage volume equals 90% avg runoff volume, which completely drains in 72 hours; maximum depth 8 ft; minimum depth 3 ft; storage volume 40% excavated
trench volume.
Design criteria: flow depth < 0.3 ft, travel time > 5 min.
dDesign criteria: low slope and adequate length.
r ,Design criteria: min. ED time 12 hours.
b- f Design criteria: minimum area of wetland equal 1% of drainage area.
No information was available on the effectiveness of removing grease or oil.
Zr
Also reported as 90% TSS removed. [b
'73
Also reported as 50% TSS removed.

63 Table 4-8. Cost of Management Practices for Control of Runoff from Newly Developed Areas
4@1

Land
require- Construction Useful Annual
cC Practice ment cost life O&M Total annual cost References
ft3 a $0.05/ ft3
Infiltration Basin High Average: $0.5/ storage 25 Average: 7% of capital cost $0.03- Wiegand, et al, 1986;
I;z Probable Cost: $0.4 - $0.7/ft3 Reported Range: 3% - 13% of SWRPC, 1991
Reported Range: $0.2 _ $1.2/ ft3 capital cost
Infiltration Trench Low Average: $4.0/ ft3 storage 10a Average: 9% of capital cost $0.3- $0.9/ft3 Wiegand, et al, 1986;
Probable Cost: $2.5 - $7.5/ft3 Reported Range: 5% - 15% of Macal, et al, 1987;
Reported Range: $0.9 _ $9.2/ ft3 capital cost SWRPC, 1991; Kuo, et
al, 1988

Vegetative Filter Varies Established from existing 50b Natural succession allowed to Natural succession Schueler, 1987;
Strip vegetation- occur- allowed to occur- SWRPC, 1991
Average: $0 Average: $100/ acre
Reported Range: $0 Reported Range: $50 - $200/ Established from-
acre Natural vegetation:
Established from seed- $100/ acre
Average: $400/ acre Natural succession not allowed Seed: $125/ acre
Reported Range: $200 - $1,000/ to occur- Seed & mulch:
acre Average: $800/ acre $200/ acre
Reported Range: $700 - $900/ Sod: $700/ acre
Established from seed and acre
mulch- Natural succession
Average: $1,500/ acre not allowed to occur-
Reported Range: $800 - $3,500/
acre Established from:
natural vegetation:
Established from sod- $800/acre
Average: $11,300/ acre Seed: $825/acre
Reported Range: $4,500 - Seed & mulch:
$48,000/ acre $900/acre
Sod: $1,400/acre

Table 4-8 (continued)

Land
require- Construction Useful Annual
Practice ment cost life O&M Total annual cost References

Grass Swales Low Established from seed: 50b Established from seed or sod- Established from Schueler, 1987;
Average: $6.5/ lin A Average: $0.75/ lin ft seed: $1/lin ft SWRPC, 1991
Reported Range: $4.5 - $8.5/ lin Reported Range: $0.5 - $1.0/ lin
ft ft Established from
sod:
Established from sod: $211in ft
Average: $20/ lin ft
Reported Range: $8 - $50/ lin ft

Porous Pavement None Average: $1.5/ ft2 10 d Average: $0.0 1 / ft2 0.15/ ft2 C SWRPC, 1991; $~q0~.~q01/ ft2~c
Reported Range: $1 - $2/ft2c Reported Range: $0.01/ft2c Schueler, 1987

Concrete Grid None Average: $1/ ft2c 20 Average: (-$0.04)/ft2c 0.05/ ft.2 C Smith, 1981
Pavement Reported Range: $1-$2/ft2c Reported Range: (-$0.04)/ft2c

Sand Filter/ High Average: $5/ ft3 25 d Average: Not Available $0.1-$0.8/ft3 Tull, 1990
Filtration Basin Probable Cost: $2-$9/ft3 Probable Cost: 7% of
Reported Range: $1-$11 /ft3 construction cost
Reported Range: Not Available

Water Quality None Average: $2,000/ each 50 Average: $30/each' $150/ each SWRPC, 1991
Inlet Reported Range: $ 1,1100 - Reported Range: $20-40/each'
$3,000/ each

Water Quality None Average: $10,000/ drainage 50 Average: Not Available $700/ drainage acre Shaver, 1991
Inlet with Sand acre Probable Cost: $100/ drainage
Filters Reported Range: $10,000/ acre
drainage acre Reported Range: Not Available

Oil/Grit Separator None Average: $18,000/ drainage 50 Average: $20/ drainage acre' $1,000/ drainage Schueler, 1987
acre Reported Range: $5 - $40/ acre
Reported Range: $15,000 - drainage acref
$20,000/ drainage acre

Table 4-8 (continued) CD
4.
03

Land
require- Construction Useful Annual
Practice ment cost life O&M Total annual cost References

ft3 $0.3/ft3
1b Extended High Average $0.5/ storage 50 Average: 4% of capital cost $0.007- APWA Res.
Detention Dry Probable Cost: $0.09 - $5/ft3 Reported Range: 3% - 5% of Foundation
Pond Reported Range: $0.05 - $3.2/ capital cost
W

Wet Pond and High Storage Volume < 1,000,000 ft3 50 Average: 3% of capital cost $0.008 $0.07/ft3 APWA Res.
Extended Average: $0.5/ ft3 storage Probable Cost: Foundation; Wiegand,
Detention Wet Probable Cost: $0.5 _ $1/ft3 <100,000 ft3 = 5% of capital et al, 1986; Schueler,
Pond Reported Range: $0.05 - $1.0/ cost 1987; SWRPC, 1991
ft3 >100,000 & <1,000,000 ft3
3% of capital cost
Storage Volume > 1,000,000 ft3: >1,000,000 ft3 = 1% of capital
Average: $0.25/ ft3 storage cost
Probable Cost: $0.1 _ $0.5/ft3 Reported Range: 0.1% - 5% of
Reported Range: $0.05 _ $0.5/ft3 capital cost

Stormwater High Average: Not available 50b Average: Not Available Not available
Wetlands Reported Range: Not available Reported Range: Not Available

References indicate the useful life for infiltration basins and infiltration trenches at 25-50 and 10-15 years, respectively. Because of the high failure rate, infiltration basins are
assumed to have useful life span of 25 years and infiltration trenches are assumed to have useful life span of 10 years.
bUseful life taken as life of project, assumed to be 50 years.
cIncremental cost, i.e., cost beyond that required for conventional asphalt pavement.
dSince no information was available for useful life of porous pavement, it was assumed to be similar to that of infiltration trenches.
Since no information was available for useful lite of filtration basins it was assumed to be similar to that of infiltration basins.
Frequency of cleaning assumed 2 times per year.

Q
El,

11. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

districts, counties, and other agencies. The program has been well received and from February 1991 to July 1991,
over 1, 100 individuals from 300 companies and organizations participated in the program (Shaver and Piorko, 1992).

0 b. Ensure that all urban runoff facilities are operated and maintained properly.

Once an urban runoff facility is installed, it should receive thorough maintenance in order to function properly and
not pose a health or safety threat. Maintenance should occur at regular intervals, be performed by one or more
individuals trained in proper inspection and maintenance of urban runoff facilities, and be performed in accordance
with the adopted standards of the State or local government (Ocean County, undated). It is more effective and
efficient to perform preventative maintenance on a regular basis than to undertake major remedial or corrective action
on an as needed basis (Ocean County, undated).

Mc. Infiltration Basins

Infiltration basins are impoundments in which incoming urban runoff is temporarily stored until it gradually infiltrates
into the soil surrounding the basin. Infiltration basins should drain within 72 hours to maintain aerobic conditions,
which favor bacteria that aid in pollutant removal, and to ensure that the basin is ready to receive the next storm
(Schueler, 1987). The runoff entering the basin is pretreated to remove coarse sediment that may clog the surface
soil pore on the basin floor. Concentrated runoff should flow through a sediment trap, or a vegetated filter strip may
be used for sheet flow.

M d. Infiltration Trenches

Infiltration trenches are shallow excavated ditches that have been backfilled with stone to form an underground
reservoir. Urban runoff diverted into the trench gradually infiltrates from the bottom of the trench into the subsoil
and eventually into the ground water. Variations in the design of infiltration trenches include dry wells, pits designed
to control small volumes of runoff (such as the runoff from a rooftop), and enhanced infiltration trenches, which are
equipped with extensive pretreatment systems to remove sediment and oil. Depending on the quality of the runoff,
pretreatment will generally be necessary to lower the failure rate of the trench. More costly than pond systems in
terms of cost per unit of runoff treated, infiltration trenches are suited best for drainage areas of less than 5 to 10
acres or where ponds cannot be applied (Schueler et al., 1992).

e. Vegetated Filter Strips

Vegetated filter strips are areas of land with vegetative cover that are designed to accept runoff as overland sheet
flow from upstream development. They may closely resemble many natural ecotones, such as grassy meadows or
riparian forests. Dense vegetative cover facilitates sediment attenuation and pollutant removal. Vegetated filter strips
do not effectively treat high-velocity flows and are therefore generally recommended for use in agriculture and low-
density development and other situations where runoff does not tend to be concentrated. Unlike grassed slyales,
vegetated filter strips are effective only for overland sheet flow and provide little treatment for concentrated flows.
Grading and level spreaders can be used to create a uniformly sloping area that distributes the runoff evenly across
the filter strip (Dillaha et al., 1987). Vegetated filter strips are often used as pretreatment for other structural
practices, such as infiltration basins and infiltration trenches. Refer to Chapter 7 of this guidance for additional
information.

Filter strips are less effective on slopes of over 15 percent. Periodic inspection, repair, and regrading are required
to prevent channelization (Schueler et al., 1992). Inspection is especially important following major storm events.
Excessive use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals should be avoided. To minimize soil compaction,
vehicular traffic and excessive pedestrian traffic should be avoided.

A berm of sediment that must be periodically removed may form at the upper edge of grassed filter strips. Mowing
of grassed filter strips at a minimum of two to three times per year will maintain a thicker vegetative cover,

4-32 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IL Urban Runoff

providing better sediment retention. To avoid impacts on ground-nesting birds, mowing should be limited to spring
or fall (USEPA, undated). Harvesting of mowed vegetation will allow for thicker growth and promotes the retention
of nutrients that are released during decomposition (Dillaha et al., 1989).

Forested areas directly adjacent to waterbodies should be left undisturbed except for the removal of trees presenting
unusual hazards and the removal of small debris near the stream that may be refloated by high water. Periodic
harvesting of some trees not directly adjacent to waterbodies removes sequestered nutrients (Lowrance, Leonard, and
Sheridan, 1985) and maintains an efficient filter through vigorous vegetation (USEPA, undated). Exposure of
forested filter strip soil to direct radiation should be avoided to keep the temperature of water entering waterbodies
low, and moist conditions conducive to microbial activities in filter strip soil should be maintained (Nutter and
Gaskin, 1989).

Of. Grassed Swales

A grassed swale is an infiltration/filtration method that is usually used to provide pretreatment before runoff is
discharged to treatment systems. Grassed swales are typically shallow, vegetated, man-made ditches designed so
that the bottom elevation is above the water table to allow runoff to infiltrate into ground water. The vegetation or
turf prevents erosion, filters sediment, and provides some nutrient uptake (USDA-SCS, 1988). Grassed swales can
also serve as conveyance systems for urban runoff and provide sirnilar benefits.

The swale should be mowed at least twice each year to stimulate vegetative growth, control weeds, and maintain the
capacity of the system. It should never be mowed shorter than 3 to 4 inches. The established width should be
maintained to ensure the continued effectiveness and capacity of the system (Bassler, undated).

Mg. Porous Pavement and Permeable Surfaces

Porous pavement, an alternative to conventional pavement, reduces much of the need for urban runoff drainage
conveyance and treatment off-site. Instead, runoff is diverted through a porous asphalt layer into an underground
stone reservoir. The stored runoff gradually exfiltrates out of the stone reservoir into the subsoil. Many States no
longer promote the use of porous pavement because it tends to clog with fine sediments (Washington Department
of Ecology, 1991). A vacuum-type street sweeper should be used to maintain porous pavement.

Permeable paving surfaces such as modular pavers, grassed parking areas, and permeable pavements may also be
employed to reduce runoff volumes and trap vehicle-generated pollutants (Pitt, 1990; Smith, 1981); however, care
should be taken when selecting such alternatives. The potential for ground-water contamination, compaction, or
clogging due to sedimentation should be evaluated during the selection process. (NOTE: These practices should
be selected only in cases where proper operation and maintenance can be guaranteed due to high failure rates without
proper upkeep.)

M h. Concrete Grid Pavement

Concrete grid pavement consists of concrete blocks with regularly interdispersed void areas that are filled with
pervious materials, such as gravel, sand,.or grass. The blocks are typically placed on a sand or gravel base and
designed to provide a load-bearing surface that is adequate to support vehicles, while allowing infiltration of surface
water into the underlying soil.

M i. Water Quality Inlets

Water quality inlets are underground retention systems designed to remove settleable solids. Several designs of water
quality inlets exist. In their simplest form, catch basins are single-chambered urban runoff inlets in which the bottom
has been lowered to provide 2 to 4 feet of additional space between the outlet pipe and the structure bottom for
collection of sediment. Some water quality inlets include a second chamber with a sand filter to provide additional

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-33

Urban Runoff Chapter 4

removal of finer suspended solids by filtration. The first chamber provides effective removal of coarse particles and
helps prevent premature clogging of the filter media. Other water quality inlets include an oil/grit separator. Typical
oil/grit separators consist of three chambers. The first chamber removes coarse material and debris; the second
chamber provides separation of oil, grease, and gasoline; and the third chamber provides safety relief should blockage
occur (NVPDC, 1980). While water quality inlets have the potential to perform effectively, they are not
recommended. Maintenance and disposal of trapped residuals and hydrocarbons must occur regularly for these
devices to work. No acceptable clean-out and disposal techniques currently exist (Schueler et al., 1992).

Mj. Extended Detention Ponds

Extended detention (ED) ponds temporarily detain a portion of urban runoff for up to 24 hours after a storm, using
a fixed orifice to regulate outflow at a specified rate, allowing solids and associated pollutants the required time to
settle out. The ED ponds are normally "dry" between storm events and do not have any permanent standing -water.
These basins are typically composed of two stages: an upper stage, which remains dry except for larger storms, and
a lower stage, which is designed for typical storms. Enhanced ponds are equipped with plunge pools near the inlet,
a n-ticropool at the outlet, and an adjustable reverse-sloped pipe as the ED control device (orifice) (NVPDC, 1980;
Schueler et al., 1992). Temporary and most permanent ED ponds use a riser with an antivortex. trash rack on top
to control trash.

Wk. Wet Ponds

Wet ponds are basins designed to maintain a permanent pool of water and temporarily store urban runoff until it is
released at a controlled rate. Enhanced designs include a forebay to trap incoming sediment where it can easily be
removed. A fringe wetland can also be established around the perimeter of the pond.

0 L Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are engineered systems designed to simulate the water quality improvement functions of natural
wetlands to treat and contain surface water runoff pollutants and decrease loadings to surface waters. Where, site-
specific conditions allow, constructed wetlands or sediment retention basins should be located to have a minimal
impact on the surrounding areas. (The State of Washington requires that constructed wetlands be located in uplands
(Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).) In addition, constructed urban runoff wetlands differ from artificial
wetlands created to comply with mitigation requirements in that they do not replicate all of the ecological functions
of natural wetlands. Enhanced designs may include a forebay, complex microtopography, and pondscaping with
multiple species of wetland trees, shrubs, and plants. Additional information on constructed wetlands is provided
in Chapter 7.

M m. Filtration Basins and Sand Filters

Filtration basins are impoundments lined with filter media, such as sand or gravel. Urban runoff drains through the
filter media and perforated pipes into the subsoil. Detention time is typically 4 to 6 hours. Sediment-trapping
structures are typically used to prevent premature clogging of the filter media (NVPDC, 1980; Schueler et al., 1.992).

Sand filters are a self-contained bed of sand to which the first flush of runoff water is diverted. The runoff
percolates through the sand, where colloidal and particulate materials are strained out by the cake of solids that
forms, or is placed, on the surface of the media. Water leaving the filter is collected in underground pipes and
returned to the stream or channel. A layer of peat, limestone, and/or topsoil may be added to improve removal
efficiency.

4-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 IL Urban Runoff

On. Educate the public about the importance of runoff management facilities.

"... the value of a comprehensive public information and education program cannot be overemphasized. Such a
program must explain the basis, purpose, and details of the proposal and must convince the public and their elected
officials that it is both necessary to implement and beneficial to their interests. It must also explain the fundamentals
of storm water management facilities, the vital role they play in our lives, and their need for regular maintenance.
This information can be presented through flyers, brochures, posters, and other educational aids. Work sessions and
field trips can also be conducted. Signs at facility sites can also be erected. Finally, presentations to planning
boards, municipal councils and committees, and county freeholders by storm water management experts can also be
of great assistance" (New Jersey, undated).

5. Effectiveness and Cost Information

The box and whisker plot in Figure 4-3 summarizes efficiencies for selected structural TSS removal practices, as
reported by Schueler et al., 1992. The whiskers of each box represent the range of reported TSS removal
efficiencies. The box ends delimit the 25th and 75th percentiles. The horizontal line represents the median, or 50th
percentile. Circles represent outliers. Figure 4-3 and Table 4-7 illustrate the range of removal efficiencies, based
on monitoring and modeling studies, for total suspended solids for several of the structural practices. The reviewed
literature reported a median TSS removal efficiency above 80 percent for three practices-constructed wetlands, wet
ponds, and filtration basins. However, it has been reported that the other practices are capable of achieving 80
percent TSS removal efficiency when properly designed, sited, operated, and maintained. More detailed information
on the removal efficiencies of the practices and factors influencing the removal efficiencies is presented in Table 4-7.
Costs of the practices are shown in Table 4-8.

In many cases, a systems approach to best management practice (BMP) design and implementation may be more
effective. By applying multiple practices, enhanced runoff attenuation, conveyance, pretreatment, and treatment may
be attained (Schueler et al., 1992). In addition, regionalization of systems (installing and maintaining a BMP or
BM[Ps for more than one development site) may prove more efficient and cost-effective due to the economies of scale
of operating one large system versus several smaller systems.

100- Control Practice:

. .........
...... . ... ...
DED Dry ED Pond
..........
80--
12 ........ 10
25. 18 CSW Constructed Stormwater Weiland
2
7
> WP Wet Pond
60-
14:9 IB Infiltration Basin
VFS Vegetative Filter Strip
40 - 0 GS = Grass Swale
0 FB = Filtration Basin
......... WQI Water Quality Inlet
20 -
(Numbers in boxes represent
0 F number of data points.)
DED CSW WP IB VFS GS FB WQI

Figure 4-3. Removal efficiencies of selected urban runoff controls for TSS (adapted from Schueler et al., 1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-35

/I. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

rep;.

B. Watershed Protection Management Measure

Develop a watershed protection program to:
IN
(1) Avoid conversion, to the extent practicable, of areas that are particularly
susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;

(2) Preserve areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are
necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota; and

(3) Site development, including roads, highways, and bridges, to protect to the
extent practicable the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage
systems.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new development or redevelopment including
construction of new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges that generate nonpoint source pollutants. Under the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they
develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in
doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Poilution
Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollutants and to rniligate
the impacts of urban runoff and associated pollutants that result from new development or redevelopment, including
the construction of new and relocated roads, highways, and bridges. The measure is intended to provide general
goals for States and local governments to use in developing comprehensive programs for guiding future development
and land use activities in a manner that will prevent and mitigate the effects of nonpoint source pollution.

A watershed is a geographic region where water drains into a particular receiving waterbody. As discussed in the
introduction, comprehensive planning is an effective nonstructural tool available to control nonpoint source pollution.
Where possible, growth should be directed toward areas where it can be sustained with a minimal impact on the
natural environment (Meeks, 1990). Poorly planned growth and development have the potential to degrade and
destroy entire natural drainage systems and surface waters (Mantel et al., 1990). Defined land use designations and
zoning direct development away from areas where land disturbance activities or pollutant loadings from subsequent
development would severely impact surface waters. Defined land use designations and zoning also protect
environmentally sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, and vegetative buffers that serve as filters and trap
sediments, nutrients, and chemical pollutants. Refer to Chapter 7 for a thorough description of the benefits of
wetlands and vegetative buffers.

4-36 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 Urban Runoff

Areas such as strearnside buffers and wetlands may also have the added benefit of providing long-term pollutant
removal capabilities without the compaiatively high costs usually associated with structural controls. Conservation
or preservation of these areas is important to water quality protection. Land acquisition programs help to preserve
areas critical to maintaining surface water quality. Buffer strips along streambanks provide protection for stream
ecosystems and help to stabilize the stream and prevent streambank erosion (Holler, 1989). Buffer strips protect and
maintain near-stream vegetation that attenuates the release of sediment into stream channels and prevent excessive
loadings. Levels of suspended solids increase at a slower rate in stream channel sections with well-developed
riparian vegetation (Holler, 1989).

The availability of infrastructure specifically sewage treatment facilities, is also a factor in watershed planning. If
centralized sewage treatment is not available, onsite disposal systems (OSDS) most likely will be used for sewage
treatment. Because of potential ground-water and surface water contamination from OSDS, density restrictions may
be needed in areas where OSDS will be used for sewage treatment. Section VI of this chapter contains a more
detailed discussion of siting densities for OSDS.

3. Management Measure Selection and Effectiveness Information

This measure was selected for the following reasons:

(1) Watershed protection is a technique to provide long-term water quality benefits, and many States and local
communities already use this practice. Numerous State and local governments have already legislated and
implemented detailed watershed planning controls that are consistent with this management measure. For
example, Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, and Florida have passed legislation that requires county and
municipal governments to adopt comprehensive plans, including requirements to direct future development
away from sensitive areas. Several municipalities and regions, in addition to those in these States, have
adopted land use and growth controls, including Amherst, Massachusetts, the Cape Cod region, Norwood,
Massachusetts, and Narragansett, Rhode Island.

(2) Setting general water quality objectives oriented toward protection of environmentally sensitive areas and
areas that provide water quality benefits allows States flexibility in the pursuit of widely differing water
quality priorities and reduces potential conflicts that may arise due to existing State or local program goals
and requirements. Although public comments on the May 1991 draft guidance suggested that much more
specific criteria should be required, such as minimum setbacks from waterbodies, prohibitions on
development on slopes in excess of 45 degrees, and bans on development in floodplains, such prescriptive
measures are deemed unreasonable given the need for State and !ocal determination of priorities and
program direction.

(3) This measure is effective in producing long-term water quality benefits and lacks the high operation and
maintenance costs associated with structural controls.

By protecting those areas necessary for maintaining surface water quality in a natural or near natural state, adverse
impacts can be reduced. To illustrate the effectiveness of this management measure, two case studies are presented.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-37

IL Urban Runoff Chapter 4

CASE STUDY I - RHODE RIVER ESTUARY, CHESAPEAKE BAY, MARYLAND

An evaluation of the impact of the Maryland Critical Area Act on nonpoint source pollution (nutrients and
sediment) in surface runoff was completed by modeling three land use scenarios and determining the
relative change in nonpoint loadings from the Rhode River Critical Area. Research findings suggest that
the implementation of the Act will reduce nonpoint source nutrient and sediment loading by mandating
agricultural and urban best management practices (BMPs) and limiting development in forested lands.
Figure 4-4 illustrates the predicted nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from various land uses within the
watershed under various development scenarios. These predictions are based on the assumption that no
structural BMPs are in place.

New development allowed by the Critical Area Act is required to minimize impervious surfaces and reduce
nonpoint source pollution through urban BMPs. Results from this study indicate that by limiting the
impervious portion of a building site to 15 percent in the Rhode River Estuary, nutrient loadings could be
reduced by one-third when compared to similar development without this practice (Houlihan, 1990).

CASE STUDY 2 - ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Pollutant loading estimates can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of land planning on controlling
nonpoint source pollution, For example, Alameda County, California, has estimated seven pollutant
loadings for seven parameters by type of land use, as shown in Table 4-9. By leaving larger areas in
open space-through easements, buffers, clustering, or preserves-the potential pollutant loading to
San Francisco Bay can be reduced. For example, it is estimated that if 50 percent of a 100-acre parcel
designated for residential development is preserved in open space, pollutant loadings for zinc and total
suspended solids can be reduced by 50.24 percent and 49.76 percent, respectively, when compared to
residential development of the entire 100-acre parcel.

Table 4-9. Load Estimates for Six Land Uses in Alameda County, California
(based on average wet weather load, lblacre; adapted from Woodward-Clyde, 1991)

Total
Suspended
Land Use Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc Solids

Open N/A N/A NIA NIA N/A 0.002 0.75

Residential 0.002 0.026 0.058 0.134 0.037 0.424 52.16

Commercial 0.002 0.038 0.084 0.094 0.053 0.655 511.76

Transportation 0.003 0.050 0.112 0.259 0.071 0.274 683.23

Industrial 0.003 0.044 0.097 0.171 0.028 251,43

Industrial Park 0.002 0.026 0.057 0.101 0.017 0.479 148.88

4-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 1/. Urban Runoff

61060
60 - SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS

1: 1984 Land use.
2: Ma)dmum development allowed by the Critical
Area Act; growth allocation taken from
50 -
agricultural land.
3: Maidmum development allowed by the Critical
0 Area Act; growth allocation taken from
40 forest areas.
4: 100 percent conversion to urban areas.

0
20 -

10 -

4849
2855 2177 2216
504 518
0 rlK-x-xx mm
1 2 3 4
Scenario
Average Nitrogen Loading 0 Average Phosphorus Loading

Figure 4-4. Predicted total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in surface water after runoff from the Rhode River Critical
Area under different land use scenarios (Houlihan, 1990).

Considerable uncertainty is associated with the ability to quantify load reductions from various nonstructural practices
for controlling nonpoint source pollution (USEPA, 1990). Table 4-10 illustrates the general effectiveness of various
n
planning and site design practices. Many are described in the practices section of this management measure a d the
Site Development Management Measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 19,93 4-39

F:z
Q
Table 4-10. General Effectiveness of Various Nonstructural Control Practices (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1991)
:3

1. COASTAL DENSITYZONES;
Intense Zones 0 0 0 0 0
Rural Zones 0 0 a
Protection Zones 0 0 0 0
Overlay Zones a el 0 40 dD 0
Performance Zoning 0 0 0 0

11. ENVIRONMENTAL RESERVES
Alk look
Strearn Buffers w qP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
Watiand Buffers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0
Coastal Buffers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Expanded Buffers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Floodplaint-irnits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.
Steep Solis Limits 0 0 Ah
__w
Septic Limits 0 0 0 0 N
Wettand Protection- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDrestProtectiDn 0 o- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Habftat Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open Space Protection 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jill., .!.1 1,11
13
011*600 0000 0000 000M *GOO 0000 000M OOOM 0000 000M "00 000M 660w 0000 0ow

Table 4-10 (continued)

:3
A Le
I
4Z fs a
M. SITE PLMNING Z8 X. 8 10 go .-S iii.is
auster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PefformanceCriterta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mnirrize Imperviousness 0 0 0 0 0
EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL 0
'nme/Area Disturbanoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V POST DEVELOPMENT I
Urban Housekeeping 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fertfizar Control 0 0 m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Septic MaIntenanoa 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
HouseWd Hazardous Waste 0 0 0 0

fill I'll
IH, fpf,"; if! 11H 1111 11fl 11 1 Ill] M1 lin 'I.P J11; ji, All,
GOOR 000M 600m OOOM *00 0 *eon 0000 000M 600M *CON 000M 0000 *COE 000M 0000 980M

11. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

4. Watershed Protection Practices and Cost Information

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are describA for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices sel. forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

The most effective way to achieve this management measure is to develop a comprehensive program that
incorporates protection of surface waters with programs and plans for guiding growth and development. Planning
is an orderly process, and each step builds upon preceding steps. The following practices are part of the process and
can be modified to meet the needs of the community. Many of the practices can be incorporated into existing
activities being carried out by a local government, such as land planning, zoning, and site plan review. Other
activities, such as land acquisition programs, may have to be developed. Where cost and effectiveness information
was available, it was included in the discussion of the examples. The general cost and effectiveness of planning
programs are described after the practices.

0 a. Resource Inventory and Information Analysis

Before a comprehensive program can be developed, define the watershed boundaries, target areas, and pollutants of
concern, and conduct resource inventory and information analysis. These activities can be done by using best
available information or collecting primary data, depending on funding availability and the quality of available data.
Activities pursued under this process include: assessment of ground-water and surface water hydrology; evaluation
of soil type and ground cover; identification of areas with water quality impairments; and identification of
environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep or erodible uplands, wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, aquifer
recharge areas, drainage ways, and unique geologic formations. Once environmentally sensitive areas are identified,
areas that are integral to the protection of surface waters and the prevention of nonpoint source pollution can be
protected.

The following are examples of resource inventory and information analysis programs:

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

City of Virginia Three-phase natural areas Phase I (data collection) $13,867;
Beach, Virginia inventory to help planners and Phase 11 (field inventory) $54,624;
public officials develop practices and Phase III (final report) $15,225
for resource protection (Jenkins, 1991).

Richmond County, The Richmond County Resource In 1990, the program was supported
Virginia Information System (RIS) was by a $39,000 Federal Coastal Zone
developed to provide a basis for Management Grant, $45,000 from
responsible planning and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
development of shoreline areas. through a Virginia Environmental
The compilation and mapping of Endowment Grant, and $96,000 from
resource information are part of the county's comprehensive plan
the county's planning and zoning budget (Jenkins, 1991).
program.

b. Development of Watershed Management Plan

The resource inventory and information analysis component provides the basis for a watershed management plan.
A watershed management plan is a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of a watershed, including land
use, urban runoff control practices, pollutant reduction strategies, and pollution prevention techniques.

4-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 19-93

Chapter 4 ff Urban Runoff

For a watershed management plan to be effective, it should have measurable goals describing desired outcomes and
methods for achieving the goals. Goals, such as reducing pollutant loads to surface water by 25 percent, can be
articulated in a watershed management plan. Development and implementation of urban runoff practices, both
structural and nonstructural, can be incorporated as methods for achieving the goal. Table 4-11 describes the general
steps for developing a watershed management plan.

Table 4-11. Watershed Management: A Step-by-Step Guide
(Livingston and McCarron, 1992)

1 .Delineate and map watershed boundary and 10. Analysis.
sub-basins within the watershed. Determine infrastructure and natural resources
management needs within each watershed.
2. Inventory and map natural storm water
conveyance and storage systems. 11. Set resource management goals and
objectives.
3. Inventory and map man-made storm water Before corrective actions can be taken, a
conveyance and storage system. resource management target must be set. The
This includes all ditches, swales, storm sewers, target can be defined in terms of water quality
detention ponds, and retention areas and standards; attainment and preservation of
includes information such as size, storage beneficial uses; or other local resource
capacity, and age. management objectives.

4. Inventory and map land use by sub-basin. 12. Determine pollutant reduction (for existing and
future land uses) needed to achieve water
5. Inventory and map detailed soils by sub-basin. quality goals.

6, Establish a clear understanding of water 13, Select appropriate management practices
resources in the watershed. (point source, nonpoint source) that can be
Analyze water quality, sediment, and biological used to achieve the goal.
data. Analyze subjective information on problems Evaluate pollutant removal effectiveness, land
(such as citizen complaints). Evaluate waterbody owner acceptance, financial incentives and
use impairment-frequency, timing, seasonality of costs, availability of land operation and
problem. Conduct water quantity assessment-low maintenance needs, feasibility, and availability of
flows, seasonality. technical assistance.

7. Inventory pollution sources in the watershed. 14. Develop watershed management Plan.
Point sources-location, pollutants, loadings, flow, Since the problems in each watershed will be
capacity, etc. Nonpoint sources-type, location, unique, each watershed management plan will
pollutants, loading, etc. be specific. However, all watershed plans will
- land use/loading rate analysis for storm water; include elements such as:
- sanitary survey for septic tanks; -existing and future land use plan;
- dry flow monitoring to locate illicit discharges - master storm water management plan that
addresses existing and future needs;
8. Identify and map future land use by sub-basin. - wastewater management plan including septic
Conduct land use loading rate analyses to assess tank maintenance programs;
potential effects of various land use scenarios. - infrastructure and capital improvements plan

9. Identify planned infrastructure improvements-
5-year, 20-year.
Stormwater management deficiencies should be
coordinated and scheduled with other
infrastructure or development projects.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-43

l/. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

Development of a watershed management plan may involve establishing general land use designations that define
allowable activities on a parcel of land. For example, land designated for low-density residential use would be
limited to a density of two houses per acre, provided that all other regulations and requirements are met. All
development activities allowed in a use category should be defined. By guiding uses within the planning areas,
impacts to surface waters from urban runoff can be controlled. Those areas identified in the resource inventory and
information analysis phase as environmentally sensitive and important to maintaining water quality can be preserved
through various measures supported by State or local goals, objectives, and policies.

The following are examples of plan development:

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

Florida Local governments (counties and Cost information specific
incorporated municipalities) were required to those parts of the
to develop comprehensive plans based on plans relating to NPS
existing information to guide growth and pollution was not
development in the short term (5 years) available.
and long term (20 to 25 years).
Local plans must be consistent with the
State plan and the State Growth
Management law.
Each plan must identify environmentally
sensitive areas and areas with water
quality problems.

Fairfax County, - The Environmental Quality Corridor (EQC) The cost of implementing
Virginia System was established to preserve the program is part of the
floodplains, wetlands, shoreline areas, and operating budget of the
steep valley slopes. County Planning
� EQCs are defined in the county's Department (Fairfax
comprehensive plan and identified on the County Planning
county land use map. Department, personal
� If a parcel of land subject to a zoning or communication, 1991).
land use designation change contains an
EQC, it is set aside by the developer as
part of development approval. Since its
initiation, tens of thousands of acres have
been set aside through the EQC program.

Howard County, * A Land Preservation and Recreation Plan The annual cost to
Maryland was developed as part of the county update the plan, $25,000,
comprehensive plan. is funded by the State.
0 Open space resources are purchased for In FY 1990, the county
preservation and recreation. received $1.14 million in
State funds to update the
plan and to acquire land
(Jenkins, 1991).

c. Plan Implementation

Once critical areas have been 'identified, land use designations have been defined, and goals have been established
to guide activities in the watershed, implementation strategies can be developed. At this point, the requiremmts of
future development are defined. These requirements include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, constwuction
techniques, and protective maintenance measures. Land development regulations may also prescribe natural
performance standards; for example, "rates of runoff or soil loss should be no greater than predevelopment

4-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuarV 1993

Chapter 4 Urban Runoff

conditions" (USEPA, 1977). Listed below are examples of the types of development regulations and other
implementation tools that have been successful at controlling nonpoint source pollution.

� Development of ordinances or regulations requiring NPS pollution controls for new development and
redevelopment.

These ordinances or regulations should address, at a minimum:

(1) Control of off-site urban runoff discharges (to control potential impacts of flooding);

(2) The use of source control BMPs and treatment BMPs;

(3) The performance expectations of BMPs, specifying design storm size, frequency, and minimum
removal effectiveness, as specified by the State or local government;

(4) The protection of stream channels, natural drainage ways, and wetlands;

(5) Erosion and sediment control requirements for new construction and redevelopment; and

(6) Treatment BMP operation and maintenance requirements and designation of responsible parties.

� Infrastructure planning

Infrastructure planning is the multiyear scheduling and implementation of public physical improvements
(infrastructure), such as roads, sewers, potable water delivery, landfills, public transportation, and urban
runoff management facilities. Infrastructure planning can be an effective practice to help guide development
patterns away from areas that provide water quality benefits, are susceptible to erosion, or are sensitive to
disturbance or pollutant loadings. Where possible, long-term comprehensive plans to prevent the conversion
of these areas to more intensive land uses should be drafted and adopted. Infrastructure should be planned
for and sited in areas that have the capacity to sustain environmentally sound development. Development
tends to occur in response to infrastructure availability, both existing and planned. New development should
be targeted for areas that have adequate infrastructure to support growth in order to promote infill
development, prevent urban sprawl, and discourage the use of septic tanks where they are inappropriate
(international City Management Association, 1979). Infill development may have the added advantage of
municipal cost savings.

To discourage development in the environmentally sensitive East Everglades area, Dade County, Florida,
has developed an itrban services boundary (USB). In areas outside the USB, the county will not provide
infrastructure and has kept land use densities very low. This strategy was selected to prevent urban sprawl,
protect the Everglades wetlands (outside of Everglades National Park), and minimize the costs of providing
services countywide. The area is defined in the county comprehensive plan, and restrictions have been
implemented through the land development regulations (Metro-Dade Comprehensive Development Master
Plan, 1988).

Congress has enacted similar legislation for the protection of coastal barrier islands. In 1981, the
availability of Federal flood insurance for new construction on barrier islands was discontinued. In 1982,
Congress passed the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, establishing the Coastal Barrier Resource System
(CBRS), and terminated a variety of Federal assistance programs for designated coastal barriers, including
grants for new water, sewage, and transportation systems. In 1988, similar legislation was passed for the
Great Lakes area, adding 112 Great Lakes barrier islands. Additions to the CBRS in 1990 included parts
0 of the Florida Keys, the U,S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Great Lakes (Simmons, 19911.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 4-45

11. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

The result of the legislation and subsequent additions to the CBRS has been the establishment of 1,394,059
acres of barriers that are ineligible for Federal assistance for infrastructure and flood insurance (Simmons,
1991). This Act has helped to guide development away from these sensitive coastal areas to more suitable
locations.

� Local ordinances

Zoning is the division of a municipality or county into districts for the purpose of regulating land use.
Usually defined on a map, the allowable uses within each zone are described in an official document, such
as a zoning ordinance. Zoning is enacted for a variety of reasons, including preservation of environmentally
sensitive areas and areas necessary to maintain the environmental integrity of an area (International City
Management Association, 1979).

Within zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations govern the process by which individual lots of land are
created out of larger tracts. Subdivision regulations are intended to ensure that subdivisions are
appropriately related to their surroundings. General site design standards, such as preservation of
environmentally sensitive areas, are one example of subdivision regulations (International City Management
Association, 1979).

Farmland preservation ordinances are another measure that can be implemented to provide open space
retention, habitat protection, and watershed protection. Farmland protection may be a less costly means of
controlling pollutant loadings than the implementation of urban runoff structural control practices. Much
of the farmland currently being converted has soils that are stable and not highly erodible. Conversion of
these farmlands often displaces farming activities to less productive, more erodible areas that may require
increased nutrient and pesticide applications.

� Limits on impervious surfaces, encouragement of open space, and promotion of cluster development

As described earlier, urban runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants washed off impervious surfaces
(roadways, parking lots, loading docks, etc.). By retaining the greatest area of pervious surface and
maximizing open space, nonpoint source pollution due to runoff from impervious surfaces can be kept to
a minimum.

The following are examples of open space requirements and cluster development:

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

Brunswick, 0 Recently adopted an allowable impervious Accomplished with a $28,000
Maine area threshold of 5 percent of the site to be grant (Brunswick Planning
developed in the defined Coastal Protection Department,personal
Zone. communication, 1991).
* The remaining 95 percent must be left
natural or landscaped.

Commonwealth * Provides general guidance with regard to Cost information specific to
of Virginia minimum open space/maximum impervious those parts of the guidance
areas to local governments within the relating to NPS pollution was
Chesapeake Bay watershed. not available.
0 While specific requirements are not
associated with the guidance, local
government plans must contain criteria and
must be approved by the Chesapeake Bay
Local Assistance Board.

4-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaiy 1993

Chapter 4 /1. Urban Runoff

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

Carroll County, 0 Amended its zoning ordinance to encourage Developed using existing
Maryland cluster development and preserve open county staff and funding.
space.
0 This requirement has been applied to three
subdivisions in the county and has resulted
in the protection of more than 200 acres of
wetlands (Carroll County Planning
Department, personal communication,
1991).

State of 0 Adopted the Forest Conservation Act of
Maryland 1991. Not available.
a Requires all public agency and private
landowner submitting a subdivision plan or
application for a sediment control permit for
an area greater than 40,000 square feet to
develop a forest conservation plan for
retention of existing forest cover on the site.
0 Clearing essential to site development is
allowed.
0 The Act also established a forest
conservation fund for reforestation projects.

Broward 0 Implements an open space program and Developed using existing
County, Florida encourages cluster development to reduce county staff and funding.
the amount of impervious surface, to protect
water quality, and to enhance aquifer
recharge (Broward County, Florida, Land
Development Code, 1990).

New Hampshire 0 Model shoreland protection ordinance. Not available.
0 Encourages grouping of residential units
provided a minimum of 50 percent of the
total parcel remains as open space.

One way to increase open space while allowing reasonable development of land is to encourage cluster
development. Clustering entails decreasing the allowable lot size while maintaining the number of allowable
units on a site. Such policies provide planners the flexibility to site buildings on more suitable areas of the
property and leave environmentally sensitive areas undeveloped. Criteria can be varied.

Setback (buffer zone) standards

In coastal areas, setbacks or buffer zones adjacent to surface waterbodies, such as rivers, estuaries, or
wetlands, provide a transition between upland development and waterbodies. The use of setbacks or buffer
zones may prevent direct flow of urban runoff from impervious areas into adjoining surface waters and
provide pollutant removal, sediment attenuation, and infiltration. Riparian forest buffers function as filters
to remove sediment and attached pollutants, as transformers that alter the chemical composition of
compounds, as sinks that store nutrients for an extended period of time, and as a source of energy for
aquatic life (USEPA, 1992). Setbacks or buffer zones are commonly used to protect coastal vegetation and
wildlife corridors, reduce exposure to flood hazards, and protect surface waters by reducing and cleansing
urban runoff (Mantell et al., 1990). The types of development allowed in these areas are usually limited
to nonhabitable structures and those necessary to allow reasonable use of the property (docks, nonenclosed
gazebos, etc.).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-47

I/. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

Factors for delineating setbacks and buffer zones vary with location and environment and include seasonal
water levels, the nature and extent of wetlands and floodplains, the steepness of adjacent topography, the
type of riparian vegetation, and wildlife values.

EPA recommends that no habitat-disturbing activities should occur within tidal or nontidal wetlands. In
addition, a buffer area should be established that is adequate to protect the identified wetland values.
Minimum widths for buffers should be 50 feet for low-order headwater streams with expansion to as much
as 200 feet or more for larger streams. In coastal areas, a 100-foot minimum buffer of natural vegetation
landward from the mean high tide line helps to remove or reduce sediment, nutrients, and toxic substances
entering surface waters (MWCOG, 1991).

Examples of setback or buffer requirements include the following:

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

Monroe County, Requires a setback of 20 feet from high water Developed using existing
Florida on man-made or lawfully altered shorelines for county staff and funding.
all enclosed structures and 50 feet from the
landward extent of mangroves or mean high
tide line for natural waterbodies with unaltered
shorelines (Monroe County, Florida, Code,
Section 9.5-286).
Town of Requires a buffer of 125 to 300 feet from Developed using a $28,000
Brunswick, mean high water within the Coastal Protection grant (Brunswick Planning
Maine Zone (Section 315 of the Brunswick Zoning Department, personal
Ordinance), depending on the slope of the communication, 1991).
buffer, as designated on the land use map.

Queen Annes Established a standard shore buffer of 300 Developed using existing
County, feet from the edge of tidal water or wetland, county staff and funding; a
Maryland 50 percent of which must be forested. bond of surety to cover the
cost of implementation is
required prior to development
(Jenkins, 1991).
Maryland Critical 9 Requires a 25-foot buffer around nontidal Developed as part of the
Areas wetlands and 100 feet landward of mean high Chesapeake Bay Critical
Regulations water in tidal areas. Areas program.
0 Allowable uses within the setback area are
defined in the regulations (Chesapeake Bay
Critical Areas Commission, 1988).

City of * Buffers are required as part of the city's Not available.
Alexandria, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance.
Virginia 0 Applies to all designated Resource Protection
Areas (RPAs).
0 The buffer must achieve
75 percent reduction of sediments and 40
percent reduction of nutrients (100-foot-wide
buffer is considered adequate to achieve this
standard; smaller widths may be allowed if
they are proven to meet the sediment and
nutrient removal requirements).
* Indigenous vegetation removal is limited to
that necessary to provide reasonable sight
lines, access paths, general woodlot
management, and BMP implementation.

4-48 EPA-840-8-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 4 fl. Urban Runoff

LOCATION PROGRAM COST

Northeastern 0 Model ordinance Not available
Illinois Planning 0 Suggests 75-foot setback from the ordinary
Commission high watermark of streams, lakes, ponds, and
edge of wetlands or the boundary of the 100-
year floodplain (as defined by FEMA),
whichever is greater.
0 Suggests a minimum 25-fool-wide natural
vegetation strip from the ordinary highwater
mark of perennial and intermittent streams,
lakes, ponds, and the edge of wetlands.

� Slope restrictions

Slope restrictions can be effective tools to control erosion and sediment transport. Erosion rates depend on
several site-specific factors including soil type, vegetative cover, and rainfall intensity. In general, as slope
increases, there is a corresponding increase in runoff water velocity, which may result in increased erosion
and sediment transport to surface waters (Schwab et al., 1981; Dunn and Leopold, 1978). The Maryland
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program prohibits clearing on slopes greater than 25 percent (Chesapeake
Bay Critical Areas Commission, 1988).

� Site plan reviews and approval

A site plan review involves review of specific development proposals for consistency with the laws and
regulations of the local government of jurisdiction. To ensure that natural resources necessary for protecting
surface water quality are preserved, inspection of a potential development site should occur. Inspection
ensures that the information presented in any application for development approval is accurate and that
sensitive areas are noted for preservation. Inspections should also be conducted during and after
development to ensure compliance with development conditions. Depending on the size of the local
government and the amount of new development occurring, this inspection could be incorporated into the
duties of existing staff at minimal additional cost to the local government or could require the addition of
staff to conduct onsite inspections and monitoring. The effectiveness of such a program depends on the
ability of the inspectors to evaluate property for its natural resource value and the practices used to protect
areas necessary for the preservation of water quality.

Development approvals should contain conditions requiring steps to be taken to maintain the environmental
integrity of the area and prevent degradation due to nonpoint source pollution, consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the comprehensive program and the requirements of the land development
regulations. The criteria for new development are outlined as part of a development permit. Examples
include the following:

- Areas for preservation or mitigation may be identified, similar to the Fairfax County Environmental
Quality Corridor System (page 44).

- The use of nonstructural and structural best management practices described in this chapter for
controlling nonpoint source pollution may be a condition of development approval.

- Setbacks and limits on impervious areas may be clearly defined in a condition for development approval,
as is being done in the programs discussed earlier such as Monroe County, Florida, Queen Annes
County, Maryland, State of Maryland Critical Areas Program, Town of Brunswick, Maine, and the
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (pages 48 and 49).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-49

Il. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

- Reduce the use of pesticides and fertilizers on landscaped areas by encouraging the use of vegetation that
is adaptable to the enviro nment and requires minimal maintenance. (Xeriscaping is described later in
this chapter.)

� Designation of an entity or individual who is responsible for maintaining the infrastructure, including the
urban runoff management systems

The responsible party should be trained in the maintenance and management of urban runoff management
systems. If desired, the local government could be designated to maintain urban runoff systems, with
financial compensation from the developer. Because they are not usually trained in infrastructure
maintenance, homeowners groups are not the best entity for monitoring infrastructure for adequacy,
especially urban runoff management systems. This responsibility should belong to a responsible party who
understands the complexity of urban runoff management systems, can determine when such systernsare not
functioning property, and has the resources to correct the problem. Again, this is a duty that the local
government can assume, with either existing staff or additional staff, depending on the size of the local
government and the amount of new development occurring. The amount of funding needed depends on the
size of the local government.

� Official mapping

Official maps can be used to designate and/or protect environmentally sensitive areas, zoning districts,
identified land uses, or other areas that provide water quality benefits. When approved by the local
governing body, these maps can be used as legal instruments to make land use decisions related to nonpoint
source pollution.

� Environmental impact assessment statements

To evaluate the impact that proposed development may have on the natural resources of an area, some
counties and municipalities require an environmental assessment as part of the development approval
processes. These assessments can be incorporated into the land development regulation process. Areas to
be covered include geology, slopes, vegetation, historical features, wildlife, and infrastructure needs
(International City Management Association, 1979).

M d. Cost of Planning Programs

Cost information was provided for several of the practices discussed in this section. The cost of planning programs
depends on a variety of factors, including the level of effort needed to complete and implement a program. As
discussed earlier, many of the practices described in this section can be incorporated into ongoing activities of a
State or local government.

The Florida legislature funded the development of comprehensive programs and land development regulations
required by the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act 1,1985).
Distribution of funds was based on population according to formulas used for determining funding for the plan and
land development regulations. A base amount was given to all counties that requested it. The balance of the monies
was allocated to each county in an amount proportionate to its share of the total unincorporated population ofall the
counties. A similar distribution process was used for local governments. A total of $2.1 million was allocated for
plan development; however, not all components of the plans address NPS issues.

The effect of planning programs depends on many variables, including implementation of programs and mortitoring
of conformance with conditions of development approval.

4-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 /1. Urban Runoff

5. Land or Development Rights Acquisition Practices and Cost Information

An effective way to preserve land necessary for protecting the environmental integrity of an area is to acquire it
outright or to limit development rights. The following practices can be used to protect beneficial uses,

a. Fee Simple AcquisitionlConservation Easements

The most direct way to protect land for preservation purposes and associated nonpoint source control functions is
fee simple acquisition, through either purchase or donation. Once a suitable area is identified for preservation, the
area may be acquired along with the development rights. The more development rights that are associated with a
piece of property, the more expensive the property. Many State and local governments and private organizations
have programs for purchasing land.

Conservation easements are restrictions put on property that legally restrict the present and future use of the land.
For preservation purposes, the easement holder is usually not the owner of the property and is able to control
property rights that a landowner could use that might cause adverse impacts to resources on the property. In effect,
the property owner gives up development rights within the easement while retaining fee ownership of the property
(Mantell et al., 1990; Barrett and Livermore, 1983).

M b. Transfer of Development Rights

The principle of transfer of development rights (TDR) is based on the concept that ownership of real property
includes the ownership of a bundle of rights that goes with it. These rights may include densities granted by a
certain use designation, environmental permits, zoning approvals, and others. Certain properties have a bigger bundle
of rights than others, depending on what approvals have been received by the owner. The TDR system takes all or
some of the rights on one piece of property and moves them to another parcel. The purpose of TDRs is to shift
future development potential from an area that is determined to be unsuitable for development (sending site) to an
area deemed more suitable (receiving site). The development potential can be measured in a variety of ways,
including number of dwelling units, square footage, acres, or number of parking spaces. Most TDR systems require
a legal restriction for future development on the sending site. TDR programs can be either fixed so that there are
only a certain number of sending and receiving sites in an area or flexible so that a sender and receiver can be
matched as the situation allows (Mantell et al., 1990; Barrett and Livermore, 1983).

This system is useful for the preservation of those areas thought necessary for maintaining the quality of surface
waters in that development rights associated with the environmentally sensitive areas can be transferred to less
sensitive areas. There are several examples in the United States where TDRs have been used. Some of the more
successful projects involve preservation of the New Jersey Pine Barrens and the Santa Monica Mountains in
California. For the TDR concept to work, receiving and sending sites should be identified and evaluated, a program
that is simple and flexible should be developed, and the use of the program should be promoted and facilitated
(Mantell et al., 1990).

c. Purchase of Development Rights

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-51

//. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

In this process, the rights of development are purchased while the remaining rights remain with the fee titleholder.
Restrictions in the deed make it clear that the land cannot be developed based on the rights that have been purchased
(Mantel] et al., 1990).

Howard County, Maryland, has the goal of preserving 20,000 acres of farmland. Development rights are acquired
in perpetuity with one-fourth of one percent of the local land transfer tax used as funding. There is no cap on the
percent of assessed value that may be considered development value, and payment for development rights may be
spread over 30 years to ease the capital gains tax burden on the landowner (Jenkins, 1991).

Md. Land Trusts

Land trusts may be established as publicly or privately sponsored nonprofit organizations with the goal of holding
lands or conservation easements for the protection of habitat, water quality, recreation, or scenic value or for
agricultural preservation. A land trust may also preacquire properties that are conservation priorities if the land trust
enters the development market when government funds are not immediately available by acquiring bank funding with
the government as guarantor (Jenkins, 1991).

M e. Agricultural and Forest Districts

Agricultural or forest districting is an alternative to acquisition of land or development rights. Jurisdictions may
choose to allow landowners to apply for designation of land as an Agricultural or Forest District. Tax benefits are
received in exchange for a commitment to maintain the land in agriculture, forest, or open space.

Fairfax County, Virginia, taxes land designated as Agricultural or Forest District b 'ased on the present use vduation
rather than the usual potential use valuation. A commitment to agricultural or forestry activities must be shown, and
sound land management practices must be used. The districts are established and renewed for 8-year periods (jr enkins,
1991).

0 f. Cost and Effectiveness of Land Acquisition Programs

The -cost associated with land acquisition programs varies, depending on the desired outcome. If land is to be
purchased, the cost will vary depending on the value of the land. An additional cost to be considered is the
maintenance of the property once it is in public ownership. Easements and development rights are less expensive,
and maintenance of the property is retained by the owner. Depending on the size of the local government,
implementation of these programs is usually part of the operating budget of the appropriate agency (planning
department or parks and recreation department, for example) and additional operational funding for implementation
is dependent on the size of the local government.

The effectiveness of a land acquisition program is determined by the size of the parcel and the difference between
predevelopment and potential postdevelopment pollutant loading rates. In addition, wetlands and riparian areas have
been shown to reduce pollutant loadings. The acquisition and preservation of these areas can be extremely important
to water quality protection and decrease the cost of implementing structural BMPs. However, the use of viedands
for urban runoff treatment, in general, should be discouraged. Where no other alternative exists, States and local
governments can target upland areas for acquisition to minimize the impacts to wetlands and preserve the function
of wetlands. One option for acquiring land is a public/private partnership. Several examples of such partnerships
exist throughout the country. Harford County, Maryland, has targeted areas for purchase of conservation easements.
The county staff is working jointly with a local land trust to acquire conservation easements and to educate people
in environmentally sound land use practices. The estimated cost for the program is $60,000 per year (Jenkins, 1991).
To aid in the establishment of two local land trusts, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, provided $350,000 in seed
money for capital expenditures such as land and easement procurement. The county also gives staff assisi=ce to
volunteers; additional support comes from contributions of money or land, grants, and fundraisers (Jenkins 1991).

4-52 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 4 IL Urban Runoff

C. Site Development Management Measure

Plan, design, and develop sites to:

(1) Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;

(2) Limit increases of impervious areas, except where necessary;

(3) Limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, and cut and fill
to reduce erosion and sediment loss; and

(4) Limit disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all site development activities including those
associated with roads, highways, and bridges. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,
tates are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this
management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is
dsescribed more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval
Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollution and to mitigate the
impacts of urban runoff and associated pollutants from all site development, including activities associated with roads,
highways, and bridges. Management Measure ILC is intended to provide guidance for controlling nonpoint source
pollution through the proper design and development of individual sites. This management measures differs from
Management Measure ILA, which applies to postdevelopment runoff, in that Management Measure ILC is intended
to provide controls and policies that are to be applied during the site planning and review process. These controls
and policies are necessary to ensure that development occurs so that nonpoint source concerns are incorporated
during the site selection and the project design and review phases. While the goals of the Watershed Protection
Management Measure (ILB) are similar, Management Measure ILC is intended to apply to individual sites rather
than watershed basins or regional drainage basins. The goals of both the Site Development and Watershed Protection
Management Measures are, however, intended to be complementary and the measures should be used within a
comprehensive framework to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

Programs designed to control nonpoint source pollution resulting from site development, both during and after
construction, should be developed to include provisions for:

Site plan review and conditioned approval to ensure that the integrity of environmentally sensitive areas and
areas necessary for maintaining surface water quality will not be lost;

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 4-53

IL Urban Runoff Chapter 4

� Requirements for erosion and sediment control plan review and approval prior to issuance of appropriate
development permits; and

� Guidance on appropriate pollution prevention practices to be incorporated into site development and use.

In addition to the preceding provisions, where applicable, the following objectives should be incorporated into, the
site development process:

� During site development, disturb the smallest area necessary to perform current activities to reduce erosion
and offsite transport of sediment;

� Avoid disturbance of unstable soils or soils particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss, and. favor
sites where development will minimize erosion and sediment loss;

� Where appropriate, protect and retain indigenous vegetation to decrease concentrated flows and to maintain
site hydrology;

� Minimize, to the extent practicable, the percentage of impervious area on-site;

� Properly manage all maintained landscapes to avoid water quality impacts;

� Avoid alteration, modification, or destruction of natural drainage features on-site; and

� Design sites so that natural buffers adjacent to coastal waterbodies and their tributaries are preserv4A.

The use of site planning and evaluation can significantly reduce the cost of providing structural controls to retain
sediment on the development site. Long-term maintenance burdens may also be reduced. Good site planning not
only can attenuate runoff from development, but also can improve the effectiveness of the conveyance and tre4itment
components of an urban runoff management system (MWCOG, 1991).

During the site design process, planners should further identify sensitive areas and land forms that may provide, water
quality protection. These areas should be targeted for preservation or conservation and incorporated into site design.
Highly erodible soils should be avoided. By siting development away from erodible soils, it is possible to
significantly reduce the amount of erosion, although soil type, topography, vegetation, and climatological conditions
affect the degree of erosion resulting from land disturbance activities both during and after construction. In the
United States, it has been estimated that human activity causes the transport of nearly 4 billion tons of sediment
annually, one-fourth of which eventually reaches the ocean. Sediment loads from developing areas where new
construction is occurring can be 5 to 500 times greater than loadings from undeveloped rural areas (Gray, 1972).
Natural erosion rates from forested areas or well-sodded prairies are in the range of 0. 1 to 1.0 ton of soil JX.-r acre
per year (Washington Department of Ecology, 1989). Because many nonpoint source pollutants, including heavy
metals and nutrients, adsorb to sediments, it is important to limit the volume of sediment leaving a site and entering
surface waters.

The Maryland State Highway Administration has developed initiatives to protect sensitive habitats as part of the
governor's program to clean up and preserve the Chesapeake Bay. A selection of these initiatives include the
following:

� Use of turbidity curtains to protect sensitive sections of a waterway during construction;

� Inspection and maintenance of runoff controls after every storm event;

� Immediate notification of noncompliance and follow-up inspection, when noncompliance occurs;

4-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IL Urban Runoff

A 72-hour stabilization requirement;

Oversizing of sediment traps and basins depending on right-of-way constraints;

Innovative scheduling for paving versus vegetative stabilization and implementation of infiltration practices
to reduce thermal impacts;

Minimal clearing of forest areas; and

Installation of traps and basins prior to grading (Maryland State Highway Administration, 1990).

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because the components of the measure have already been implemented, to
varying degrees, by State and local governments. For example, the States of California, Maryland, Delaware, and
Florida and the local governments of Montgomery, Prince Georges, and Anne Arundel counties in Maryland have
implemented these concepts in State or local ordinances and in erosion and sediment control regulations. This
measure is intended to provide States and local governments with general guidance on nonpoint source pollution
objectives that can be integrated into the site planning process. The components of the management measure were
selected to represent the minimum provisions that State and local governments must implement.

This approach was adopted to use existing programs and staff, thereby reducing administrative burdens and
implementation costs as much as possible. A significant number of local governments have programs to oversee and
review the site development process. In many communities, the costs of implementing this measure within the scope
of existing programs may be nominal.

4. Practices and Cost Information for Control of Erosion During Site
Development

N a. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Programs

Structural control measures for reducing impacts from erosion during site construction are discussed in the
Construction Management Measure. These practices can be implemented as part of plans established in erosion and
sediment control ordinances by local government or State laws. A well-thought-out plan for urban runoff
management on construction sites can control erosion, retain sediments on the site, and reduce the environmental
effects of runoff. In addition to a plan for BMP use, contractors should develop schedules that minimize the area
of exposed soil at any given time, particularly during times of heavy or frequent rains. Table 4-12 lists items that
should be considered in an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan. Table 4-13 contains examples of sediment and
erosion control requirements implemented at the State and local levels. All temporary erosion and sediment control
practices that will be used during the construction phase should be detailed in architectural or engineering drawings
to ensure that they are properly implemented. Inclusion of temporary pollution control practices on construction
drawings also ensures that their costs are included in the pricing and bidding process (USEPA, 1973).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-55

Table 4-12. Items to Consider in Developing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
(Adapted from Goldman, 1986)

Item Description

Schedule grading and * Schedule projects so clearing and grading are done during the dry season or the time of minimum erosion potential. Many parts
construction to of the country have a time of year when erosion potential is relatively low and carefully planned construction scheduling could be
minimize soil very effective.
exposure. 0 Stage construction so that one area can be stabilized before another is disturbed. This practice reduces the time that an area is
left unstabilized.

Retain existing 0 Clear only those areas that are essential for completing site construction.
vegetation wherever * Avoid disturbing vegetation on steep slopes or other critical areas and locate material stockpiles, borrow areas, and access
feasible. roads away from critical areas.
Route construction traff ic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation.
Physically mark off limits of land disturbance with tape, signs, or barriers. This ensures that the bulldozer operator knows the
proposed limits of clearing.
Protect natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, retaining walls, or tree walls.
Stabilize all denuded During favorable seeding dates and in areas where vegetation can be established, the following should be implemented:
areas within 15 Use seeding and fertilizing in very flat, nonsensitive areas with favorable soils.
calendar days after Use seeding and mulching for less erosive soil or on moderately steep slopes with moderately erosive soils in relatively
final grading. sensitive areas.
Disturbed areas that Use seeding with multiple mulching treatments or sodding for highly erosive soil, very steep slopes, or sensitive areas with
are inactive and will highly erosive soils.
be exposed to rain If stabilization is required during the time of year that vegetation cannot be established, implement the following practices:
for 30 days or more - On moderate slopes or soil that is not highly erodible, mulching should be employed.
should also be - On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, multiple mulching treatments should be used.
temporarily stabilized. If in high elevation or desert site where grasses cannot survive due to harsh environment, at a minimum, plant native shrubs.
Before stabilizing an area, make sure necessary controls (e.g., diversion of runoff) are in place.
rn Where practical, stockpile topsoil and reapply to revegetate site.
Cover or stabilize topsoil stockpiles.
do For high potential for wind-blown sediment transport, prior to stabilization protect with dust controls such as wind barriers,
k
I? mulching, tillage, or sprinkling.
03
Divert runoff away Above disturbed areas, construct dike or swale or install pipe slope drain to intercept runoff and convey it to a permanent
from denuded areas channel or storm drain.
or newly seeded
slopes.
On long or steep disturbed or man-made slopes, construct benches, terraces, or ditches at regular intervals to intercept runoff.
Minimize length and

Table 4-12. (Continued)

M
tz) Item Description
Prepare 0 Provide lining for any existing or newly constructed channel on-site or off-site so the 2-year storm channel velocity does not
drainageways and cause erosion.
CC outlets to handle 0 Check dams should be installed on temporary swales that have erosive velocity but due to their short service life cannot support
:3
1z concentrated or a vegetative lining.
increased runoff.

Trap sediment onsite - In areas where greater than 5 acres drain to a point, sediment basin should be installed.
(sediment controls). 0 In areas where less than 5 acres of concentrated flow leaves the site, sift traps should be installed.
0 In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is less than 0.5 ac/100 It of flow, filter fabric fence should be
installed.
0 In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is greater than 0.5 ac/100 Ift of flow, perimeter dikes should be
installed and flow should be diverted to a sediment trap or sediment basin.
Install inlet protection around all storm drain inlets.
Install construction entrance (gravel pad to collect mud and sediment from wheels) and route all traffic leaving the site to the
construction entrance.
Install all sediment controls prior to grading.
Inspect and maintain * Remove sediment from sediment traps and filter fence when silted to half capacity.
control measures. 0 Inspect and repair, as needed, all controls after each storm event.

NOTE: These are recommendations only and are not intended to be allAnclusive.

I/. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

Table 4-13. State and Local Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan Requirements

State or Local Government General Requirements

Delaware State law requires erosion and sediment control plans as part of site
development approval on construction sites over 5,000 square feet. The Slate
has adopted an ESC handbook. Temporary or permanent stabilization must
occur within 14 calendar days of disturbance.

Florida State law requires erosion and sediment control plans on all construction si'@es
requiring a storm water management permit.

Maine State law requires ESC plans for construction sites adjacent to a wetland or
waterbody. Measures should ensure that soil is stabilized to prevent erosion of
shoreline and siltation of the waterbody. The ESC must prevent the wash of
materials into surface waters. Sites must be stabilized at completion of
construction or if there is no activity for 7 calendar days. If temporary
stabilization is used, permanent stabilization must occur within 30 calendar days;
if not, permanent stabilization is required upon completion of construction.

Maryland State law requires ESC plans for all construction sites over 5,000 square feet. If
there is no activity on a construction site for 14 calendar days, the site must be
seeded. Permanent stabilization must occur within 7 calendar days.

Michigan State law requires ESC plans for sites over 1 acre or within 500 feet of a
waterbody. Permanent stabilization must occur within 15 calendar days of -final
grading. Temporary stabilization is required within 30 days if construction activity
ceases.

New Jersey State law requires ESC plans for sites over 5,000 square feet.

North Carolina State law requires ESC plans on construction sites -over 1 acre. Controls must
be sufficient to retain the sediment generated by land disturbance activities.
Stabilization must occur within 30 working days of completion of any phase of
development.

Ohio State law requires ESC plans for sites larger than 5 acres. Permanent
stabilization must occur within 7 calendar days of final grading or when the,re has
been no construction activity on the site for 45 days.

Pennsylvania State law requires ESC plans for all development; however, the State reviews
only plans for sites greater than 25 acres. Sites must be stabilized as soor, as
possible after grading. Temporary stabilization is required within 70 days if the
site will be inactive for more than 30 days. Permanent stabilization is required if
the site will be inactive for more than I year.

South Carolina State law requires an ESC plan fo'r all residential, commercial, industrial, or
institutional land use, unless specifically exempted. Perimeter controls must be
installed, and temporary or permanent stabilization is required for topsoil
stockpiles and all other disturbed areas within 7 calendar days of site
disturbance.

Virginia For areas within the jurisdiction of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, no
more land is to be disturbed than is necessary to provide for the allowed
development. Indigenous vegetation must be preserved to the greatest extent
possible.

Washington State law mandated development of a State storm water management plan,
including erosion control provisions. In response, the Department of Ecolol; i
gy is
to develop construction activity regulations.

4-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 4 11. Urban Runoff

Table 4-13. (Continued)

State or Local Government General Requirements

King County, WA King County Code requires submission of a comprehensive plan in accordance
with BMPs in King County Conservation District's publication, Construction and
Water Quality., A Guide to Recommended Construction Practices for the Control
of Erosion and Sedimentation in King County.

City of Bellevue, WA A Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan is required for any construction
requiring a storm water detention facility or a Clearing and Grading Permit.

Puget Sound Basin, WA Program Implementation Guidance requires all exposed and unworked soils to
be stabilized by suitable application of BMPs. From October I to April 30, no
soils shall remain unstabilized for more than 2 days. From May 1 to September
30, no soils shall remain unstabilized for more than 7 days. Prior to leaving the
site, stormwater runoff shall pass through a sediment pond or sediment trap, or
other appropriate BMPs.

Wisconsin State law requires ESC plans for sites over 4,000 square feet. Permanent or
temporary stabilization is required within 7 days.

Colleton County, SC The county Development Standards Ordinance requires that BMPs be used
during development or land-disturbing activity affecting greater than 1 acre. The
State's guidelines for BMPs are adopted by reference.
Birmingham, AL Through the city's Soil and Erosion Sediment Control Code, a clearing and'
earthwork permit is required for most construction sites over 10,000 square feet.
The disturbed area must be stabilized as quickly as practicable.

b. Phasing and Limiting Areas of Disturbance

This practice reduces the potential for erosion and can be accomplished by prohibiting clearing and grading from
all postdevelopment buffer zones, configuring the site plan to retain high amounts of open space, and using phased
construction sequencing to limit the amount of disturbed area at any given time.

M c. Require vegetative stabilization.

Rapid establishment of a grass or mulch cover on a cleared or graded area at construction sites can reduce suspended
sediment levels to surface waters by up to sixfold. Mandatory temporary stabilization of areas left undisturbed for
7 to 14 days is recommended, unless conditions indicate otherwise. Section 11LA contains detailed information
regarding vegetative stabilization practices.

0 d. Minimum DisturbancelMinimum Maintenance

Minimum disturbance/minimum maintenance is an approach to site development in which clearing and site grading
are allowed only within a carefully prescribed building area, preserving and protecting the existing natural vegetation.
Landscapes that demand significant amounts of chemical treatment should be avoided. Minimum distur-
bance/minimum maintenance strategies help minimize nonpoint source impacts associated with the application of
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides that result from new land development. The retention of existing vegetation
may also help maintain predevelopment runoff volumes and peak rates of discharge and thus reduce erosion.

Translation of a concept such as minimum disturbance/rninimum maintenance into straightforward numerical
standards and criteria is difficult. A certain level of interpretation and judgment is often necessary. Nevertheless,
basic standards can be established. Assuming that land use categofies have been established through the local land

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-59

1/. Urban Runoff Chapter 4

use plans or zoning ordinances, vegetation mapping can be used to illustrate where the proposed development can
be constructed with minimal'impact on existing vegetation. The area to be disturbed should be identified -for all
buildings, structures, roads, walkways, and activity areas. The exact dimensions of this disturbance will be subjective
and will depend on factors such as lot size and site-specific conditions. For example, a single-family residential
development can be constructed with a narrower zone of disturbance than a mall or office park that may require
larger construction equipment with greater maneuverability. In general, an extremely'conservative zone width would
be 10 feet beyond the roof line of a structure or dwelling unit; a more moderate criterion might be 25 feet. Mall
sites and large residential developments are typically mass-graded. Limits of Disturbance (LOD) are usually required
on all erosion and sedimpnt control plans and are always a function of grading requirements.

Program Implementation Costs

The annual costs of establishing and implementing a minimum disturbance/minimum maintenance (MD/MM)
program are estimated below. In some cases, the MD/MM tasks can be incorporated within the framework of the
existing land development review process and implementation costs would only be additive. A new program,
however, would need trained staff responsible for ensuring that developers properly integrate the requirements for
the MD/MM into their respective site plans. The need to inspect sites during construction would also result in
additional costs. The annual operating costs of implementing such a program will vary depending on the size of the
community and the degree of new development. For a typical program, estimated costs may be approximately
$110,000 for one professional staffperson and can be divided as follows:

Professional staff $60,000
Support staff $30,000
Office space $ 15,000
Office expenses $ 5,000

Total $110,000 per year

These figures are based on approximate average salaries and expenses for similar programs.

The manner by which a turf management or landscape control ordinance is developed or implemented varies to some
extent, county by county, State by State. The process would reflect county size, the framework of existing
government agencies, techniques of governance, and numerous other factors. Costs would vary as well. These
specific aspects of the program would be established by any initial studies and establishment of program
requirements, as discussed above. Also, as experience is gained by the staff and the minimum disturbance/minimum
maintenance concept is better understood by the development community, the need for services might be expected
to decrease as the result of increased program operation efficiency.

5. Site Planning Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemenwd by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfidly to
achieve the management measure described above.

M a. Clustering

Clustering development is used to concentrate development and construction activity on a limited portion of a site,
leaving the remaining portion undisturbed. This allows for the design of more effective erosion and sediment control
and urban runoff management plans for the sites, as described in Section II.A. It also provides a mechanism for
preserving environmentally sensitive areas and reducing road lengths and impervious parking areas.

4-60 EPA-840-8-92-002 January, 1993

Chapter 4 Urban Runoff

NOTE: A common belief is that low-density development is more environmentally sound because it results in
increased open space. Minimum lot size requirements can result in suburban sprawl. Many of these areas.are
heavily landscaped and therefore have the potential to contribute significant loadings of nutrijents and ides to
surface waters. In many cases, clustering and infill development may be more enviromneri y sound strategies.
They may also result in a cost savings for municipalities because clustering and infill development usually require
less infrastructure, including urban runoff treatment systems. The imposition of density controls may preclude
clustering. While minimum lot size requirements are useful in some instances, such as farn-dand preservation, zoning
ordinances should not preclude the implementation of clustered development as an alternative to traditional suburban
development.

0 b. Performance Criteria

Performance criteria for site development contain certain built-in safeguards to protect natural features. Performance
criteria often apply not to individual zoning districts but to the site being regulated or protected and set fixed
protection levels for specific resources that are not based on general zoning definitions.

M c. Site Fingerprinting

The total amount of disturbed area within a site can be reduced by fingerprinting development. Fingerprinting places
development away from environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, steep slopes, etc.), future open spaces, tree save
areas, future restoration areas, and temporary and permanent vegetative forest buffer zones. At a subdivision or lot
level, ground disturbance is confined to areas where structures, roads, and rights of way will exist after construction
is complete.

M d. Preserving Natural Drainage Features and Natural Depressional Storage Areas

As discussed in the Watershed Protection Management Measure, natural drainage features should be preserved as
development occurs. This can be done at the site planning stage as well as the watershed planning stage and is
desirable because of the ability of natural drainage features to infiltrate and attenuate flows and filter pollutants.
Depressional storage areas, commonly found as ponded areas in fields during the wet season or large runoff events,
serve the purpose of reducing runoff volumes and trapping pollutants. These areas are usually filled and graded as
a site is developed. Cluster development can be used to preserve natural drainage features and depressional storage
areas and allow for incorporation of these features into a site design (Dreher and Price, 1992).

Me. Minimizing Imperviousness

Through the use of various incentives, such as those found in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas 10
Percent Rule, a general strategy of minimizing paved areas can be implemented at the site planning level. Methods
used to meet this goal include:

0 Reduced sidewalk widths, especially in low-traffic neighborhoods;
0 Use of permeable materials for sidewalk construction;
0 Mandatory open space requirements;
0 Use of porous, permeable, or gritted pavement, where appropriate;
0 Reduced building setbacks, which reduces the lengths of driveways and entry walks; and
* Reduced street widths by elimination of onstreet parking (where such action does not pose a safety hazard).

M f Reducing the Hydraulic Connectivity of Impervious Surfaces

Pollutant loading from impervious surfaces may be reduced if the impervious area does not connect directly to an
impervious conveyance system. This can be done in at least four ways:

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-61

IL Urban Runoff Chapter 4

0 Route runoff over lawn areas to increase infiltration;

- -Discourage the direct connection of downspouts to storm sewers or the discharge of downspouts to
driveways-or parking lots;

0 Substitute swale and pond systems to increase infiltration; and

0 Reduce the use of storm sewers to drain streets, parking lots, and back yards (NIPC, 1992)

"g. Xeriscape Programs

Xeriscaping is a landscaping concept that maximizes the conservation of water by the use of site-appropriate plants
and an efficient watering system and involves the use of landscaping plants that need minimal watering, fertilization,
and pesticide application. Xeriscaping can reduce the contribution of landscaped areas to coastal nonpointsource
pollution. Xeriscape designs can reduce landscape maintenance by as much as 50 percent, primarily as a result of
the following:

� Reduction of water loss and soil erosion through careful planning, design, and implementation;
� Reduction of mowing by limiting lawn areas and using proper fertilization techniques; and
� Reduction of fertilization through soil preparation (Clemson University, 1991).

In 1991, the Florida Legislature adopted a xeriscape law that requires State agencies to adopt and implement
xeriscaping programs. The law requires that rules and guidelines for implementation of xeriscaping along highway
rights-of-way and on public property associated with publicly owned buildings constructed after July 1, 1992, be
adopted- Local governments are to determine whether xeriscaping is a cost-effective measure for conserving water.
If so, local governments are to work with the water management districts in developing their xeriscape guidelines.
Water management districts will provide financial incentives to local governments for developing xeriscape plans
and ordinances. These plans must include:

� Landscape design, installation, and maintenance standards;
� Identification of prohibited plant species (invasive exotic plants);
� Identification of controlled plant species and conditions for their use;
� Specifications for maximum percentage of turf and impervious surfaces allowed in a xeriscaped area;
� Specifications for land clearing and requirements for the conservation of existing native vegetation; and
� Monitoring programs for ordinance implementation and compliance.

There is also a provision in the law requiring local governments and water management districts to promote the use
of xeriscape practices in already developed areas through public education programs. California has passed a law
requiring all municipalities to consider enacting water-efficient landscape requirements.

4-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 Ill. Construction Activities

Ill. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control
Management Measure

(1) Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and
after construction, and

(2) Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion and
sediment control plan or similar administrative document that contains erosion
and sediment control provisions.
L

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all construction activities on sites less than 5 acres
in areas that do not have an NPDES permit' in order to control erosion and sediment loss from those sites. This
management measure does not apply to: (1) construction of a detached single family home on a site of 1/2 acre or
more or (2) construction that does not disturb over 5,000 square feet of land on a site. (NOTE: All construction
activities, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that result in the disturbance of areas greater than or equal to
5 acres or are a part of a larger development plan are covered by the NPDES regulations and are thus excluded from
these requirements.) Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and
will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The goal of this management measure is to reduce the sediment loadings from construction sites in coastal areas that
enter surface waterbodies. This measure requires that coastal States establish new or enhance existing State erosion
and sediment control (ESC) programs and/or require ESC programs at the local level. It is intended to be part of
a comprehensive land use or watershed management program, as previously detailed in the Watershed and Site
Development Management Measures. It is expected that State and local programs will establish criteria determined
by local conditions (e.g., soil types, climate, meteorology) that reduce erosion and sediment transport from
construction sites.

Runoff from construction sites is by far the largest source of sediment in urban areas under development (York
County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1990). Soil erosion removes over 90 percent of sediment by tonnage
in urbani zing areas where most construction activities occur (Canning, 1988). Table 4-14 illustrates some of the

3 On May 27, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated EPA'$ exemption of construction sites
smaller than 5 acres from the storm water permit program in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 965 F.2d 759 (9th Cir.
1992). EPA is conducting further rulemaking proceedings on this issue and will not require pennit applications for construction
activities under 5 acres until further rulemaking has been completed.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-63

1IL Construction Activities Chapter 4

measured sediment loading rates associated with construction activities found across the United States. As seen in
Table 4-14, erosion rates from natural areas such as undisturbed forested lands are typically less than one
ton/acre/year, while erosion from construction sites ranges from 7.2 to over 1,000 tons/acrelyear.

Table 4-14. Erosion and Sediment Problems Associated With Construction

Location Problem Reference

United States Sediment loading rates vary from York County Soil and Water
36.5 to 1,000 ton/aclyr. These are 5 Conservation District, 1990
to 500 times greater than those from
undeveloped land.
Approximately 600 million tons of
soil erodes from developed sites
each year. Construction site
sediment in runoff can be 10 to 20
times greater than that from
agricultural lands.
Franklin County, FL Sediment yield (ton/ac/yr): Franklin County, FL
forest < 0.5
rangeland < 0.5
tilled 1.4
construction site 30
established urban < 0.5

Wisconsin Erosion rates range from 30 to 200 Wisconsin Legislative Council, '1991
ton/ac/yr (10 to 20 times those of
cropland).
Washington, DC Erosion rates range from 35 to 45 MWCOG, 1987
ton/actyr (10 to 100 times greater
than agriculture and stabilized urban
land uses).

Anacostia River Basin, VA, MD, DC Sediment yields from portions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990
Anacostia Basin have been
estimated at 75,000 to 132,000
ton/yr.
Washington Erosion rates range from 50 to 500 Washington Department of Ecology,
ton/aclyr. Natural erosion rates from 1989
forests or well-sodded prairies are
0.01 to 1.0 ton/aclyr.
Anacostia River Basin, VA, MD, DC Erosion rates range from 7.2 to USGS, 1978
100.8 ton/ac/yr.

Alabama 1.4 million tons eroded per year. Woodward-Clyde, 1991
North Carolina 6.7 million tons eroded per year.
Louisiana 5.1 million tons eroded per year.
Oklahoma 4.2 million tons eroded per year.
Georgia 3.8 million tons eroded per year.
Texas 3.5 million tons eroded per year.
Tennessee 3.3 million tons eroded per year.
Pennsylvania 3.1 million tons eroded per year.
Ohio 3.0 million tons eroded per year.
Kentucky 3.0 million tons eroded per year.

4-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januai), 1993

Chapter 4 1A Construction Activities

Eroded sediment from construction sites creates many problems in coastal areas including adverse impacts on water
quality, critical habitats, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, recreational activities, and navigation (APWA,
199 1). For example, the Miami River in Florida has been severely affected by pollution associated with upland
erosion. This watershed has undergone extensive urbanization, which has included the construction of many
commercial and residential buildings over the past 50 years. Sediment deposited in the Miami River channel
contributes to the severe water quality and navigation problems of this once-thriving waterway, as well as Biscayne
Bay (SFWMD, 1988).

ESC plans are important for controlling the adverse impacts of construction and land development and have been
required by many State and local governments, as shown in Table 4-13 (in the Site Development section of this
chapter). An ESC plan is a document that explains and illustrates the measures to be taken to control erosion and
sediment problems on construction sites (Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation, 1988). It is intended
that existing State and local erosion and sediment control plans may be used to fulfill the requirements of this
management measure. Where existing ESC plans do not meet the management measure criteria, inadequate plans
may be enhanced to meet the management measure guidelines.

Typically, an ESC plan is part of a larger site plan and includes the following elements:

� Description of predominant soil types;
� Details of site grading including existing and proposed contours;
� Design details and locations for structural controls;
� Provisions to preserve topsoil and limit disturbance;
� Details of temporary and permanent stabilization measures; and
� Description of the sequence of construction.

ESC plans ensure that provisions for control measures are incorporated into the site planning stage of development
and provide for the reduction of erosion and sediment problems and accountability if a problem occurs (York County
Soil and Water Conservation District, 1990). An effective plan for urban runoff management on construction sites
will control erosion, retain sediments on site, to the extent practicable, and reduce the adverse effects of runoff.
Climate, topography, soils, drainage patterns, and vegetation will affect how erosion and sediment should be
controlled on a site (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1989). An effective ESC plan includes both structural
and nonstructural controls. Nonstructural controls address erosion control by decreasing erosion potential, whereas
structural controls are both preventive and mitigative because they control both erosion and sediment movement.

Typical nonstructural erosion controls include (APWA, 1991; York County Soil and Water Conservation District,
1990):

� Planning and designing the development within the natural constraints of the site;
� Minimizing the area of bare soil exposed at one time (phased grading);
� Providing for stream crossing areas for natural and man-made areas; and
� Stabilizing cut-and-fill slopes caused by construction activities.

Structural controls include:

� Perimeter controls;
� Mulching and seeding exposed areas;
� Sediment basins and traps; and
� Filter fabric, or silt fences.

Some erosion and soil loss are unavoidable during land-disturbing activities. While proper siting and design will
help prevent areas prone to erosion from being developed, construction activities will invariably produce conditions
where erosion may occur. To reduce the adverse impacts associated with construction, the construction management
measure suggests a system of nonstructural and structural erosion and sediment controls for incorporation into an

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-65

/I/. Construction Activities Chapter 4

ESC plan. Erosion controls have distinct advantages over sediment controls. Erosion controls reduce the amount
of sediment transported off-site, thereby reducing the need for sediment controls. When erosion controls are used
in conjunction with sediment controls, the size of the sediment control structures and associated maintenance may
be reduced, decreasing the overall treatment costs (SWRPC, 1991).

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected to minimize sediment being transported outside the perimeter of a
construction site through two broad performance goals: (1) reduce erosion and (2) retain sediment onsite, to the
extent practicable. These performance goals were chosen to allow States and local governments flexibi][ity in
specifying practices appropriate for local conditions.

While several commentors responding to the draft (May 1991) guidance expressed the need to define "more
measurable, enforceable ways" to control sediment loadings, other commentors stressed the need to draft management
measures that do not conflict with existing State programs and allow States and local governments to determine
appropriate practices and design standards for their communities. These management measures were selected because
virtually all coastal States control construction activities to prevent erosion and sediment loss.

The measures were specifically written for the following reasons:

(1) Predevelopment loadings may vary greatly, and some sediment loss is usually inevitable;

(2) Current practice is built on the use of systems of practices selected based on site-specific conditions; and

(3) The combined effectiveness of erosion and sediment controls in systems is not easily quantified.

4. Erosion Control Practices

Erosion controls are used to reduce the amount of sediment that is detached during construction and to prevent
sediment from entering runoff. Erosion control is based on two main concepts: (1) disturb the smallest area of land
possible for the shortest period of time, and (2) stabilize disturbed soils to prevent erosion from occurring.

0 a. Schedule projects so clearing and grading are done during the time of minimum erosion potential.

Often a project can be scheduled during the time of year that the erosion potential of the site is relatively low. In
many parts of the country, there is a certain period of the year when erosion potential is relatively low and
construction scheduling could be very effective. For example, in the Pacific region if construction can be completed
during the 6-month dry season (May I - October 3 1), temporary erosion and sediment controls may not be needed.
In addition, in some parts of the country erosion potential is very high during certain parts of the year such as the
spring thaw in northern areas. During this time of year, melting snowfall generates a constant runoff that can erode
soil. In addition, construction vehicles can easily turn the soft, wet ground into mud, which is more easily washed
offsite. Therefore, in the north, limitations should be placed on grading during the spring thaw (Goldman et al.,
1986).

4-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 //1. Construction Activities

Mb. Stage construction.

Avoid areawide clearance of construction sites. Plan and stage land disturbance activities so that only the area
currently under construction is exposed. As soon as the grading and construction in an area are complete, the area
should be stabilized.

By clearing only those areas immediately essential for completing site construction, buffer zones are preserved and
soil remains undisturbed until construction begins. Physical markers, such as tape, signs, or barriers, indicating the
limits of land disturbance, can ensure that equipment operators know the proposed limits of clearing. The area of
the watershed that is exposed to construction is important for determining the net amount of erosion. Reducing the
extent of the disturbed area will ultimately reduce sediment loads to surface waters. Existing or newly planted
vegetation that has been planted to stabilize disturbed areas should be protected by routing construction traffic around
and protecting natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, retaining walls, or tree wells.

M c. Clear only areas essential for construction.

Often areas of a construction site are unnecessarily cleared. Only those areas essential for completing construction
activities should be cleared, and other areas should remain undisturbed. Additionally, the proposed limits of land
disturbance should be physically marked off to ensure that only the required land area is cleared. Avoid disturbing
vegetation on steep slopes or other critical areas.

Md. Locate potential nonpointpollutant sources away from steep slopes, waterbodies, and critical areas.

Material stockpiles, borrow areas, access roads, and other land-disturbing activities can often be located away from
0 critical areas such as steep slopes, highly erodible soils, and areas that drain directly into sensitive waterbodies.
M e. Route construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation.

Where possible, construction traffic should travel over areas that must be disturbed for other construction activity.
This practice will reduce the area that is cleared and susceptible to erosion.

M f. Protect natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, and retaining walls or tree wells.

Tree armoring protects tree trunks from being damaged by construction equipment. Fencing can also protect tree
trunks, but should be placed at the tree's drip line so that construction equipment is kept away from the tree. The
tree drip line is the minimum area around a tree in which the tree's root system should not be disturbed by cut, fill,
or soil compaction caused by heavy equipment. When cutting or filling must be done near a tree, a retaining wall
or tree well should be used to minimize the cutting of the tree's roots or the quantity of fill placed over the tree's
roots.

M g. Stockpile topsoil and reapply to revegetate site.

Because of the high organic content of topsoil, it cannot be used as fill material or under pavement. After a site is
cleared, the topsoil is typically removed. Since topsoil is essential to establish new vegetation, it should be
stockpiled and then reapplied to the site for revegetation, if appropriate. Although topsoil salvaged from the existing
site can often be used, it must meet certain standards and topsoil may need to be imported onto the site if the existing
topsoil is not adequate for establishing new vegetation.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-67

K Construction Activities Chapter 4

h. Cover or stabilize topsoil stockpiles.

Unprotected stockpiles are very prone to erosion and therefore stockpiles must be protected. Small stockpiles can
be covered with a tarp to prevent erosion. Large stockpiles should be stabilized by erosion blankets, seeding, and/or
mulching.

M i. Use wind erosion controls.

Wind erosion controls limit the movement of dust from disturbed soil surfaces and include many different practices.
Wind barriers block air currents and are effective in controlling soil blowing. Many different materials can b-, used
as wind barriers, including solid board fence, snow fences, and bales of hay. Sprinkling moistens the soil surface
with water and must be repeated as needed to be effective for preventing wind erosion (Delaware DNREC, 1089);
however, applications must be monitored to prevent excessive runoff and erosion.

Mj. Intercept runoff above disturbed slopes and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain.

Earth dikes, perimeter dikes or swales, or diversions can be used to intercept and convey runoff above disturbed
areas. An earth dike is a temporary berm or ridge of compacted soil that channels water to a desired location. A
perimeter dike/swale or diversion is a swale with a supporting ridge on the lower side that is constructed from the
soil excavated from the adjoining swale (Delaware DNREC, 1989). These practices should be used to intercept flow
from denuded areas or newly seeded areas to keep the disturbed areas from being eroded from the uphill runoff.
The structures should be stabilized within 14 days of installation. A pipe slope drain, also known as a pipe drop
structure, is a temporary pipe placed from the top of a slope to the bottom of the slope to convey concentratedrunoff
down the slope without causing erosion (Delaware DNREC, 1989).

Mk. On long or steep, disturbed, or man-made slopes, construct benches, terraces, or ditches at regular
intervals to intercept runoff.

Benches, terraces, or ditches break up a slope by providing areas of low slope in the reverse direction. This keeps
water from proceeding down the slope at increasing volume and velocity. Instead, the flow is directed to a suitable
outlet, such as a sediment basin or trap. The frequency of benches, terraces, or ditches will depend on the erodibility
of the soils, steepness and length of the slope, and rock outcrops. This practice should be used if there is a potential
for erosion along the slope.

M L Use retaining walls.

Often retaining walls can be used to decrease the steepness of a slope. If the steepness of a slope is reduced, the
runoff velocity is decreased and, therefore, the erosion potential is decreased.

M m. Provide linings for urban runoff conveyance channels.

Often construction increases the velocity and volume of runoff, which causes erosion in newly constructed or existing
urban runoff conveyance channels. If the runoff during or after construction will cause erosion in a channel, the
channel should be lined or flow control BMPs installed. The first choice of lining should be grass or sod since this
reduces runoff velocities and provides water quality benefits through filtration and infiltration. If the velocity in the
channel would erode the grass or sod, then riprap, concrete, or gabions can be used.

M n. Use check dams.

Check dams are small, temporary dams constructed across a swale or channel. They can be constructed using gravel
or straw bales. They are used to reduce the velocity of concentrated flow and, therefore, to reduce the erosion in

4-68 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 111. Construction Activities

a swale or channel. Check dams should be used when a swale or channel will be used for a short time and therefore
it is not feasible or practical to line the channel or implement flow control BMPs (Delaware DNREC, 1989).

M o. Seed and fertilize.

Seeding establishes a vegetative cover on disturbed areas. Seeding is very effective in controlling soil erosion once
a dense vegetative cover has been established. However, often seeding and fertilizing do not produce as thick a
vegetative cover as do seed and mulch or netting. Newly established vegetation does not have as extensive a root
system as existing vegetation and therefore is more prone to erosion, especially on steep slopes. Care should be
taken when fertilizing to avoid untimely or excessive application. Since the practice of seeding and fertilizing does
not provide any protection during the time of vegetative establishment, it should be used only on favorable soils in
very flat areas and not in sensitive areas.

Mp. Use seeding and mulchImats.

Seeding establishes a vegetative cover on disturbed areas. Seeding is very effective in controlling soil erosion once
the vegetative cover has been established. The mulching/mats protect the disturbed area while the vegetation
becomes established.

The management of land by using ground cover reduces erosion by reducing the flow rate of runoff and the raindrop
impact. Bare soils should be seeded or otherwise stabilized within 15 calendar days after final grading. Denuded
areas that are inactive and will be exposed to rain for 30 days or more should also be temporarily stabilized, usually
by planting seeds and establishing vegetation during favorable seasons in areas where vegetation can be established.
In very flat, non-sensitive areas with favorable soils, stabilization may involve simply seeding and fertilizing.
Mulching and/or sodding may be necessary as slopes become moderate to steep, as soils become more erosive, and
as areas become more sensitive.

M q. Use mulchlmats.

Mulching involves applying plant residues or other suitable materials on disturbed soil surfaces. Mulchs/mats used
include tacked straw, wood chips, and jute netting and are often covered by blankets or netting. Mulching alone
should be used only for temporary protection of the soil surface or when permanent seeding is not feasible. The
useful life of mulch varies with the material used and the amount of precipitation, but is approximately 2 to 6
months. Figure 4-5 shows water velocity reductions that could be expected using various mulching techniques.
Similarly, Figure 4-6 shows reductions in soil loss achievable using various mulching techniques. During times of
year when vegetation cannot be established, soil mulching should be applied to moderate slopes and soils that are
not highly erodible. On steep slopes or highly erodible soils, multiple mulching treatments should be used. On a
high-elevation or desert site where grasses cannot survive the harsh environment, native shrubs may be planted.
Interlocking ceramic materials, filter fabric, and netting are available for this purpose. Before stabilizing an area,
it is important to have installed all sediment controls and diverted runoff away from the area to be planted. Runoff
may be diverted away from denuded areas or newly planted areas using dikes, swales, or pipe slope drains to
intercept runoff and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain. Reserved topsoil may be used to revegetate
a site if the stockpile has been covered and stabilized.

Consideration should be given to maintenance when designing mulching and matting schemes. Plastic nets are often
used to cover the mulch or mats; however, they can foul lawn mower blades if the area requires mowing.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-69

Construction Activities Chapter 4

90 7

80 - 78 77
74 73
70 - 71

U 59 59 59
60 - 56
53

50 - 47 45

40 -

30 -
24

20 -

10 -

0 4 5 6 1 3 10 11 14 2 12 9 13 8 7

Mulching Material'Number

Mulch Material Characteristics

1 100% wheat straw/top net
2 100% wheat straw/two nets
3 70% wheat straw/30% coconut fiber
4 70% wheat straw/30% coconut fiber
5 100% coconut fiber
6 Nylon monofilamentAwo nets
7 Nylon inonofilament/rigid1bonded
8 Vinyl monofilament1flexible/bonded
9 Curled wood fibers/top net
10 Curled wood fibers/two nets
11 Andwash netting Oute)
12 Interwoven paper and thread
13 Uncrimped wheat straw - 2,242 kg/ha
14 Uncrimped wheat straw - 4,4& kly'M

Figure 4-5. Water velocity reductions for different mulch treatments (adapted from Harding, 1990).

4-70 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januarv 1993

Chapter 4 JIL Construction Activities

100 - 99.8 98.7 99-5 98.4 98-6 97-5
91.8 93.5 93.0
90.4 89.6 89.3
90 -
84.0

W 50
bit

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

0 6 3 4 5 2 1 11 10 9 12 8 14 13 7

Mulching Material Number

Mulch Material Characteristics

1 100% wheat straw/top net
2 100% wheat straw/two nets
3 70% wheat straw/30% coconut fiber
4 70% wheat straw/30% coconut fiber
5 100% coconut fiber
6 Nylon monofflament/two nets
7 Nylon monofflament/rigid/bonded
8 Vinyl monofilament/fle)dble/bonded
9 Curled wood fibers/top net
10 Curled wood fibers/two nets
11 Antiwash netting Oute)
12 Interwoven paper and thread
13 Uncrimped wheat straw - 2,242 kg/ha
14 Uncrimped wheat straw - 4,484 kg/ha 53.0
Figure 4-6. Actual soil loss reductions for different mulch treatments (adapted from Harding, 1990).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-71

///. Construction Activities Chapter 4

Mr. Use sodding.

Sodding permanently stabilizes an area. Sodding provides immediate stabilization of an area and should be used in
critical areas or where establishment of permanent vegetation by seeding and mulching would be difficult. Sodding
is also a preferred option when there is a high erosion potential during the period of vegetative establishment from
seeding.

Ms. Use wildflower cover.

Because of the hardy drought-resistant nature of wildflowers, they may be more beneficial as an erosion control
practice than turf grass. While not as dense as turfgrass, wildflower thatches and associated grasses are expected
to be as effective in erosion control and contaminant absorption. Because thatches of wildflowers do not need
fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides, and watering is minimal, implementation of this practice may result in a cost
savings (Brash et al., undated). In 1987, Howard County, Maryland, spent $690.00 per acre to maintain turfgrass
areas, compared to only $31.00 per acre for wildflower meadows (Wilson, 1990).

A wildflower stand requires several years to become established; maintenance requirements are minimal once the
area is established (Brash et al., undated).

5. Sediment Control PracticeS4

Sediment controls capture sediment that is transported in runoff. Filtration and detention (gravitational settling) are
the main processes used to remove sediment from urban runoff.

N a. Sediment Basins

Sediment basins, also known as silt basins, are engineered impoundment structures that allow sediment to selftle out
of the urban runoff. They are installed prior to full-scale grading and remain in place until the disturbed portions
of the drainage area are fully stabilized. They are generally located at the low point of sites, away from construction
traffic, where they will be able to trap sediment-laden runoff.

Sediment basins are typically used for drainage areas between 5 and 100 acres. They can be classified w either
temporary or permanent structures, depending on the length of service of the structure. If they are designed to
function for less than 36 months, they are classified as "temporary"; otherwise, they are considered permanent
structures. Temporary sediment basins can also be converted into permanent urban runoff management ponds. When
sediment basins are designed as permanent structures, they must meet all standards for wet ponds.

M b. Sediment Trap

Sediment traps are small impoundments that allow sediment to settle out of runoff water. Sediment traps are
typically installed in a drainageway or other point of discharge from a disturbed area. Temporary diversions can be

4Adapted from Goldman (1986).

4-72 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 Ill. Construction Activities

used to direct runoff to the sediment trap. Sediment traps should not be used for drainage areas greater than 5 acres
and typically have a useful life of approximately 18 to 24 months.

M c. Filter Fabric Fence

Filter fabric fence is available from many manufacturers and in several mesh sizes. Sediment is filtered out as urban
runoff flows through the fabric. Such fences should be used only where there is sheet flow (i.e., no concentrated
flow), and the maximum drainage area to the fence should be 0.5 acre or less per 100 feet of fence. Filter fabric
fences have a useful life of approximately 6 to 12 months.

M d. Straw Bale Barder

A straw bale barrier is a row of anchored straw bales that detain and filter urban runoff. Straw bales are less
effective than filter fabric, which can usually be used in place of straw bales. However, straw bales have been
effectively used as temporary check dams in channels. As with filter fabric fences, straw bale barriers should be
used only where there is sheet flow. The maximum drainage area to the barrier should be 0.25 acre or less per 100
feet of barrier. The useful life of straw bales is approximately 3 months.

IIIIIII e. Inlet Protection

Inlet protection consists of a barrier placed around a storm drain drop inlet, which traps sediment before it enters
the storm sewer system. Filter fabric, straw bales, gravel, or sand bags are often used for inlet protection.

IIIIIII f. Construction Entrance

A construction entrance is a pad of gravel over filter cloth located where traffic leaves a construction site. As
vehicles drive over the gravel, mud, and sediment are collected from the vehicles' wheels and offsite transport of
sediment is reduced.

Mg. Vegetated Filter Strips

Vegetated filter strips are low-gradient vegetated areas that filter overland sheet flow. Runoff must be evenly
distributed across the filter strip. Channelized flows decrease the effectiveness of filter strips. Level spreading
devices are often used to distribute the runoff evenly across the strip (Dillaha et al., 1989).

Vegetated filter strips should have relatively low slopes and adequate length and should be planted with erosion-
resistant plant species. The main factors that influence the removal efficiency are the vegetation type, soil infiltration
rate, and flow depth and travel time. These factors are dependent on the contributing drainage area, slope of strip,
degree and type of vegetative cover, and strip length. Maintenance requirements for vegetated filter strips include
sediment removal and inspections to ensure that dense, vigorous vegetation is established and concentrated flows do
not occur. Maintenance of these structures is discussed in Section ILA of this chapter.

6. Effectiveness and Cost Information

IIIIIII a. Erosion Control Practices

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-73

1/1. Construction Activities Chapter 4

erodible areas, maximizing the distance eroded material must travel before reaching the drainage system, and locating
roads away from sensitive areas may be used to reduce erosion.

Table 4-15 contains the available cost and effectiveness data for some of the erosion controls listed above.
Information on the effectiveness of individual nonstructural controls was not available. All reported effectiveness
data assume that controls are properly designed, constructed, and maintained. Costs have been broken down into
annual capital costs, annual maintenance costs, and total annual costs (including annualization of the capital costs).

N b. Sediment Control Practices

Regular inspection and maintenance are needed for most erosion control practices to remain effective. The
effectiveness of sediment controls will depend on the size of the construction site and the nature of the runoff flows.
Sediment basins are most appropriate for drainage areas of 5 acres or greater. In smaller areas with concentrated
flows, silt traps may suffice. Where concentrated flow leaves the site and the drainage area is less than 0.5 ac/100
ft of flow, filter fabric fences may be effective. In areas where sheet flow leaves the site and the drainage area is
greater than 0.5 acretlOO ft of flow, perimeter dikes may be used to divert the flow to a sediment trap or sediment
basin. Urban runoff inlets may be protected using straw bales or diversions to filter or route runoff away from the
inlets.

Table 4-16 describes the general cost and effectiveness of some common sediment control practices.

W c. Comparisons

Figure 4-7 illustrates the estimated TSS loading reductions from Maryland construction sites possible using a
combination of erosion and sediment controls in contrast to using only sediment controls. Figure 4-8 shows a
comparison of the cost and effectiveness of various erosion control practices. As can be seen in Figure 4-8, seeding
or seeding and mulching provide the highest levels of control at the lowest cost.

4-74 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

0 0 0

Table 4-15. ESC Quantitative Effectiveness and Cost Summary

Annual
Design Useful Maintenance Cost
Constraints or Life (as % construction Total Annual
Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)a Construction Cost cost) Cost
ft2
Sod Immediate Average: 99% Average: $0.2 per f? Average: 5% $0.20 per
1b
erosion Observed range: 98% - 99% 2 [$11,300 per acre] Range: 5%- $7,500 per
protection References: Minnesota Pollution Control Range: $0.1 - $1.1 Reference: acre
CIO. where there is Agency, 1989; Pennsylvania, 1983 cited in References: SWRPC, 1991; SWRPC, 1991
high erosion USEPA, 1991 Schueler, 1987; Virginia, 1980
potential
during
vegetative
establishment.
Seed Establish After vegetation established- Average: $400 per acre Average: 20% $300 per acre
vegetation on Average: 90% 2 Range: $200 - $1000 per acre Range: 15% - 25%
disturbed area. Observed range: 50% - 100% References: Wisconsin DOT References:
References: SCS, 1985 cited in EPA, 1991; cited in SWRPC, 1991; Wisconsin DOT
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989; SWRPC, 1991; Goldman, 1986; cited in SWRPC,
Oberts, 1984 cited in City of Austin, 1988; Virginia, 1980 1991; SWRPC,
Delaware Department of Natural Resources, 1991
1989
Seed Establish After vegetation established- Average: $1,500 per acre Average: NAb $1,100 per
and vegetation on Average: 90% 2 Range: $800 - $3,500 per acre Range: NA acre
Mulch disturbed area. Observed range: 50% - 100% References: Goldman, 1986; References: None
References: SCS, 1985 cited in EPA, 1991; Washington DOT, 1990; NC
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989; State, 1990; Schueler, 1987;
Oberts, 1984 cited in City of Austin, 1988; Virginia, 1980; SWRPC, 1991
Delaware Department of Natural Resources,
1989

Table 4-15. (Continued) 0

Annual
0
Design Useful Maintenance Cost
Constraints or Life (as % construction Total Annual
Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)a 0
Construction Cost cost) Cost
Mulch Temporary Observed range: Straw Straw mulch: b
Average: NA Straw mulch:
stabilization of mulch: Average: $1,700 per acre Range: NA $7,500 per
disturbed area. sand: 0.25 Range: $500 - $5,000 per acre References: None acre
200/6 slope 50% slope References: Wisconsin DOT
wood fiber 0 1500 lb/ac 50-60% 0-20% cited in SWRPC, 1991;
wood fiber 0 3000 Iblac 50-85% 50-70% Washington DOT, 1990;
straw 0 3000 lb/ac 90-100% 95% Virginia, 1980

Sift-loam: Wood Wood fiber mulch: Wood fiber
200% slope 50% slope fiber Average: $1,000 per acre mulch:
wood fiber 0 1500 lb/ac 20-60% 40-60% mulch: Range: $100 - $2,300 per acre $3,500 per
wood fiber 0 3000 lb/ac 60-90% 60-70% 0.33 References: Washington DOT, acre
straw 0 3000 Iblac 80-95% 70-90% 1990; Virginia, 1980

Sift-clay-loam: Jute netting: Jute netting:
10-30% 30-50% Average: $3,700 per acre $12,500 per
slope slope Jute Range: $3,50044,100 per acre acre
wood fiber @ 1500 lb/ac 5% netting: References: Washington DOT,
wood fiber @ 3000 lb/ac 40% 0.33 1990; Virginia, 1980
jute netting 30-60% 300/6
straw 0 3000 lb/ac 40-70% 20-40% Straw and jute: Straw and
wood chips 60-80% 50-60% Average: $5,400 per acre jute:
0 10,000 lb/ac; Range: $4,00049,1100 per acre $18,000 per
mulch blanket 60-80% 50-60% Straw References: WashingtonDOT, acre
21 excelsior blanket 60-80% 50-60% and 1990; Virginia, 1980
I? multiple treatment 900/0 901/6 jute: 0.33
(straw and jute)
Ip

References: Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, 1989; Kay, 1983 cited in Goldman,
ZI 1986

Table 4-15. (Continued)

Annual
03
Design Useful Maintenance Cost
Constraints or Life (as % construction Total Annual
M3 Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)' Construction Cost cost) Cost
k
Z) Terraces Break up long Observed range: Average: $5 per lin It Average: 20% $4 per lin ft
or steep 2 Range: $1 - $12 Range: 20%
slopes. Land Slope Reduction in Erosion References: SWRPC, 1991; Reference:
(0 1-12% 70% Goldman, 1986; Virginia, 1991 SWRPC, 1991
12-18% 60%
18-24% 55%

Additionally, if the slope steepness is halved,
while other factors are held constant, the soil
loss potential decreases 2-1/2 times. If both
the slope and length are halved, the soil loss
potential is decreased 4 times.
References: Goldman, 1986; Beasley, 1972
All Reduce Average: 85% -- Varies but typically low Varies but typically Varies but
Erosion amount of Observed range: 85% low typically low
Controls sediment Reference: Schueler, 1990
entering runoff.

NA - Not available.
' Useful life estimated as length of construction project (assumed to be 2 years).
b For Total Annual Cost, assume Annual Maintenance Cost 2% of construction cost.

N
N

Table 4-16. ESC Quantitative Effectiveness and Cost Summary for Sediment Control Practices

Design Useful Annual Maintenance
0
Constraints or Life Cost (as %
Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)' Construction Cost construction cost) Total Annual Cost
ft3 3 CIj
Sediment Minimum drainage Average: 70% Less than 50,000 storage Average: 25% Less than 50,000 ft
3
basin area Observed range: 55% - 100% 2 Average: $0.60 per ft Range: 25% storage
ft3
5 acres, References: Schueler, 1990; storage References: Denver $0.40 per storage
maximum Engle, BW and Jarrett, AR, ($1,100 per drainage acre') COG cited in SWRPC, $700 per drainage
drainage area 1990; Baumann, 1990 Range: $0.20 - $1.30 per ft3 1991; SWRPC, 1991 acre b
100 acres
Greater than 50,000 ft3 Greater than 50,000
storage ft3 storage ft3
Average: $0.3 per ft3 $0.20 per storage
storage $900 per drainage
($550 per drainage acrec) acrec
Range: $0.10 - $0.40 per tt3
References: SWRPC, 1991
Sediment Maximum Average: 60% Average: $0.60 per ft 3 Average: 20% $0.70 per ft3 storage
trap drainage area Observed range: (-7%) - 1.5 storage Range: 20% $1,300 per drainage
5 acres 1000/0 ($1,100 per drainage acre') References: Denver acrec
References: Schueler, et al., Range: $0.20 - $2.00 per ft3 COG cited in SWRPC,
1990; Tahoe Regional References: Denver COG 1991; SWRPC, 1991
Planning Agency, 1989; cited in SWRPC, 1991;
Baumann, 1990 SWRPC, 1991; Goldman,
1986
rn Filter Fabric Maximum Average: 70% Average: $3 per lin It Average: 100% $7 per lin ft
Fence drainage area Observed range: 0% - 100% 0.5 ($700 per drainage acrec Range: 100% $850 per drainage
0.5 acre per 100 sand: 80% - 99% Range: $1 - $8 per lin ft References: SWRPC, acre"
do
feet of fence. Not silt-loarn: 50% - 80% References: Wisconsin DOT 1991
to be used in sift-clay-loam: 0% - cited in SWRPC, 1991;
concentrated flow 20% SWRPC, 1991; Goldman,
areas. References: Munson, 1991; 1986; Virginia, 1991; NC
Fisher et al., 1984; Minnesota State, 1990
Pollution Control Agency,
1989

Table 4-16. (Continued)
Tj

Design Useful Annual Maintenance
Constraints or Life Cost (as %
Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)' Construction Cost construction cost) Total Annual Cost
Average: $4 per lin ft Average: 100% $17 per lin It
Straw Bale Maximum Average: 70% d
Barrier drainage area Observed Range: 70% 0.25 ($1,600 per drainage acre Range: 100% $6,800 per drainage
0.25 aere per 100 References: Virgini .a, 1980 Range: $2 - $6 per lin ft References: SWRPC, acre d
feet of barrier. cited in EPA, 1991 References: Goldman, 1986; 1991
Not to be used in Virginia, 1991
10
Q concentrated flow
areas.
Inlet Protect storm Average: NA Average: $100 per inlet Average: 60% $150 per inlet
Protection drain inlet. Observed Range: NA 1 Range: $50 - $150 Range: 20% - 100%
References: None References: SWRPC, 1991; References: SWRPC,
Denver COG cited in 1991; Denver COG
SWRPC, 1991; Virginia, cited in SWRPC, 1991
1991; EPA cited in SWRPC,
1991
Construction Removes Average: NA Average: $2,000 each Average: NAO
Entrance sediment from Observed Range: NA 2 Range: $1,000 - $4,000 Range: NA $1,500 each
vehicles wheels. References: None References: Goldman, 1986; References: None
NC State, 1990

With washrack:
Average: $3,000 each $2,200 each
Range: $1,000 - $5,000
References: Virginia, 1991

QD Table 4-16. (Continued)

Design Useful Annual Maintenance
Constraints or Life Cost (as %
Practice Purpose Percent Removal of TSS (years)a Construction Cost construction cost) Total Annual Cost

Vegetative Must have sheet Average: 70% Established from existing Average: NA NA
Filter Strip flow. Observed Range: 20% - 80% 2 vegetalion- Range: NA
References: Hayes and Average: $0 References: None
Hairston, 1983 cited in Range:$0
Casman, 1990; Dillaha et al., References: Schueler, 1987
1989, cited in Glick et al.,
1991; Virginia Department of Established from sod-
Conservation, 1987; Nonpoint Average: $11,300 per acre
Source Control Task Force, Range: $4,500 - $48,000
1983 cited in Minnesota PCA, per acre
1989; Schueler, 1987 References: Schueler, 1987;
SWRPC' 1991

NA - Not available.
Useful life estimated as length of construction project (assumed to be 2 years)
For Total Annual Cost, assume Annual Maintenance Cost=20% of construction cost.
b Assumes trap volume = 1800 cf/ac (0.5 inches runoff per acre).
'- Assumes -drainage area of 0.5 acre per 100 feet of fence (maximum allowed).
d Assumes drainage area of 0.25 acre per 100 feet of barrier (maximum allowed).

Chapter 4 Ifi. Construction Activities

NATURAL
25 mg/L

DISTURBED
SITE

UNCONTROLLED
DISTURBED

4,150 mg/L

SEDIMENT
CONTROL EROSION
60% EFF CONTRO
[80% EFF) 65% EFF

SEDIMENT EROSION
CONTROL CONTROL
ONLY ONLY
1,660 mg/L- 700 mg/L
(800 Mg1Lj-

SEDIMENT
CONTROL
80% EFF
(80% EFF)

EROSION &
SEDIMENT
CONTROL

300 mg/L
1150 mg/Ll*

OIRTION A OIPTION B

SEDIMENT CONTROL EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROLS

*Esdrfuftd
EFF - EftWicy rSED
CO
60%
180

Figure 4-7. TSS concentrations from Maryland construction sites (Schueler, 1987).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 4-81

11L Construction Activities Chapter 4

100 20

tR
1-11
CA 60

10
40 U

Seed Seed & Mulch Mulch I Mulch 2 Sod Terrace 0
Erosion Control
Effectiveness ROO' Cost

Figure 4-8. Comparison of cost and effectiveness for erosion control practices (based on information in
Tables 4-15 and 4-16).

4-82 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 1/1. Construction Activities

.. .......
. ...........
..........
B. Construction Site Chemical Control
Management Measure

(1) Limit application, generation, and migration of toxic substances;

(2) Ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials; and

(3) Apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without
causing significant nutrient runoff to surface waters.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all construction sites less than 5 acres in area and
to new, resurfaced, restored, and reconstructed road, highway, and bridge construction projects. This management
measure does not apply to: (1) construction of a detached single family home on a site of 1/2 acre or more or (2)
construction that does not disturb over 5,000 square feet of land on a site. (NOTE: All construction activities,
including clearing, grading, and excavation, that result in the disturbance of areas greater than or equal to 5 acres
or are a part of a larger development plan are covered by the NPDES regulations and are thus excluded from these
requirements.) Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number
of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformance with this management measure and will have
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to prevent the generation of nonpoint source pollution from construction
sites due to improper handling and usage of nutrients and toxic substances, and to prevent the movement of toxic
substances from the construction site.

Many potential pollutants other than sediment are associated with construction activities. These pollutants include
pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and rodenticides); fertilizers used for vegetative stabilization;
petrochemicals (oils, gasoline, and asphalt degreasers); construction chemicals such as concrete products, sealers, and
paints; wash water associated with these products; paper; wood; garbage; and sanitary wastes (Washington State
Department of Ecology, 1991).

The variety of pollutants present and the severity of their effects are dependent on a number of factors:

(1) The nature of the construction activity. For example, potential pollution associated with fertilizer usage
may be greater along a highway or at a housing development than it would be at a shopping center
d
evelopment because highways and housing developments usually have greater landscaping requirements.

(2) The physical characteristics of the construction site. The majority of all pollutants generated at
construction sites are carried to surface waters via runoff. Therefore, the factors affecting runoff volume,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-83

//L Construction Activities Chapter 4

such as the amount, intensity, and frequency of rainfall; soil infiltration rates; surface roughness:, slope
length and steepness; and area denuded, all contribute to pollutant loadings.

(3) The proximity of surface waters to the nonpoint pollutant source. As the distance separating
pollutant-generating activities from surface waters decreases, the likelihood of water quality impacts
increases.

a. Pesticides

Insecticides, rodenticides, and herbicides are used on construction sites to provide safe and healthy conditions, reduce
maintenance and fire hazards, and curb weeds and woody plants. Rodenticides are also used to control rodents
attracted to construction sites. Common insecticides employed include synthetic, relatively water-insoluble
chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates, carbamates, and pyrethrins.

b. Petroleum Products

Petroleum products used during construction include fuels and lubricants for vehicles, for power tools, and for
general equipment maintenance. Specific petroleum pollutants include gasoline, diesel oil, kerosene, lubricating oils,
and grease. Asphalt paving also can be particularly harmful since it releases various oils for a considerable time
period after application. Asphalt overloads might be dumped and covered without inspection. However, rnany of
these pollutants adhere to soil particles and other surfaces and can therefore be more easily controlled.

c. Nutrients

Fertilizers are used on construction sites when revegetating graded or disturbed areas. Fertilizers contain nitrogen
and phosphorus, which in large doses, can adversely affect surface waters, causing eutrophication.

d. Solid Wastes

Solid wastes on construction sites are generated from trees and shrubs removed during land clearing and structure
installation. Other wastes include wood and paper from packaging and building materials, scrap metals, sanitary
wastes, rubber, plastic and glass, and masonry and asphalt products. Food containers, cigarette packages, leftover
food, and aluminum foil also contribute solid wastes to the construction site.

e. Construction Chemicals

Chemical pollutants, such as paints, acids for cleaning masonry surfaces, cleaning solvents, asphalt products, soil
additives used for stabilization, and concrete-curing compounds, may also be used on construction sites and carried
in runoff.

f. Other Pollutants

Other pollutants, such as wash water from concrete mixers, acid and alkaline solutions from exposed soil or rock,
and alkaline-forming natural elements, may also be present and contribute to nonpoint source pollution.

Revegetation of disturbed areas may require the use of fertilizers and pesticides, which, if not applied propefly, may
become nonpoint source pollutants. Many pesticides are restricted by Federal and/or State regulations.

Hydroseeding operations, in which seed, fertilizers, and lime are applied to the ground surface in a one-step
operation, are more conducive to nutrient pollution than are the conventional seedbed-preparation operations, in which
fertilizers and lime are tilled into the soil. Use of fertilizers containing little or no phosphorus may be required by

4-84 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 11L Construction Activities

local authorities if the development is near sensitive waterbodies. The addition of lime can also affect the pH of
sensitive waters, making them more alkaline.

Improper fueling and servicing of vehicles can lead to significant quantities of petroleum products being dumped onto
the ground. These pollutants can then be washed off site in urban runoff, even when proper erosion and sediment
controls are in place. Pollutants carried in solution in runoff water, or fixed with sediment crystalline structures, may
not be adequately controlled by erosion and sediment control practices (Washington Department of Ecology, 1991).
Oils, waxes, and water-insoluble pesticides can form surface films on water and solid particles. Oil films can also
concentrate water-soluble insecticides. These pollutants can be nearly impossible to control once present in runoff
other than by the use of very costly water-treatment facilities (Washington Department of Ecology, 1991).

After spill prevention, one of the best methods to control petroleum pollutants is to retain sediments containing oil
on the construction site through use of erosion and sediment control practices. Improved maintenance and safe
storage facilities will reduce the chance of contaminating a construction site. One of the greatest concerns related
to use of petroleum products is the method for waste disposal. The dumping of petroleum product wastes into sewers
and other drainage channels is illegal and could result in fines or job shutdown.

The primary control method for solid wastes is to provide adequate disposal facilities. Erosion and sediment control
structures usually capture much of the solid waste from construction sites. Periodic removal of litter from these
structures will reduce solid waste accumulations. Collected solid waste should be removed and disposed of at
authorized disposal areas.

Improperly stored construction materials, such as pressure-treated lumber or solvents, may lead to leaching of toxics
to surface water and ground water. Disposal of construction chemicals should follow all applicable State and local
laws that may require disposal by a licensed waste management firm.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected based on the potential for many construction activities to contribute to
nutrient and toxic NPS pollution.

This management measure was selected because (1) construction activities have the potential to contribute to
increased loadings of toxic substances and nutrients to waterbodies; (2) various States and local governments regulate
the control of chemicals on construction sites through spill prevention plans, erosion. and sediment control plans, or
other administrative devices; (3) the practices described are commonly used and presented in a number of best
management practice handbooks and guidance manuals for construction sites; and (4) the practices selected are the
most economical and effective.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. Howev@r, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

M a. Properly store, handle, apply, and dispose of pesticides.

Pesticide storage areas on construction sites should be protected from the elements. Warning signs should be placed
in areas recently sprayed or treated. Persons mixing and applying these chemicals should wear suitable protective
clothing, in accordance with the law.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-85

111. Construction Activities Chapter 4

Application rates should conform to registered label directions. Disposal of excess pesticides and pesticide-related
wastes should conform to registered label directions for the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers
set forth in applicable Federal, State, and local regulations that govern their usage, handling, storage, and disposal.
Pesticides and herbicides should be used only in conjunction with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (see Chapter
2). Pesticides should be the tool of last resort; methods that are the least disruptive to the environment and human
health should be used first.

Pesticides should be disposed of through either a licensed waste management firm or a treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) facility. Containers should be triple-rinsed before disposal, and rinse waters should be reused as
product.

Other practices include setting aside a locked storage area, tightly closing lids, storing in a cool, dry place, checking
containers periodically for leaks or deterioration, maintaining a list of products in storage, using plastic sheedng to
line the storage area, and notifying neighboring property owners prior to spraying.

M b. Properly store, handle, use, and dispose of petroleum products.

When storing petroleum products, follow these guidelines:

� Create a shelter around the area with cover and wind protection;

� Line the storage area with a double layer of plastic sheeting or similar material;

� Create an impervious berm around the perimeter with a capacity 110 percent greater than that of the largest
container;

� Clearly label all products;

� Keep tanks off the ground; and

� Keep lids securely fastened.

Oil and oily wastes such as crankcase oil, cans, rags, and paper dropped into oils and lubricants should be disposed
of in proper receptacles or recycled. Waste oil for recycling should not be mixed with degreasers, solvents,
antifreeze, or brake fluid.

Mc. Establish fuel and vehicle maintenance staging areas located away from all drainage courses, and
design these areas to control runoff.

Proper maintenance of equipment and installation of proper stream crossings will further reduce pollution of water
by these sources. Stream crossings should be minimized through proper planning of access roads. Refer to
Chapter 3 for additional information on stream crossings.

M d. Provide sanitary facilities for constructions workers.

M e. Store, cover, and isolate construction materials, including topsoil and chemicals, to prevent runoff
of pollutants and contamination of ground water.

M f. Develop and implement a spill prevention and control plan. Agencies, contractors, and'other
commercial entities that store, handle, or transport fuel oil, or hazardous materials should develop
a spill response plan.

4-86 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993

Chapter 4 IIL Construction Activities

Post spill procedure information and have persons trained in spill handling on site or on call at all times. Materials
for cleaning up spills should be kept on site and easily available. Spills should be cleaned up immediately and the
contaminated material properly disposed of Spill control plan components should include:

� Stop the source of the spill.

� Contain any liquid.

� Cover the spill with absorbent material such as kitty litter or sawdust, but do not use straw. Dispose of the
used absorbent properly.

Mg. Maintain and wash equipment and machinery in confined areas specifically designed to control
runoff.

Thinners or solvents should not be discharged into sanitary or storm sewer systems when cleaning machinery. Use
alternative methods for cleaning larger equipment parts, such as high-pressure, high-temperature water washes, or
steam cleaning. Equipment-washing detergents can be used, and wash water may be discharged into sanitary sewers
if solids are removed from the solution first. (This practice should be verified with the local sewer authority.) Small
parts can be cleaned with degreasing solvents, which can then be reused or recycled. Do not discharge any solvents
into sewers.

Washout from concrete, trucks should be disposed of into:

A designated area that will later be backfilled;

An area where the concrete wash can harden, can be broken up, and then can be placed in a dumpster; or
I
00 A location not subject to urban runoff and more than 50 feet away from a storm drain, open ditch, or
surface water.

Never dump washout into a sanitary sewer or storm drain, or onto soil or pavement that carries urban runoff.

M h. Develop and implement nutrient management plans.

Properly time applications, and work fertilizers and liming materials into the soil to depths of 4 to 6 inches. Using
soil tests to determine specific nutrient needs at the site can greatly decrease the amount of nutrients applied.

i. Provide adequate disposal facilities for solid waste, including excess asphalt, produced during
construction.

Mj. Educate construction workers about proper materials handling and spill response procedures.
Distribute or post informational material regarding chemical control.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-87

IV. Existing Development Chapter 4

IV. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

A. Existing Development Management Measure

Develop and implement watershed management programs to reduce runoff pollutant
concentrations and volumes from existing development:

(1) Identify priority local andtor regional watershed pollutant reduction
opportunities, e.g., improvements to existing urban runoff control structures;

(2) Contain a schedule for implementing appropriate controls;

(3) Limit dqstruction of natural conveyance systems; and

(4) Where appropriate, preserve, enhance, or establish buffers along surface
waterbodies and their tributaries.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all urban areas and existing development in order
to reduce surface water runoff pollutant loadings from such areas. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS prognuns in
conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management
measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Develcpment
and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to protect or improve surface water quality by the development and
implementation of watershed management programs that pursue the following objectives:

(1) Reduce surface water runoff pollution loadings from areas where development has already occun.-ed;

(2) Limit surface water runoff volumes in order to minimize sediment loadings resulting from the erosion of
streambanks and other natural conveyance systems; and

(3) Preserve, enhance, or establish buffers that provide water quality benefits along waterbodies and their
tributaries.

Maintenance of water quality becomes increasingly difficult as areas of impervious surface increase and urbanization
occurs. For the purpose of this guidance, urbanized areas are those areas where the presence of "man-made"
impervious surfaces results in increased peak runoff volumes and pollutant loadings that permanently alter one or

4-88 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 4 IV. Existing Development

more of the following:'. stream channels, natural drainageways, and in-stream and adjacent riparian habitat so that
predevelopment aquatic flora and fauna are eliminated or reduced to unsustainable levels and predevelopment water
quality has been degraded. Increased bank cutting, streambed scouring, siltation damaging to aquatic flora and fauna,
increases in water temperature, decreases in dissolved oxygen, changes to the natural structure and flow of the stream
or river, and the presence of anthropogenic pollutants that are not generated from agricultural activities, in general,
are indications of urbanization.

I
The effects of urbanization have been well described in the introduction to this,chapter. Protection of water quality
in urbanized areas is difficult because of a range of factors. These factors include diverse pollutant loadings, large
runoff volumes, limited areas suitable for surface water runoff treatment systems, high implementation costs
associated with structural controls, and the destruction or absence of buffer zones that can filter pollutants and
prevent the destabilization of streambanks and shorelines.

As discussed in Section ILB of this chapter, comprehensive watershed planning facilitates integration of source
reduction activities and treatment strategies to mitigate the effects of urban runoff. Through the use of watershed
management, States and local governments can identify local water quality objectives and focus resources on control
of specific pollutants and sources. Watershed plans typically incorporate a combination of nonstructural and
structural practices.

An important nonstructural component of many watershed management plans is the identification and preservation
of buffers and natural systems. These areas help to maintain and improve surface water quality by filtering and
infiltrating urban runoff. In areas of existing development, natural buffers and conveyance systems may have been
altered as urbanization occurred. Where possible and appropriate, additional impacts to these areas should be
minimized and if degraded, the functions of these areas restored. The preservation, enhancement, or establishment
of buffers along waterbodies is generally recommended throughout the section 6217 management area as an
mportant tool for reducing NPS impacts. The establishment and protection of buffers, however, is most appropriate
along surface waterbodies and their tributaries where water quality and the biological integrity of the waterbody is
diependent on the presence of an adequate buffer/riparian area. Buffers may be necessary where the buffer/riparian
area (1) reduces significant NPS pollutant loadings, (2) provides habitat necessary to maintain the biological integrity
of the receiving water, and (3) reduces undesirable thermal impacts to the waterbody. For a discussion of protection
and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas, refer to Chapter 7.

Institutional controls, such as permits, inspection, and operation and maintenance requirements, are also essential
components of a watershed management program. The effectiveness of many of the practices described in this
chapter is dependent on administrative controls such as inspections. Without effective compliance mechanisms and
operation and maintenance requirements, many of these practices will not perform satisfactorily.

Where existing development precludes the use of effective nonstructural controls, structural practices may be the only
suitable option to decrease the NPS pollution loads generated from developed areas. In such situations, a watershed
plan can be used to integrate the construction of new surface water runoff treatment structures and the retrofit of
existing surface water runoff management systems.

Retrofitting is a process that involves the modification of existing surface water runoff control structures or surface
water runoff conveyance systems, which were initially designed to control flooding, not to serve a water quality
improvement function. By enlarging existing surface water runoff structures, changing the inflow and outflow
characteristics of the device, and increasing detention times of the runoff, sediment and associated pollutants can be
removed from the runoff. Retrofit of structural controls, however, is often the only feasible alternative for improving
water quality in developed areas. Where the presence of existing development or financial constraints limits
treatment options, targeting may be necessary to identify priority pollutants and select the most appropriate retrofits.

Changes resulting from dam buiUng and "acts of God" such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and unusual natural events (e.g., a 100-year
storm), as well as natural predevelopment riverine behavior that results in stream meander and deposition of sediments in sandbars or
similar formations, are excluded from consideration in this definition. For additional information, refer to Chapter 6.

EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993 4-89

IV. Existing Development Chapter 4

Once key pollutants have been identified, an achievable water quality target for the receiving water should be set
to improve current levels based on an identified objective or to prevent degradation of current water quality.
Extensive site evaluations should then be performed to assess the performance of existing surface water runoff
management systems and to pinpoint low-cost structural changes or maintenance programs for improving pollutant-
removal efficiency. Where flooding problems exist, water quality controls should be incorporated into the design
of surface water runoff controls. Available land area is often limited in urban areas, and the lack of suitable areas
will frequently restrict the use of conventional pond systems. In heavily urbanized areas, sand filters or water quality
inlets with oil/grit separators may be appropriate for retrofits because they do not limit land usage.

3. Management Measure Selection

Components (1) and (2) of this management measure were selected so that local communities develop and implement
watershed management programs. Watershed management programs are used throughout the 6217 management area
although coverage is inconsistent among States and local governments (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1986).

Local conditions, availability of funding, and problem pollutants vary widely in developed communities. Watershed
management programs allow these communities to select and implement practices that best address local needs. The
identification of priority and/or local regional pollutant reduction opportunities and schedules for implernenting
appropriate controls were selected as logical starting points in the process of instituting an institutional framework
to address nonpoint source pollutant reductions.

Cost was also a major factor in the selection of this management measure. EPA acknowledges the high costs and
other limitations inherent in treating existing sources to levels consistent with the standards set for developing; areas.
Suitable areas are often unavailable for structural treatment systems that can adequately protect receiving waters.
The lack of universal cost-effective treatment options was a major factor in the selection of this management
measure. EPA was also influenced by the frequent lack of funding for mandatory retrofitting and the extraord[inarily
high costs associated with the implementation of retention ponds and exfiltration systems in developed areas.

The use of retrofits has been encouraged because of proven water quality benefits. (Table 4-17 illustrates the
effectiveness of structural runoff controls for developed areas and retrofitted structures.) Retrofits are currently being
used by a number of States and local governments in the 6217 management area, including Maryland, Delaware, and
South Carolina.

Management measure components (3) and (4) were selected to preserve, enhance, and establish areas within existing
development that provide positive water quality benefits. Refer to the New Development and Site Planning
Management Measures for the rationale used in selecting components (3) and (4) of this management measure.

4. Practices

M a. Priority NPS pollutants should be targeted, and implementation strategies for mitigating theaffects
of NPS pollutants should be developed.

Mb. Policies, plans, and organizational structures that ensure that all surface water runoff management
facilities are properly operated and maintained should be developed. Periodic monitoring and
maintenance may be necessary to ensure proper operation and maintenance.

4-90 EPA-640-B-92-002 Janua)y 1993

Table 4-17. Existing Development Management Practices Effectiveness Summary

% Removal
Management Main Removal
Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Efficiency Factors References
Water Quality Inlet - Average: 15 5 5 5 15 5 0 Maintenance Pitt, 1986; Field, 1985;
Catch Basin (1) Schueler, 1987
Reported Range: 10-95 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-55 5-10 * Sedimentation
4@ storage volume
(0 Probable Range: 10-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10

No. Values 2 1 1 1 3 1
Considered:
Water Quality Inlet - Average: 80 NA 35 55 so 65 e Sedimentation Shaver, 1991
Catch Basins With storage volume
Sand Filter (1) Reported Range: 75-85 NA 30-45 45-70 70-90 50-80 - Depth of filter
Probable Range: 70-90 -- 30-40 40-70 70-90 50-80 media

No. Values 1 0 1 1 1 1
Considered:
Water Quality Inlet - Average: 15 5 5 5 15 5 * Sedimentation Pitt, 1986; Schueler, 1987
Oil/Grid Separator storage volume
(1) Reported Range: 10-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10 - Outlet
Probable Range: 10-25 5-10 5-10 5-10 10-25 5-10 configurations

Number of 1 1 1 1 1 1
References
Dry Pond Modified Average: 45 25 35 20 45 20 - Storage volume MWCOG, 1983; City of
into Ed Dry Pond - Detention time Austin, 1990; Schueler and
Reported Range: 5-90 10-55 20-60 0-40 25-65 (-40)-65 * Pond shape Helfrich, 1988; Pope and rn
Hess, 1989; OWML, 1987;
Probable Range (2): 70-90 10-60 20-60 30-40 20-60 40-60 Welinski and Stack, 1990
10
(b
No. Values 6 6 4 5 4 5
Considered:

Table 4-17. (Continued)

% Removal
Management Main Removal
Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Efficiency Factors References

Dry Pond Modified Average: 60 45 35 40 70 60 - Pool volume Wetzka and Oberta, 1988;
into Wet Pond - 0 Pond shape Yoosef et al., 1986; Collum,
Reported Range: (-30)-91 10-85 5-85 5-90 10-95 10-95 1985; Driscoll, 1983; Driscoll,
1986; MWCOG, 1983;
Probable Range: 50-90 20-90 10-90 10-90 10-95 20-95 OWML, 1983; Wu et al.,
1988; Holter, 1987; Martin,
No. Values 11 10 7 4 8 7 1988; Darmay et al., 1989;
Considered: OWML, 1982; City of Austin
'1990

Dry Pond or Wet Average: so 65 55 NA 40 20 0 Pool volume Ontario Ministry of the
Pond Modified 0 Pond shape Environment, 1991
into ED Wet Pond Reported Range: 50-100 50-80 55 NA 40 20 * Detention time

Probable Range: 50-95 50-80 --- --- --- ---

No. Values 1 1 1 0 1 1
Considered:

Streambank Average: NA NA NA NA NA NA MWCOG, 1990
Stabilization
Reported Range: NA NA NA NA NA NA

Probable Range: -- -- -- -- -- --
rrI
No. Values 0 0 0 0 0 0
Considered:

Riparian Forest Average: 70 50 60 70 20 50 0 Runoff volume IEP, 1991; Casman, 1990;
(assumed same as e Slope Glick et al., 1991; VADC,
Vegetated Filter Reported Range: 20-80 30-95 40-70 60-80 20 50 - Soil infiltration 1987; Minnesota CA, 1989;
Strip) rates Schueler, 1987; Hartigen et
Probable Range (3): 40-90 30-80 20-60 -- 30-80 20-50 - Vegetative cover al., 1989
- Buffer length
No- VaIuAs
Considered.

Table 4-17. (Continued) 9b
IL
CD

03 % Removal
Management Main Removal
Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Efficiency Factors References
Wetland Average: 65 25 20 50 65 35 Storage volume Harper et al., 1986; Brown,
z (assumed same as Detention time 1985; Wotzka and Obert,
Constructed Storm Reported Range: (-20)-100 (-120)--100 (-15)-40 20-80 30-95 (-30)-80 Poolshape 1988; Hickack et al., 1977;
Water Wetlands) Wetland's biota Barten, 1987; Meloria, 1986;
(0 Probable Range (6): 50-90 (-5)-80 0-40 --- 30-95 --- Seasonal Morris et al., 1981;
Variation Sherberger and Davis, 1982;
No. Values 14 14 6 2 6 4 ABAG, 1979; Oberts et al.,
Considered: 1989; Rushton and Dye,
1990; Hey and Barrett, 1991

IC04

IV. Existing Development Chapter 4

M c. Remnant pervious areas in already-built areas should be subject to enforceable presenlation
requirements. For example, set green space goals to promote tree plantings and pavement
reclamation projects.

M d. Developed areas in need of local or regional structural solutions should be identified and,out in
priority order.

M e. Regional structural solutions, retrofit opportunities, and nonstructural alternatives should be
identified, inventoried, and put in priority order.

M f. Where possible, modify existing surface water runoff management structures to address water
quality.

M g. As capital resources allow, implement practices such as those in Table 4-17.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

The following is a general description of various retrofit options and their effectiveness. Since each retrofit situation
is different, the costs will depend on site-specific factors such as climate, drainage area, or pollutants. Table 4-17
discusses the effectiveness of several practices often implemented when correcting existing NPS pollution problems
in urban areas.

a. Construction or Modification of Pollutant Removal Facilities

Many of the management practices described in Section 11 of this chapter cannot be used in already urbanized. areas
because they require space that is typically not available in urbanized areas. However, two types of poflutant
removal retrofits can be used to treat runoff* new treatment facilities can be built in limited land space, and existing
facilities can be modified to obtain increased water quality benefits.

New Facilities. If there is space available, the management practices described in Section 11 can be applied to
provide water quality benefits. Typically, however, there are space constraints in urbanized areas that will not allow
construction of these facilities. Water quality inlets may be appropriate in areas where space is limited and runoff
ftom highly impervious areas such as parking lots must be treated. The effectiveness and costs of these facilities
would be similar to those previously discussed. There are several types of water quality inlets --- catch basins, catch
basins with sand filters, and oil/grit separators. These are described in detail in Section 11.

Retrofit of Existing Facilities. In the past, many surface water runoff management facilities were constructed to
provide peak volume control; however, no provisions for pollutant removal were provided. These existing facilities
can be modified to provide water quality benefits. Two common modifications are dry pond conversion and fringe
marsh creation.

� Dry Pond Conversion. Many dry ponds for surface water runoff management that provide peak volume
control, but no water quality benefits, have been constructed. Many of these ponds can be modified to
provide water quality control. These modifications can include decreasing the size of the outlet to increase
the detention of the dry pond. A dry pond's outlet may also be modified to detain a permanent pool of
water and thus create a wet pond or extended detention wet pond. Prince George's County, Maryland, has
a successful program for urban retrofits. They are usually off-line facilities with forebays, vegetative
benches, and deeper portions for storage.

� Fringe Marsh Creation. Aquatic vegetation can be planted along the perimeter of constructed wet -ponds
or other open water systems to enhance sediment control and provide some biological pollutant uptake.

4-94 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 IV. Existing Development

b. Stabilization of Shorelines, Stream Banks, and Channels

Urbanization can significantly increase the volume and velocity of surface water runoff that has the potential to erode
streambanks and channels. This erosion can create high sediment loads in surface water. Streambanks can be
stabilized by providing plan 'tings along the streambank or by placing boulders, riprap, retaining walls, or other
structural controls in eroding areas. Where feasible, vegetation and other soft practices should be used instead of
hard, structural practices. See the Shoreline and Streambank Protection section of Chapter 6 for additional
information.

c. Protection and Restoration of Riparian Forest and Welland Areas

Riparian forests and weilands are very effective water quality controls. They should be protected and restored
wherever possible. Riparian forests can be restored by replanting the banks and floodplains of a strewn with native
species to stabilize erodible soils and improve surface water and ground water quality. Refer to Chapter 7 for
additional information. I

Some examples of urban watershed retrofit programs are presented below. The first case study, the Anacostia
watershed, involves a developed urban area suffering from multiple NPS pollution impacts. As with many of the
examples given, the project has advanced only through the planning and early implementation stages. Therefore,
performance data are not currently available.

CASE STUDY 1 - ANACOSTIA WATERSHED, MARYLAND

pportunities for urban retrofitting are limited in developed watersheds, but they can be implemented through
extensive onsite evaluations. For example, between 1989 and 1991 over 125 sites in the 179-square-mile
Anacostia watershed in Montgomery County, Maryland, were identified as candidates for retrofitting after
0

extensive on-site evaluation (Schueler et al., 1991). Retrofit options developed in the watershed included
source reduction, extended detention (ED) marsh ponds or ED ponds to handle the first flush, additional storage
capacity in the open channel, routing of surface water runoff away from sensitive channels, diversion of the first
flush to sand-peat filters, and installation of oil/grit separators in the drain network itself. The most commonly
used retrofit technique in the Anacostia watershed is the retrofit of existing dry surface water runoff detention or
flood control structures to improve their runoff storage and treatment capacity. Existing detention ponds are
maintained by excavation, adding to the elevation of the embankment, or by construction of low-flow orifices.
The newly created storage is used to provide a permanent pool, extended detention storage, or a shallow
wetland. Nearly 20 such retrofits are in some stage of design or construction in the Anacostia watershed.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-95

IV. Existing Development Chapter 4

CASE STUDY 2 - LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR, MARYLAND
(Stack and Belt, 1989)
Loch Raven Reservoir, a water supply reservoir serving Baltimore, Maryland, had a eutrophication problern@ clue
to excessive phosphorus loads. To address this problem, the city examined the effectiveness of its existing
phosphorus controls. They found that the more than 24 extended detention dry ponds that had been originally
constructed for surface water runoff management had been designed to treat the once-in-10-year or once.-in-
100-year flood. The extended detention ponds were thus inefficient at treating runoff from frequent storm
events, and the city was receiving few water quality benefits from these structures. Modifications, or retrotits,
allowed the basins to collect runoff from smaller events and reduce pollutant loadings without affecting their
capacity to contain runoff from larger storms.

Difficulties in obtaining permission from private pond owners restricted the number of ponds with planned
retrofits to six ponds owned by the county and one privately owned pond. Private owners were concerned
about the maintenance costs associated with the retrofits. Changes to the ponds usually involved alteration of
the size of the orifice of the low-flow release structure. Computer modeling was used to determine the minimum
size that would not interfere with the pond's design criteria (i.e., containing the 2-, 10- and 100-year storms)
while providing sufficient detention time to settle the majority of the solids in urban runoff from the more frequent
storms. Each retrofit was tailored to the basin's unique outlet and site characteristics, and costs reflect the
differences in approach. For example, one of the ponds was modified as a urban runoff wetland for an
estimated cost of $27,800. Retrofits of dry ponds were the least expensive, with costs of less than about
$2,000. Draining and dredging boosted the cost of retrofitting a wet pond with a clogged low-flow release
structure to approximately $13,000.

Monitoring of the performance of the retrofits during 12 storm events measured removal efficiencies for
particulate matter of over 90 percent and removal efficiencies for total phosphorus of between 30 and 40
percent. All of the storms monitored were less than the 1-year storm, and detention times ranged from 1 to 5
hours. Trash debris collectors were effective at reducing clogging; thus no maintenance was necessary in the
first year of operation.

CASE STUDY 3 - INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, FLORIDA
(Bennett and Heaney, 1991)

Improper surface water runoff drainage practices have degraded the quality of Florida's Indian River Lagoon by
increasing the volume of freshwater runoff to the estuarine receiving water, as well as increasing the loadino of
suspended solids. Draining of wetlands for urban and agricultural development has led to nutrient loading in the
lagoon.

The study area, typical of most Florida flatwood watersheds, was selected as a representative drainage
catchment. EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was used to summarize the relationship between
catchment hydrology, channel hydraulics, and pollutant loads. The model, calibrated for the study region, was
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed watershed control program and to project performance levels
expected after the study region becomes fully developed. The retrofit of multiple structural measures was
undertaken as a demonstration-scale project. An existing trunk channel was modified to act as a wet detention
basin. Flow from the trunk channel enters a partially disturbed, interclunal, freshwater wetland. The wetland
system provides nutrient assimilation, additional water storage capacity, sediment attenuation, and enhanced
evapotranspiration. SWMM predicted that the project will remove between 80 percent and 85 percent of the
total suspended solids, depending on the level of future development. The cost of the project in 1989 dollars,
including operation and monitoring costs over a 10-year period, was $198,960.

4-96 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januarv 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

V. ONSITE DISFOSAL SYSTEMS

A. New Onsite Disposal Systems Management Measures

(1) Ensure that new Onsite Disposal Systems (OSDS) are located, designed,
installed, operated, inspected, and maintained to prevent the discharge of
pollutants to the surface of the ground and to the extent practicable reduce the
discharge of pollutants into ground waters that are closely hydrologically
connected to surface waters. Where necessary to meet these objectives: (a)
discourage the installation of garbage disposals to reduce hydraulic and
nutrient loadings; and (b) where low-volume plumbing fixtures have not been
installed in new developments or redevelopments, reduce total hydraulic
loadings to the OSDS by 25 percent. Implement OSDS inspection schedules
for preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction.

(2) Direct placement of OSDS away from unsuitable areas. Where OSDS
placement in unsuitable areas is not practicable, ensure that the OSDS is
designed or sited at a density so as not to adversely affect surface waters or
ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water.
Unsuitable areas include, but are not limited to, areas with poorly or
excessively drained soils; areas with shallow water tables or areas with high
seasonal water tables; areas overlaying fractured bedrock that drain directly
to ground water; areas within floodplains; or areas where nutrient andfor
pathogen concentrations in the effluent cannot be sufficiently treated or
reduced before the effluent reaches sensitive waterbodies;

(3) Establish protective setbacks from surface waters, wetlands, and floodplains
for conventional as well as alternative OSDS. The lateral setbacks should be
based on soil type, slope, hydrologic factors, and type of OSDS. Where
uniform protective setbacks cannot be achieved, site development with OSDS
so as not to adversely affect waterbodies and/or contribute to a public health
nuisance;

(4) Establish protective separation distances between OSDS system components
and groundwater which is closely hydrologically connected to surface waters.
The separation distances should be based on soil type, distance to ground
water, hydrologic factors, and type of OSDS;

(5) Where conditions indicate that nitrogen-limited surface waters may be
adversely affected by excess nitrogen loadings from ground water, require the
installation of OSDS that reduce total nitrogen loadings by 50 percent to
ground water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all new OSDS including package plants and small-
scale or regional treatment facilities not covered by NPDES regulations in order to manage the siting, design,

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 4-97

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

installation, and operation and maintenance of all such OSDS. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in
conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management
measure by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development
and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to protect the 6217 management area from pollutants discharged by
OSDS. The measure requires that OSDS be sited, designed, and installed so that impacts to waterbodies will be
reduced, to the extent practicable. Factors such as soil type, soil depth, depth to water table, rate of sea level rise,
and topography must be considered in siting and installing conventional OSDS.

The objective of the management measure is to prevent the installation of conventional OSDS in areas where soil
absorption systems will not provide adequate treatment of effluents containing solids, phosphorus, pathogens,
nitrogen, and nonconventional. pollutants prior to entry into surface waters and ground water (e.g., highly permeable
soils, areas with shallow water tables or confining layers, or poorly drained soils). In addition to soil criteria,
setbacks, separation distances, and management and maintenance requirements need to be established to fulfill the
requirements of this management measure. Guidance on design factors to consider in the installation of OSDS is
available in EPA's Design Manualfor Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (1980), currently under
revision. This measure also requires that in areas experiencing pollution problems due to OSDS-generated niixogen
loadings, OSDS designs should employ denitrification systems or some other nitrogen removal process that reduces
total nitrogen loadings by at least 50 percent. Additionally, hydraulic loadings to OSDS can be reduced by up to
25 percent by installing low-volume plumbing fixtures and enforcing water conservation measures. Garbage
disposals are to be discouraged in all new development or redevelopment where conventional OSDS are employed
as another means of reducing overloading and ensure proper operation of the OSDS. Regularly sch(Auled
maintenance and purnpout of OSDS will prolong the life of the system and prevent degradation of surface waters.

States need not conduct new monitoring programs or collect new monitoring data to determine whether ground water
is closely hydrologically connected to surface water, nor are States expected to determine exactly where the resulting
water quality problems are significant. Rather, States are encouraged to make reasonable determinations based upon
existing information and data sources.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected to address the proper siting, design, and installation of new OSDS in the
6217 management area. OSDS have been identified as contributors of pathogens, nutrients, and other pollutwits to
ground water and surface waters. Nearly all coastal States have siting regulations establishing criteria for setbacks,
separation distances, and percolation rates (Myers, 1991; WCFS@ 1992). However, these programs often do not
adequately protect surface waters from pollutants generated by OSDS. This management measure was selected to
ensure that States comprehensively control new OSDS siting, design, and installation in order to protect surface
waters.

The management measure components were selected to address problems known to be associated with OSDS. These
management measure components were selected because proper siting of OSDS and the use of setbacks have been
identified as effective methods for reducing nutrient and pathogen loadings to ground water and surface waters. All
components of this management measure were selected to direct the placement of OSDS away from areas where site
conditions are inadequate to allow proper treatment to occur and areas where there is a high potential for subsequent
system failures that may cause contamination of waterbodies. In addition, this management measure was selected
because siting and density controls can be effective complement s to denitrifying systems. However, these
requirements alone are often,not adequate to protect surface waters, particularly in situations where installation and

4-98 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 V Onsite Disposal Systems

replacement of OSDS are allowed without thorough consideration of OSDS-related impacts. Periodic reevaluation
of these requirements is necessary to ensure protection of surface waters.

Management measure components (1) (a) and (b) were selected to reduce occurrences of hydraulic overloading of
conventional OSDS, which may result in inadequate treatment of septic system effluent and contamination of ground
water or surface water. When excessive wastewater volumes are delivered to the soil absorption field, failure can
occur. In addition, soil saturated with wastewater will not allow oxygen to pass into the soil. Hydraulic overloading
often results from changes in water use habits, such as increased family size, the addition of new water-using
appliances that require increased water consumption, or high seasonal use. New systems may fail within a few
months if water use exceeds the system's capacity to absorb effluent (Mancl, 1985). Water conservation reduces
the amount of water an absorption field must accept.

Since numerous States have responded to this concern by adopting low-flow plumbing fixture regulations
(Table 4-18), requiring such fixtures is not unreasonable. In addition, a number of States have regulations prohibiting
the installation of garbage disposals where OSDS are used. If low-flow plumbing fixtures are used, it is important
that OSDS design not be modified to decrease the required septic tank size. The use of smaller septic tanks will
negate the advantages of using low-flow plumbing fixtures.

For absorption fields to operate properly, they must have aerobic conditions. Jarrett et al. (1985) stated that 75
percent of the total number of soil absorption field failures could be attributed to hydraulic overloading. High-
efficiency plumbing fixtures can reduce the total water load by as much as 60 percent (Jarrett et al., 1985) and reduce
the chance of absorption field failure. Table 4-19 illustrates daily water use and pollutant loadings.

Management measure component (5) was selected to abate OSDS nitrogen loadings to surface waters where nitrogen
is a cause of surface water degradation. The Chesapeake Bay Program (1990) found that 55 to 85 percent of the
nitrogen entering a conventional OSDS can be discharged into ground water. Conventional septic systems account
for 74 percent of the nitrogen entering Buttermilk Bay (at the northern end of Buzzard's Bay) in Massachusetts
(Horsely Witten Hegeman, 1991). A study of nitrogen entering the Delaware Inland Bays found that a significant
portion of the total pollutant load could be attributed to septic systems. The study determined that septic systems
accounted for 15 percent, 16 percent, and I I percent of the nitrogen inputs to Assawoman, Indian River, and
Rehoboth Bays, respectively (Reneau, 1977; Ritter, 1986). Alternatives to conventional OSDS that can substantially
reduce nitrogen loadings are available.

In 1980, EPA developed a design manual for onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems. An update of this
document is being prepared.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more managqment practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Many of the following practices involve siting and locating OSDS within the 6217 management area. They address
issues such as minimum lot size, depth to water table, and site-specific characteris tics such as soil percolation rate.
Table 4-20 illustrates the variability in State and local requirements for siting of OSDS. The practices were
developed to address the,issue of siting OSDS given the variable nature of this activity.

a. Develop setback guidelines and official maps showing areas where conditions are suitable for
conventional septic OSDS installation.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-99

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

Table 4-18. States That Have Adopted Low-Flow Plumbing Fixture Regulations
(in gallons per flush for toilets and gallons per minute for other fixtures)
(Small Flows Clearinghouse, 1991)8
Water Lavatory
State Effective Date Closets Urinal Shower Heads Faucets Kitchen Faucets
California 01/01/92 1.6 1.0 2.5 @ 80 psi 2.2 @ 60 psi 2.2 0 60 psi
Colorado 01/01/90 3.5 3.0 @ 80 psi 2.5 @ 80 psi 2.5 @ 80 psi
Connecticut 10/01/90 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
01/01/92 1.6
Delaware 07/01/91 1.6 1.5 3.0 0 80 psi 3.0 @ 80 psi 3.0 @ 80 psi
Georgia
Residential 04/01/92 1.6 1.0 2.5 @ 60 psi 2.0 2.5
Commercial 07/01/92 1.6 1.0 2.5 @ 60 psi 2.0 2.5
Massachusetts 03102/89 1.6 (1 -piece) 1.5
01/01/88 3.0
09/01/91 1.6 (all
others)
New Jersey 07/01/91 1.6 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
New York 1980 3.0 @ psi 3.0
01/26/88 1.0
01/01/91 2.0
01/01/92 1.6

Oregon 07/01/93 1.6 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.5
Rhode Island 09/01/90 1.6 (2-piece) 2.5 @ 80 psi 2.0 @ 80 psi 2.0 @ 80 psi
03101/91 1.6 (all 1.0
others)
Texas 01/01/92 1.6b 1.0 2.75 @ 80 psi 2.2 @ 60 psi 2.2 @ 60 psi
Washington 07/01/93 1.6 1.0 2.5 @ 80 psi 2.5 @ 80 psi 2.5 @ 80 psi

psi = pounds per square inch.
' Information provided by Judith L. Renton, City of Portland, Oregon, Bureau of Water Works.
b2.0 gallons or flow rate for ANSI ultra-low flush toilets, whichever is lowest for wall-mounted with flushometers.

Table 4-19. Daily Water Use and Pollutant Loadings by Source (USEPA, 1980)

Volume BOD Ss Total N Total?
Water Use (Ucapita) (g/capita) (g/capita) (g/capita) (g/capita)

Garbage Disposal 4.54 10.8 15.9 0.4 0.6

Toilet 61.3 17.2 27.6 8.6 1.2

Basins and Sinks 84.8 22.0 13.6 1.4 2.2

Misc. 25.0 0 0 0 0

Total 175.6 50.0 57.0 10.4 3.5

L = liters
g = grams

4-100 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

Both conventional and alternative OSDS usually include a soil absorption field. These absorption fields require a
certain minimum area of soil surrounding the system to effectively remove pathogens and other pollutants. Setbacks
from wells, surface waters, building foundations, and property boundaries are necessary to minimize the threat to
public health and the environment. The setback should be based on soil type, slope, presence and character of the
water table (as defined on a map developed by the implementing agency), and the type of OSDS. Setback guidelines
should be set for both traditional and alternative OSDS. The Design Manualfor Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems (USEPA, 1980) recommends the following setbacks for soil absorption systems, although other
increased setbacks may be necessary to protect ground water and surface waters from viral and bacteria transport
to account for tidal influences and accommodate sea level rise. (NOTE: Setback distance requirements may vary
considerably based on local soil conditions and aquifer properties):

Water supply wells 50 to 100 feet
Surface waters, springs 50 to 100 feet
Escarpments 10 to 20 feet
Boundary of property 5 to 10 feet
Building foundations 10 to 20 feet
(30 feet when located up-slope from a
building in slowly permeable soils)

For mound systems, the mound perimeter requires down-slope setbacks to make certain that the basal area of the
mound is sufficient to absorb'the wastewater before it reaches the perimeter of the mound to avoid surface seepage.
The Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (USEPA, 1980) provides guidance on
setbacks for mound systems.

b. OSDS should be sited, designed, and constructed so that there is, sufficient separation between
the soil absorption field and the seasonal high water table or limiting layer, depending on site
characteristics, including but not limited to hydrology, soils, and topography.
I

Studies have shown that at least 4 feet of unsaturated soil below the ponded liquid in a soil absorption field is
necessary to (1) remove bacteria and viruses to an acceptable level, (2) remove most organics and phosphorus, and
(3) nitrify a large portion of the ammonia (University of Wisconsin, 1978). The majority of coastal States'already
require a minimum separation distance of at least 2 feet (Woodward-Clyde, 1992). Massachusetts requires a
minimum separation of 4 feet; 5 feet is required by towns with sensitive surface waters. Several towns on Cape Cod
have adopted 5 feet as the minimum. A prescribed minimum distance is necessary to prevent contaminants from
directly entering ground water and surface waters. Areas with rapid soil permeabilities (e.g., a percolation rate of
less than 5 minutes/inch) may require a greater separation distance. However, because of local variation, these
numbers are provided only as guidance.

A study on a barrier island of North Carolina (Carlile et al., 1981) found high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and pathogens in shallow ground-water wells located beneath septic system soil absorption fields. These high
concentrations were suspected to be the result of inadequate separation distance to the water table. Further analysis
revealed that, at the design loading rate, a greater separation distance reduced the ground-water concentration of
indicator organisms from 4.6 to 2.3 logs, and phosphorus by 93 percent. Nitrogen levels were also reduced, but this
improvement (10 percent) was not as dramatic as that observed for bacteria and phosphorus.

M c. Require assessments of site suitability prior to issuing permits for OSDS.

Site assessments should be performed to determine the soil infiltration rate, soil pollutant removal capacity,
acceptable hydraulic loading rate, and depth to the water table prior to issuing permits for OSDS. Percolation tests
are usually performed to determine the soil infiltration rate. However, Hill and Frink (1974) stated that pdrcolation
tests are often performed improperly and system failures have resulted from improper siting and inadequate
percolation rates. In addition, regulatory values based on acceptable percolation rates vary considerably (e.g.,
Delaware - 6 to 60 minlin; Georgia - 50 to 90 min/in; Michigan -, 3 to 60 min/in; and Virginia - 5 to 120 min/in

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-101

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

Table 4-20. Example Onsite Sewage Disposal System Siting Requirements
State OSDS Siting Requirement

Florida With respect to ground-water movement, the State requires that, onsite systems
must be placed no closer than 75 ft from a private potable water well, 100 ft from a
public drinking water well, and 200 ft from a public drinking water well serving a
facility with an estimated sewage flow of more than 2,000 gallons per day. Systems
must not be located within 5 ft of building foundations or laterally within 75 ft of the
mean high water line. Subdivisions and lots where each lot has a minimum area of
at least 1/2 acre and either a minimum dimension of 100 ft or a mean of at least
100 ft from the street may be developed with private potable wells or wells serving
water systems and onsite sewage disposal systems.
Massachusetts The State requires that no septic tank shall be closer than 10 ft and no leaching
facility shall be closer than 20 ft to surface water supplies; no septic tank shall be
closer than 25 ft and no leaching facility shall be closer than 50 ft to watercourses.
Onsite systems must be at least 4 ft above ground water.
South Carolina No State requirement. County requirements vary. For example, the County of
Charleston recommends a miniumum lot size of 12,500 ft2 with a 70-ft front on lots
with public water supplies and 30,000 ft2 with a 1 00-ft front for lots with private
water supplies.
Virginia The Chesapeake Bay Act requires that no sewage system shall be placed within
25 ft of a Resource Preservation Watercourse or within 100 ft of a Resource
Management Watercourse. In the event that these requirements cannot be met,
the State requires minimum setbacks of 70 ft for shellfish waters, 50 ft for
impounded surface waters, and 50 ft for streams.

Washington The State requires a 1/2- to 1-acre.minimum lot size, dependent upon soil type, for
areas served by public water supplies and a 1- to 2-acre minimum lot size for
septic tank siting, dependent upon soil type, for individual areas served by water
supplies and private wells.

Wisconsin The State requirements of lot areas and widths vary according to percolation irate
(measured as time required to percolate 1 inch). For example, for a lot with a
private water supply system and a percolation rate of under 10 minutes, a
minimum lot area of 20,000 ft2 , a minimum average lot width of 100 ft, and a
minimum continuous suitable soil area of 10,000 ft2 are required before an OSDS
can be sited. For areas served by a community water supply system, a lot with a
percolation rate of under 10 minutes requires a minimum lot area of 12,000 ft'@, a
minimum average lot width of 75 ft, and a minimum continuous suitable soil area of
6,000 ft.

(Woodward-Clyde, 1992). States such as Florida and Mississippi require soil evaluations to determine the suitability
of an absorption field. A soil evaluation should also be used in conjunction with percolation test results to determine
whether a site is acceptable, and soil percolation requirements should be phased out, if appropriate. These
evaluations should examine the organic content of the soil, the grain size distribution, and the structure of the soil.
In addition, hydraulic loading should be evaluated to determine the suitability of a site for septic tank use.

A system such as DRASTIC methodology (USEPA, 1987) can also be used to map areas where aquifers inay be
vulnerable to pollution from OSDS. DRASTIC considers soil permeability, depth to ground water, and aquifer
characteristics.

4-102 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janua@,l 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

Md. ff OSDS are sited in areas where conditions indicate that nitrogen-limited waters maybe adversely
affected by excessive nitrogen loading, minimize densities of development in those areas and
require the use of denitrification systems.

In areas where nitrogen is a problem pollutant, it is important to consider the density of OSDS. As the density of
residences increases, lot sizes decrease and impacts (especially from nitrogen) on underlying ground water may
intensify. One-half to 5-acre lots are generally the minimal requirement for siting OSDS, but the lot size may need
to be larger if nitrogen is a problem pollutant. Limits on the density of absorption fields should also reflect
variations in climate (Rutledge et al., undated). In Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, a minimum lot size of 70,000
square feet was recommended as necessary to avoid nitrogen-induced degradation (Horsely Witten Hegeman, 199 1).
However, this practice should not preclude implementation of the use of cluster development to retain open areas
necessary for controlling NPS pollution.

A number of treatment systems are known to remove nitrogen using denitrification. Such systems include sand and
anaerobic upflow filters, and constructed wetlands. These systems are described in practice Y" Most of these
systems require nitrification of septic tank effluent as an initial stage of the treatment process. When properly
operated, these systems have been shown to have the potential to remove over 50 percent of the total nitrogen from
septic tank effluent. I

Me. Develop and implement local plumbing codes that require practices that are compatible with OSDS
use.

As stated previously, the majority of OSDS soil absorption field failures,are attributed to hydraulic overload. Solids
loads from garbage disposals can also lead to clogging and failure of an absorption field. To address these problems,
plumbing codes that minimize the potential for soil absorption field failure should be implemented.

Plumbing codes that require the use of high-efficiency plumbing fixtures in new development can reduce these water
loads considerably. Such high-efficiency fixtures include toilets of 1.5 gallons or less per flush, shower heads of
2.0 gallons per minute (gpm), faucets of 1.5 gpm or less, and front-loading washing machines of up to 27 gallons
per 10- to 12-pound load. Implementing these fixtures can reduce total in-house water use by 30 percent to 70
percent (Consumer Reports July 1990, February 1991).

f. In areas suitable for OSDS, select, design, and construct the appropriate OSDS that will protect
surface waters and ground water.

Selection of an OSDS should consider site soil and ground-water characteristics and the sensitivity of the receiving
water(s) to OSDS effluent. Descriptions and design considerations for systems have been provided below.
Table 4-21 contains available cost and effectiveness data for some of these systems. Design and operation and
maintenance information on these devices can be found in Design Manual for Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems (USEPA, 1980).

Conventional Septic System. A conventional septic system consists of a settling or septic tank and a soil absorption
field. The traditional system accepts both greywater (wastewater from showers, sinks, and laundry) and blackwater
(wastewater from toilets). These systems are typically restricted in that the bottom invert of the absorption field must
be at least 2 feet above the seasonally high water table or impermeable layer (separation distance) and the percolation
rate of the soil must be between I and 60 minutes per inch. Also, to ensure proper operation, the tank should be
pumped every 3 to 5 years. Nitrogen removal of these systems is minimal and somewhat dependent on temperature.
The most common type of failure of these systems is from clogging of the absorption field, insufficient separation
distance to the water table, insufficient percolation capacity of the soil, and overloading of water.

Mound Systems. Mound systems are an alternative to conventional OSDS and are used on sites where insufficient
separation distance or percolation conditions exist. Mound systems are typically designed so the effluent from the

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-103

Table 4-21. OSDS Effectiveness and Cost Summary

Effectivenessa Cost

Capital Maintenance
Water TSS BOD TN
TP Path. cost' cost'
Practice N N N N N (Logs) ($/House) ($Near) References
Conventional Septic System USEPA, 1977,1980,1989, Z6
Average NA 72 45 28 57 3.5 $4,500 $70 199f; Sandy et al., 1988;
Probable Range NA 60-70 40-55 10-45 30-80 3-4 $2,000-$8,000 $50-$100 Lamb et al., 1988; Rhode
Observed Range NA 54-83 30-60 0-58 0-95 3-4 $2,000-$10.000 $25-$110 Island, 1989; Degen et al.,
No. Values Considered 0 7 7 13 12 2 8 4 1991; Healy, 1982;
Hanson et al., 1988; Dix,
1986; Fulhage and Day,
1988.
Mound Systems USEPA, 1977,1980,1991;
Average NA NA NA 44 NA NA $8,300 $180 Small Flows
Probable Range NA 60-70 40-55 10-45 30-80 3-4 $7,000-$10,000 $100-$300 Clearinghouse, undated.;
Observed Range NA NA NA 44-44 NA NA $6,800-$11,000 $90-$310 Hanson et al., 1988;
No. Values Considered 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 4 Degen et al., 1991.

Low Pressure Systems Fulhage and Day, 1988;
Average NA NA NA NA NA NA $5,100 $150 USEPA, 1980.
Probable Range NA 60-70 40-55 10-45 30-80 3-4 $4,000-$6000 $100-$200
Observed Range NA NA NA NA NA NA $2,800-$7,400 $150-$150
No. Values Considered 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1

Anaerobic Upflow Filter USEPA, 1991; Venhuizen,
Average NA 44 62 59 NA NA $5,550 NA 1991; Mitchell, undated.
Probable Range NA 30-60 50-75 40-75 60-80 3-4 $3.000-$8,000 $150-$400
Observed Range NA 24-89 46-84 20-75 NA NA $3,000-$8,000 NA
No. Values Considered 0 6 6 6 0 0 2 0

USEPA, 1977,1980,1991-1
Intermittent Sand Filter
Average NA 92 92 55 80 3.2 $5,400 $275 Small Flows
ki It
rittilya NA
r'luDaule US9 90@95 50-65 70-90 I-A nno-SAM0 $2504400 Clearinq
house, undated.;
Observed Range NA 70-99 80-99 40-75 70-90 2-4 j2 j@6, 0 0 0 $100- $*440 Venhuiz-en, 1991.
No. Values Considered 0 7 10 7 2 6 7 5 -

Table 4-21. (Continued)

Effectivenessa Cost

Capital Maintenance
Water TSS BOD TN TP Path. CoStb Costh
Practice N N N N N (Logs) ($/House) ($Near) References
Recirculating Sand Filter Hoxie et al., 1988; Small
Average NA 90 92 64 80 2.9 $3,900 $145 Flows Clearinghouse,
Probable Range NA 85-95 85-95 60-85 70-90 2-4 $5,000-$8,000 $250-$400 undated.; Fulhage and
Observed Range NA 70-98 75-98 1-94 70-90 2-4 $1,850-$9,200 $15-$410 Day, 1988; USEPA, 1991;
No. Values Considered 0 12 15 13 2 8 5 7 Venhuizen, 1991;
Swanson and Dix, 1988;
Lamb et al., 1988; Leak,
1986; USEPA, 1980;
Sandy et al., 1988.
Water Separation System USEPA, 1991; USEPA,
Average NA 60 42 83 30 3 $8,000 $300 1986; USEPA, 1980;
Probable Range NA 55-70 35-55 70-90 30-55 2-4 $5,000411,000 $300-$750 USEPA, 1977.
Observed Range NA 36-75 22-55 68-99 14-42 NA $5,000411,000 $300-$300
No. Values Considered 0 4 3 6 6 0 1 1

Constructed Wetlands Reed, 1991; Small Flows
Average NA so 81 90 NA 4 $710 $25 Clearinghouse, undated.;
Probable Range NA 60-90 70-90 60-90 30-70 3-4 $1,000-$3,000 $25-$100 USEPA, 1980; Amberg,
Observed Range NA 50-983 65-97 90-90 NA 4-4 $50-$350 $25-$25 1990; Dwyer et al., 1989.
No. Values Considered 0 4 2 0 NA 19 1

Cluster Systems Decker, 1987; Small Flows
Average NA NA NA NA NA NA $4,950 $370 Clearinghouse, undated.
Probable Range NA NA NA NA NA NA $5,000-$7,000 $300-$400
rA
Observed Range NA NA NA NA NA NA $3,000-$6,900 $370-$370 @F
No. Values Considered 0 NA NA NA NA NA 3 1

Table 4-21. (Continued)

Effectiveness' Cost

Capital Maintenance
Water TSS BOD TN TP Path. CoStb Costh
Practice M N N N N (Logs) ($/House) ($/Year) References (n
Eliminating Garbage USEPA, 1980,1986,1991.
Disposals
Average NA 37 28 5 2.5 NA NA NA
Probable Range NA 35-40 25-30 5-10 2-3 NA Negligible Negligible
Observed Range NA 37-37 28-28 5-5 2-3 NA NA NA
No. Values Considered 0 3 2 2 2 NA NA NA

Low Phosphate Detergents USEPA, 1980,1991.
Average NA NA NA NA 50 NA NA NA
Probable Range NA NA NA NA 40-50 NA Negligible Negligible
Observed Range NA NA NA NA 50-50 NA NA NA
No. Values Considered 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Water Conservation Fixtures USEPA, 1977,1980,1991;
Average Small Flows
Probable Range 45 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Clearinghouse, undated.;
Observed Range 25-80 NA NA NA NA NA Varies Negligible Jarrett et al., 1985.
No. Values Considered 4-90 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Holding Tanks Small Flows
Average NA NA NA NA NA NA $3,900 $1,300 Clearinghouse, undated.;
Probable Range NA 95-100 95-100 95-100 95-100 3-4 $4,000-$6,000 $1,00042,000 Dix, 1986; Hanson et al.,
Observed Range NA NA NA NA NA NA $1,220-$6,670 $100-$2,400 1988.
No. Values Considered 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12

NA - Not available.
' Effectiveness values reflect total system reductions including soil absorption fields.
bCosts are in 1988 equivalent dollars, and an average household with four occupants was assumed.

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

septic tank is routed to a dosing tank and then pumped to a soil absorption field that is located in elevated sand fill
above the natural soil surface. There is evidence suggesting that pressure dosing provides more uniform distribution
of effluent throughout the absorption field and may result in marginally better performance. A major limitation to
the use of mounds is slope. In Pennsylvania, elevated sand mound beds are permitted only in areas with slopes less
than 8 percent (Mancl, 1985).

Where adequate area is available for subsurface effluent discharge, and permanent or seasonal high ground water
is at least 2 feet below the surface, the elevated sand mound may be used in coastal areas. This system can treat
septic tank effluent to a level that usually approaches primary drinking water standards for BOD,, suspended solids,
and pathogens by the time the effluent plume passes the property line for single-family dwellings. A mound system
will not normally produce significant reductions in levels of total nitrogen discharged, but should achieve high levels
of nitrification.

Intermittent Sand Filter. Intermittent sand filters are used in conjunction with pretreatment methods such as septic
tanks and soil absorption fields. An intermittent sand filter receives and treats effluent from the septic tank before
it is distributed to the leaching field. The sand filter consists of a bed (either open or buried) of granular material
from 24 to 36 inches deep. The material is usually from 0.35 to 1.0 mm in diameter. The bed of granular material
is underlain with graded gravel and collector drains. These systems have been shown to be effective for nitrogen
removal; however, this process is dependent on temperature. Water loading recommendations for intermittent sand
filters are typically between I and 5 gallons per day/square foot (gpdlfe) but can be higher depending on wastewater
characteristics. Primary failure of sand filters is from clogging, and the following maintenance is recommended to
keep the system performing properly: resting the bed, raking the surface layer, or removing the top surface medium
and replacing it with clean medium. In general, the filters should be inspected every 3 to 4 months to ensure that
they are operating properly (Otis, undated).

Intermittent sand filters are used for small commercial and institutional developments and individual homes. The
size of the facility is limited by land availability. The filters should be buried in the ground, but may be constructed
above ground in areas of shallow bedrock or high water tables. Covered filters are required in areas with extended
periods of subfreezing weather. Excessive long-term rainfall and runoff may be detrimental to filter performance,
requiring measures to divert water away from the system (USEPA, 1980).

Recirculating Sand Filter. A recirculating sand filter is a modified intermittent sand filter in which effluent from
the filter is recirculated through the septic tank and/or the sand filter before it is discharged to the soil absorption
field. The addition of the recirculation loop in the systern may enhance removal effectiveness and allows media size
to be increased to as much as 1.5 min in diameter and allows water loading rates in the range of 3 to 10 gpd1fe to
be used. Recirculation ratesof 3:1 to 5:1 are generally recommended.

Buried or recirculating sand filters can achieve a very high level of treatment of septic tank effluent before discharge
to surface water or soil. This usually means single-digit figures for BOD, and suspended solids and secondary body
contact standards for pathogens (in practice, 100-900 per 100 ml). Dosed recycling between sand filter and septic
tank or similar devices can result in significant levels of nitrification/denitrification, equivalent to between 50 and
75 percent overall nitrogen removal, depending on the recycling ratio. Regular buried or recirculating sand filters
may require as much as I square foot of filter per gallon of septic tank effluent.

Anaerobic Upflow Filten, An anaerobic upflow filter (AUF) resembles a septic tank filled with 318-inch gravel with
a deep inlet tee and a shallow outlet tee. An AUF system includes a septic tank, an AUF, a sand filter, and a soil
absorption field. As with the sand filter, dose recycling can be used to enhance this system's performance.
Hydraulic loading for an AUF is generally in the range of 3 to 15 gpd. An AUF resembles a septic tank or the
second chamber of a dual-chambered tank. It should be sized to allow'retention times between 16 and 24 hours.
There is a high degree of removal of suspended solids and insoluble BOD. Dosed recycling between sand filter and
AUF can result in 60 to 75 percent overall nitrogen removal.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-107

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

A growing body of data at the University of Arkansas and elsewhere suggests that an AUF can provide further
treatment of septic tank effluent before discharge to a sand filter. This treatment allows a drastic reduction (by a
factor of 8 to 20) in the size of sand filter needed to attain the performance described above, with major reductions
in cost (Krause, 1991).

Trenches and Beds. Trenches are typically I to 3 feet wide and can be greater than 100 feet long. Infiltration
occurs through the bottom and sides of the trench. Each trench contains one distribution pipe, and there may be
multiple trenches in a single system. Like conventional septic systems, they require 2 to 4 feet between thebottorn
of the system and the seasonally high water table or bedrock, and are best suited in sandy to loamy soils where the
infiltration rate is I to 60 minutes per inch. Gravelly soils or poor-permeability soils (60 to 90 minutes Per inch)
are not suitable for trench systems. However, where the infiltration rate is greater than I minute per inch, 6 inches
of loamy soil can be added around the system to create the proper infiltration rate (Otis, undated).

Beds are similar to trenches except that infiltration occurs only through the bottom of the bed. Beds are usually
greater than 3 feet wide and contain one distribution pipe per bed. Single beds are commonly used; however, dual
beds may be installed and used alternately. The same soil suitability conditions that apply to trenches apply to bed
systems.

Trenches are often preferred to beds for a few reasons. First, with equal bottom areas, trenches have five times the
sidewall area for effluent absorption; second, there is less soil damage during the construction of trenches; and third,
trenches are more easily used on sloped sites.

The effluent from trenches or beds can be distributed by gravity, dosing, or uniform application. Dosing refers to
periodically releasing the effluent using a siphon or pump after a small quantity of effluent has accumulated.
Uniform application similarly stores the effluent for a short time, after which it is released through a pressurized
system to achieve uniform distribution over the bed or trench. Uniform application results in the least amount of
clogging.

Maintenance of trenches and beds is minimal. Dual trench or bed systems are especially effective because they allow
the use of one system while the other rests for 6 months to a year to restore its effectiveness (Otis, undated).

Water Separation System. A water separation system separates greywater and blackwater. The greywater is treated
using a conventional septic system, and the blackwater is contained in a vault/holding tank. The blackwater is later
hauled off site for disposal.

I I
For extreme situations or for seasonal residents, some form of separation of toilet wastes from bath and kitchen
wastes may be helpful. Most nitrogen discharges in residential wastewater come from human urine. A very efficient
toilet (0.8 gallon per flush), if routed to a separate holding tank, would need pumping only three or four times per
year even for a family of four permanent residents.

Constructed Wetlands. Constructed wetlands are usually used for polishing of septage effluent that has already
had some degree of treatment (processing through a septic tank or other aggregated system)., The performance of
constructed wetlands will be degraded in colder climates during winter months because of plant die-off and reduction
in the metabolic rate of aquatic organisms.

Cluster Systems. For the,purposes of this guidance, a cluster system can be defined as a collection of individual
septic systems where primary treatment of septage occurs on each site and the resulting effluent is collected and
treated to further reduce pollutants. Additional treatment may involve the use of sand filters or AUF, constructed
wetlands, chemical treatment, or aerobic treatment. The use of cluster systems may provide advantages due to
increased treatment capability and economy of scale.

Evapotranspiration (ET) and Evapotranspiration/Absorption (ETA) Systems. ET and ETA systems combine
the process of evaporation from the surface of a bed and transpiration from plants to dispose of wastewater. The

4-108 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

wastewater would require some form of pretreatment such as a septic tank. An ET bed usually consists of a liner,
drainfield tile, and gravel and sand layers. ET and ETA systems are useful where soils are unsuitable for subsurface
disposal, where the climate is favorable to evaporation, and where ground-water protection is essential. In both types
of systems, distribution piping is laid in gravel, overlain by sand, and planted with suitable vegetation. Plants can
transpire up to 10 times the amount of water evaporated during the daytime. For an ET system to be effective,
evaporation must be equal to or greater than the total water input to the system because it requires an impermeable
seal around the system. In the United States, this limits use of ET systems to the Southwest. The size of the system
depends on the quantity of effluent inflow, precipitation, the local evapotranspiration rate, and soil permeability (Otis,
undated). Data were unavailable on this BMP, so its cost and effectiveness were not evaluated.

Vaults or Holding Tanks. Vaults or holding tanks are used to containerize wastewater in emergency situations or
other temporary functions. This technology should be discouraged because of high anticipated overloads due to
difficult pumping logistics. Such systems require frequent pumping, which can be expensive.

Fixed Film Systems. A fixed film system employs media to which microorganisms may become attached. Fixed
film systems include trickling filters, upflow filters, and rotating biological filters. These systems require
pretreatment of sewage in a septic tank; final effluent can be discharged to a soil absorption field. Cost and
effectiveness data for this BMP were not available.

Aerobic Treatment Units. Aerobic treatment units can be employed on site. A few systems are available
commercially that employ various types of aerobic technology. However, these systems require regular supervision
and maintenance to be effective. They require pretreatment by a septic tank, and effluent can be discharged to a soil
absorption field. Power requirements can be significant for certain types of these packages. Cost and effectiveness
data for this BMP were not available.

equencing Batch Reactor. A sequencing batch reactor is a modified conventional continuous-flow activated sludge
treatment system. Conventional activated sludge systems treat wastewater in a series of separate tanks. Sequencing
bsatch reactors carry out aeration and sedimentation/clarification simultaneously in the same tank. They are designed
for the removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS) from typical municipal and
industrial wastewater at flow rates of less than 5 MGD. Modification to the design of the basic system allows for
nitrification and denitrification and for the removal of biological phosphorus to occur.

The sequencing batch reactor is particularly suitable for small flows and for nutrient removal. Sequencing batch
reactors can be either used for new developments or connected to existing seplic systems. Small reactors can be
sited in areas of only a few hundred square feet.'While sequencing batch reactor cost and operation and maintenance
requirements are greater thdtn those for conventional OSDS, sequencing batch reactors may be suitable alternatives
for sites where high-density development and/or unsuitable soils may preclude adequate treatment of effluent.

Sequencing batch reactors can also be used where municipal and industrial wastes require conventional or extended
aeration activated sludge treatment. They are most applicable at flow rates of 3000 gpd to 5 MGD but lose their
cost-effectiveness at design rates exceeding 10 MGD (USEPA, 1992). Sequencing batch reactors are very useful
for the pretreatment of industrial waste and for small flow applications. They are also optimally useful where
wastewater is generated for less than 12 hours per day.

Disinfection Devices. In some areas, pathogen contamination from OSDS is a major concern. Disinfection devices
may be used in conjunction with the above systems to treat effluent for pathogens before it is discharged to a soil
absorption field. Disinfection devices include halogen applicators (for chlorine and iodine), ozonators, and UV
applicators. Of these three types, halogen applicators are usually the most practical (USEPA, 1980). Installation
of these devices in an OSDS increases the system's cost and adds to the system's operation and maintenance
requirements. However, it may be necessary in some areas to install these devices to control pathogen contamination
of surface waters and ground water.

EPA.840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-109

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

(NOTE: The use of disinfection systems should be evaluated to determine the potential impacts of chlorine or iodine
loadings. Some States, such as Maryland, have additional requirements or prohibit the use of these processes.)

Massachusetts has adopted a provision of its State Environmental Code that allows for "approval of innovative
disposal systems if it can be demonstrated that their impact on the environment and hazard to public health is not
greater than that of other approved systems" (310 CMR 15.18). Commonly referred to as Tide 5, this legislation
requires evaluation of pollutant loadings as well as management requirements prior to approval of alternative systems
(Venhuizen, 1992).

g. Design sites so that an area for a backup soil absorption field is planned for in case of failure of
the first field.

In preparation of site plans and designs for OSDS, it is recommended that a suitable area be identified and reserved
for construction of a second or replacement soil absorption field, in the event that the first fails or expansion is
necessary. Oliveri and others (1981) determined that continuously loaded soil absorption fields have a finite life span
and that 50 percent of all fields fail within 25 years. Consequently, dual systems or a plan for a backup system is
necessary. The area for the backup soil absorption field should be locatedto facilitate simultaneous or afterriate
loading of the old and new systems. With trench systems, the area betWeen the original trenches can serve as the
replacement area as long as sufficient vertical spacing exists between the trenches.

h. During construction of OSDS, soils should not be compacted in the primaly or the backup soil
absorption field area.

Care must be taken during,the construction of OSDS so that the soil in the absorption field area is not compacted.
Compaction could severel@ decrease the infiltration capacity of the soil and lead to failure of the absorption field.

Mi. Perform postconstruction inspection of OSDS.

A postconstruction inspection program should be implemented to ensure that OSDS were installed properly. The
inspection should ensure that design specifications were followed and that soil absorption field areas were not
compacted during construction. Many local governments in Massachusetts require postconstruction inspection for
OSDS (Myers, 1991).

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

Cost and effectiveness data on alternative OSDS systems are presented in Table 4-21.

The availability of high-quality, water-efficient plumbing fixtures (1.6-gallon toilets, 1.5-gpm showerheads, etc.) can
provide a reduction of 50 percent in residential water use and wastewater volume, at an incremental cost of only
about $20 to $100 for new homes. For on-site treatment, the higher influent concentrations are counterbalariced by
longer septic tank retention time. This water conservation can allow further reductions in the size of sand filters or
other forms of treatment (Krause, 1991).

The elimination of garbage disposals will reduce hydraulic loadings to OSDS and decrease the potential for solids
to clog the absorption field, as shown in Table 4-22.

Performance data on sequencing batch reactors show that typical designs can achieve BOD and TSS concentrations
of less than 10 mg/L and that modified systems can denitrify to limits of I to 2 mg/L NH3-N (EPA, 1992). Some
modified sequencing batch reactors have been shown to exhibit denitrification. Biological phosphorus removal to
less than 1.0 mgAL has also been achieved (EPA, 1992).

4-110 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

Table 4-22. Reduction In Pollutant Loading by Elimination of Garbage Disposals

Parameter Reduction in Pollutant Loading

Suspended Solids 25-40

Biohemical Oxygen Demand 20-28
Total Nitrogen 3.16
Total Phosphorus 1.7

The costs for sequencing batch reactors, adjusted to 1991 dollars, for constructing and operating sequencing batch
reactors were determined for several existing systems. The capital costs for six treatment systems were found to
range from $1.93 to $30.69/gpd of design flow (USEPA, 1992). The operating costs for three existing systems,
based on 1990 average flow rates, ranged from $0.17/gpd to $2.88/gpd (USEPA, 1992).

Costs for a complete mound system, including a septic tank, in the rural Midwest are typically $7,000 installed
(Krause, 1991). The cost for a residential septic tank/AUF/sand filter combination in the rural Midwest normally
ranges from $3,000 to $4,000 (Krause, 199 1). Costs for buried or recirculatrig sand filters depend on the filter size
and the availability of sand of the proper texture. Costs for a complete system in the rural Midwest may range
between $5,000 and $10,000 (Krause, 1991).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-111

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

B. Operating Onsite Disposal Systems Management
Measure

(1) Establish and implement policies and systems to ensure that existing OSDS are
operated and maintained to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the surface
of the ground and to the extent practicable reduce the discharge of pollutants
into ground waters that are closely hydrologically connected to surface waters.
Where necessary to meet these objectives, encourage the reduced use of
garbage disposals, encourage the use of low-volume plumbing fixtures, and
reduce total phosphorus loadings to the OSDS by 15 percent (if the use of low-
level phosphate detergents has not been required or widely adopted by OSDS
users). Establish and implement policies that require an OSDS to be repaired,
replaced, or modified where the OSDS fails, or threatens or impairs surface
waters;

(2) Inspect OSDS at a frequency adequate to ascertain whether OSDS are failing;

(3) Consider replacing or upgrading OSDS to treat influent so that total nitrogen
loadings in the effluent are reduced by 50 percent. This provision applies only:

(a) where conditions indicate that nitrogen-limited surface waters may be
adversely affected by significant ground water nitrogen loadings from 0SIDS,
and

(b) where nitrogen loadings from OSDS are delivered to ground water that Is
closely hydrologically connected to surface water.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all operating OSDS. Under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS
programs in conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of
management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program
Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This
management measure does not apply to existing conventional OSDS that meet all of the following criteria: (1) treat
wastewater from a single family home; (2) are sited where OSDS density is less than or equal to one OSDS per 20
acres; and (3) the OSDS is sited at least 1,250 feet away from surface waters.

2. Description
is

The purpose of this management measure is to minimize pollutant loadings from operating OSDS. This management
measure requires that OSDS be modified, operated, repaired, and maintained to reduce nutrient and pathogen loadings
in order to protect and enhance surface waters. In the past, it has been a common practice to site conventional OSDS

4-112 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal SysteMs

in coastal areas that have inadequate separation distances to ground water, fractured bedrock, sandy soils, or other
conditions that prevent or do not allow adequate treatment of OSDS-generated pollutants. Eutrophication in surface
waters has also been attributed to the low nitrogen reductions provided by conventional OSDS designs.

Poorly designed or operating systems can cause ponding of partially treated sewage on the ground that can reach
surface waters through runoff. In addition to oxygen-demanding organics and nutrients, these surface sources contain
bacteria and viruses that present problems to human health. Viral organisms can persist in temperatures as low as
-20 IF, suggesting that they may survive over winter in contaminated ice, later becoming available to ground water
in the form of snowmelt (Hurst et al., undated). Although ground-water contamination from toxic substances is more
often life-threatening, the majority of ground-water-related health complaints are associated with pathogens from
septic tank systems (Yates, 1985).

Where development utilizing OSDS has already occurred, States and local governments have a limited capability to
reduce OSDS pollutant loadings. One way to reduce the possibility of failed systems is to required scheduled
pumpouts and regular maintenance of OSDS. Frequent inspections and proper operation and maintenance are the
keys to achieving the most cost-effective OSDS pollutant reductions. Inspections upon resale or change of ownership
of properties are also a cost-effective solution to ensure that OSDS are operating properly and meet current standards
necessary to protect surface waters from OSDS-generated pollutants. Where phosphorus is a problem, phosphate
bans can reduce phosphorus loadings by 14 to 17 percent (USEPA, 1992). Garbage disposal restrictions and low-
volume plumbing fixtures can help ensure that conventional systems continue to operate properly. Low-volume
plumbing fixtures have been shown to reduce hydraulic loadings to OSDS by 25 percent.

An option for managing and maintaining OSDS is through wastewater management utilities or districts. From a
regulatory standpoint, a wastewater management program can reduce water quality degradation and save the time
and money a local government or homeowner may spend maintaining and repairing systems. A variety of agencies
are taking on the responsibilities of managing OSDS. Water utilities are the leading decentralized wastewater
management agency (Dix, 1992). The following case studies illustrate successful wastewater management programs
used where there are OSDS.

CASE STUDY 1 - GEORGETOWN DIVIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES, CALIFORNIA

The Georgetown Divide Public Utility District in California manages water reservoirs, two water treatment plants,
an irrigation canal system, and two hydroelectric plants. Approximately 10 percent of the agency's resources are
allocated to managing onsite systems in a large subdivision. The utility provides a comprehensive site evaluation
program, designs the onsite system for each lot, lays out the system for the contractor, and makes numerous
inspections during construction. There is also continued communication between the homeowners and the utility
after construction, including scheduled inspections. For the service homeowners pay $12.50 per month for
management of single-family systems. Owners of undeveloped lots pay $6.25 per month (Dix, 1992).

CASE STUDY 2 - STINSON BEACH COUNTY WA TER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA

In addition to monitoring the operation of septic tank systems, the Stinson Beach County Water District in
California monitors ground water, streams, and sensitive aquatic systems that surround the coastal community to
detect contamination from OSDS. Routine monitoring has identified people who use straight pipes and failures
due to residents using overloaded systems. Homeowners pay a monthly fee of $12.90, in addition to the cost of
construction or repair,

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 4-113

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

I Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected to control OSDS-related pollutant loadings to surface waters. Numerous
States have implemented inspection requirements at title transfer, low-volume plumbing fixture regulations, garbage
disposal prohibitions, and other requirements. Conventional systems are designed to operate over a specified period
of time. At the end of the expected life span, replacement is generally necessary. Because failures of conventional
systems may occur if systems are not property designed and maintained, it is essential that programs are established
to inspect and correct failing systems and to reduce pollutant loadings, public health problems, and inconveniences.
Low-flow plumbing fixture installations and garbage disposal restrictions should be encouraged because as many as
75 percent of all system failures can be attributed to hydraulic overloading (Jarrett et al., 1985). Failure occurs when
a system does not provide the level of treatment that is expected from the specific OSDS design.

National and local studies have indicated that conventional OSDS experience a significant rate of failure. Failure
rates typically range between I and 5 percent per year (De Walle, 1981). In the State of Washington, high failure
rates were observed in coastal regions (failure rates in 1971: King County - 6.1 percent; Gray's Harbor - 3.3 percent;
and Skasit County - 2.6 percent). It has also been estimated in various soils of Connecticut that 4 percent of
conventional OSDS fail per year. The failure rate in coastal areas may be greater because many systems (.such as
those in North Carolina) are approved for unsuitable soil conditions (Duda and Cromartie, 1982). Jarrett and others
(1985) presented suggestions from several researchers describing the possible causes of high OSDS failure rates.
These suggestions include:

� Smearing of trench bottoms during construction;
� Inadequate absorption areas;
� Improperly performed percolation tests;
� Inadequate design;
� Flooding and high water tables;
� Improper construction and installation;
� Inadequate soil permeability; and
� Use of cleaners and additives.

As stated previously, conventional OSDS do not remove nitrogen effectively and OSDS nitrogen loadings have been
linked to degraded surface waters and ground water (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1990).

States should consider replacement with denitrifying OSDS in areas with nitrogen-limited waters. While all OSDS
should be inspected periodically (at a recommended interval of once every 3 years) and corrected if failing, requiring
that denitrifying systems be installed in all cases where existing systems fail to adequately treat nitrogen was deerned
unduly burdensome and impractical.

Refer to the selection statement in the New OSDS Management Measure for additional rationale for selections
relating to denitrification, garbage disposals, and low-flow plumbing fixtures.

Phosphorus reductions have been implemented in a number of States (see Table 4-23). Significant reductions in
phosphorus loadings (14 to 17 percent) have resulted from such phosphate reductions, with norninal increases in costs
for phosphate-free detergents.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found 6y EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

4-114 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

Table 4-23. Phosphate Limits In Detergents
(rho Soap and Detergent Association, 1992)

Phosphorus (P) Phosphorus (P) Industrial and Effective
State Laundry Detergents Dishwashing Detergents Institutional Date

Connecticut 7 grams recommended 2/1/72
use level

Florida 8.7% by weight as 12/31f72
elemental P

Georgia 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 1/1/91
elemental P elemental P

Indiana 0.5% by weight as 1/1/73
elemental P

Maine 0.5% by weight as 7/1/93
elemental P

Maryland 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 12/1/85
elemental P elemental P elemental P

Michigan 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 28% by weight as 10/1177
elemental P elemental P elemental P

Minnesota 0.5% by weight as 11 % by weight as 8/30/79
elemental P elemental P

New York 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 6/1/73
elemental P elemental P

North Carolina 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 1/1/88
elemental P elemental P

Oregon 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 7/1/92
elemental P elemental P

Pennsylvania 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 3/1/91
elemental P elemental P

South Carolina 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 1/1/92
elemental P elemental P

Virginia 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 1/1/88
elemental P elemental P

Wisconsin 0.5% by weight as 8.7% by weight as 1/1/84
elemental P elemental P

M a. Perform regular inspections of OSDS.

As previously stated, the high degree of failure of OSDS necessitates that systems be inspected regularly. This can
be accomplished in several ways. Homeowners can serve as monitors if they are educated on how to inspect their
own systems. Brochures can be made available to instruct individuals on how to inspect their systems and the steps
they need to take if they determine that their OSDS is not functioning properly. Trained inspectors, such as those
in Maine, also can aid in identifying failing systems.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-115

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

State or local officials should also develop a program for regular inspection. By using utilities and wastewater
management programs or agencies, the costs can be kept minimal. At a minimum, systems should be inspected when
the ownership of a property is changed. If, prior to the transfer of ownership, the system is found to be deficient,
corrective action should be taken. States and localities can also indirectly assess whether OSDS are failing through
surface water and ground-water monitoring. If indicator pollutants (e.g., pathogens) are found during the course of
monitoring, nearby OSDS should be inspected to determine whether they are the primary source of the indicators.
USEPA (1991) has presented a method for tracing effluent from failing septic systems. This method could be
followed as part of an indirect inspection program to locate failing systems.

0 b. Perform regular maintenance of OSDS.

OSDS are not maintenance-free systems. Huang (1983) stated that half of OSDS failures are due to poor opera tion
and maintenance. Most septic tanks are designed so that wastewater is held for 24 hours to allow removal of solids,
greases, and fats. Up to 50 percent of the solids retained in the tank decompose naturally by bacterial and chemical
action (Mancl and Magette, 1991). However, during normal use, sludge accumulates on the bottom of the tank,
leaving less time for the solids in the influent to settle. When little or no settling occurs, the solids move directly
to the soil absorption system and may clog (Mancl and Magette, 199 1). Consequently, periodic removal of the solids
.from the tank is necessary to protect the soil absorption system.

Management options for OSDS maintenance include (NSFCH, 1989):

� Maintenance via contract;
� Operating permits;
� Private management' systems; and
� Local ordinances/utility management.

Most tanks need to be pumped out every 3 to 5 years; however, several factors need to be considered when
determining the frequency of pumping required. These factors include (Mancl and Magette, 1991):

� Capacity of the tank;
� Flow of wastewater (based on family size); and
� Volume of solids in the wastewater (more solids are produced if a garbage disposal is used).

Failure will not occur immediately if a septic system is not pumped regularly; however, continued neglect will cause
the system to fail because the soil absorption system is no longer protected from solids and may need to be replaced
(at considerable expense).

Table 4-24 shows an estimate of how often a septic tank should be pumped based on tank and household size. The
Arlington County, Virginia, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance requires that all septic tanks be pumped at least
once every 5 years.

Alternative OSDS may have maintenance requirements in addition to septic tank pumping. These maintenance
requirements are discussed in the descriptions of the systems presented in Management Measure V.A.

0 c. Retrofit or upgrade improperly functioning systems.

Improperly functioning systems are usually the result of failure of the soil absorption field. Several practices are
available to retrofit these failing systems so that they operate properly. The most common reason for failure of the
absorption field is hydraulic overload. Jarrett and others (1985) and other researchers have had good success in
retrofitting failing systems by combining the construction of backup soil absorption fields with water conservation
measures. A backup absorption system is constructed so that water can be diverted from the primary absorption
system. The primary system is rested, and in many cases biological activity will unclog the system and aerobic
conditions will be restored in the soil. Scheduling is then done to alternate the use of the primary and backup

4-116 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V. Onsite Disposal Systems

@'i Table 4-24. Suggested Septic Tank Pumping Frequency (Years)
(Cooperative Extension Service - University of Maryland, 1991)
Tank Size Household Size (number of people)
(gal) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

500 5.8 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 -

750 9.1 4.2 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3

1,000 12.4 5.9 3.7 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7

1,250 15.6 7.5 4.8 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0

1,500 18.9 9.1 5.9 4.2 3.3 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.3

1,750 22.1 10.7 6.9 5.0 3.9 3.1 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6

2,000 25.4 12.4 8.0 5.9 4.5 3.7 3.1 2.6 2.2 2.0

2,250 28.6 14.0 9.1 6.7 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.3

2,500 31.9 15.6 10.2 7.5 5.9 4.8 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.6

systems (e.g., use of each system 6 months of the year), so that systems in marginally permeable soils can continue
to operate properly. Garbage disposals should be eliminated, and low-volume plumbing fixtures should be installed
in cases where the absorption field has failed in order to reduce total pollutant and water loads to the field. (Refer
to discussion in Management Measure V.A.)

In some cases, either because of improper siting (e.g., inadequate separation distance, proximity to surface water,
poor soil conditions, or lack of land available for a backup absorption system) or the inadequacy of conventional
OSDS to remove pollutants of concern, the above retrofit practice may not be feasible. In these cases, alternative
OSDS, constructed wetlands, filters, or holding tanks may be necessary to adequately protect surface waters or
ground water. Descriptions of these systems and their respective effectiveness and cost are provided in Management
Meausre V.A.

d. Use denitrificatOn systems where conditions indicate that nitrogen-limited surface waters may be
adversely impacted by excessive nitrogen loading.

As stated previously, even properly functioning conventional OSDS are not effective at removing nitrogen. In areas
where nitrogen is a problem pollutant, existing conventional systems should be retrofitted to denitrification OSDS
to provide adequate nitrogen removal. Several systems such as sand filters and constructed wetlands have been
shown to remove over 50 percent of the total nitrogen from septic tank effluent (see Table 4-21). Descriptions of
these types of systems and their effectiveness and cost are presented in Management Measure V.A.

M e. Discourage the use of phosphate in detergents.

Conventional OSDS are ustially very effective at removing phosphorus. However, certain soil conditions, combined
with close proximity to sensitive surface waters, can result in phosphorus pollution problems from OSDS. In such
cases the use of detergents containing phosphates may need to be discouraged or banned. Low-phosphate detergents
are commercially available from a variety of manufacturers with negligible increases in cost. Eliminating phosphates
from detergent can reduce phosphorus loads to'OSDS by 40 to 50 percent (USEPA, 1980).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-117

V. Onsite Disposal Systems Chapter 4

M f. Eliminate the use of garbage disposals.

As presented in Table 4-22, eliminating the use of garbage disposals can significantly reduce the load,ng of
suspended solids and BOD to OSDS. Total nitrogen and phosphorus loads may also be slightly reduced because
of decreased loadings of vegetative matter and foodstuffs. Eliminating garbage disposals can also reduce the buildup
of solids in the septic tank and reduce the frequency of pumping required. Reduction of the solids also provides
added protection against clogging of the soil absorption system.

Mg. Discourage or ban the use of acid and organic chemical solvent septic system additives.

Organic solvents used as septic system cleaners are frequently linked to pollution from septic systems. Many brands
of septic system cleaning solvents are currently on the market. Makers of these solvents, which often contain
halogenated and aromatic hydrocarbons, advertise that they reduce odors, clean, unclog, and generally enhance septic
system operations. Manufacturers also advertise that cleaning solvents provide an alternative to periodic pumping
of septage from septic tanks. However, there is little evidence indicating that these cleaners perform any of the
advertised functions. In fact, their use may actually hinder effective septic system operation by destroying useful
bacteria that aid in the degradation of waste, resulting in disrupted treatment activity and the discharge of
contaminants.

In addition, since the organic' chemicals in the solvents are highly mobile in the soils @ and toxic (some are suspected
carcinogens), they can easily contaminate ground water and surface waters and threaten public health. Research on
the common septic system cleaner constituents (methylene chloride (MC) and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which
are listed on EPA's priority pollutant list and for which EPA's Office of Drinking Water has issued health advisories)
has shown that application rates recommended by the manufacturer have resulted in high MC and moderate TCA
discharges to ground water.

T"his issue is discussed further in the pollution prevention section.

h. Promote proper operation and maintenance of OSDS through public education and outreach
programs. -

This practice is discussed in the pollution prevention section (Section VI).

4-118 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy f993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

VI. POLLUTION PREVENTION

.. ..... ... . .
A. Pollution Prevention Management Measure

Implement pollution prevention and education programs to reduce nonpoint source
pollutants generated from the following activities, where applicable:

The improper storage, use, and disposal of household hazardous chemicals,
including automobile fluids, pesticides, paints, solvents, etc.;

Lawn and garden activities, including the application and disposal of lawn and
garden care products, and the improper disposal of leaves and yard trimmings;

0 Turf management on golf courses, parks, and recreational areas;

0 Improper operation and maintenance of onsite disposal systems;

* Discharge of pollutants into storm drains including floatables, waste oil, and
litter;

0 Commercial activities including parking lots, gas stations, and other entities not
under NPDES purview; and

0 Improper disposal of pet excrement.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to reduce the generation of nonpoint source pollution
in all areas within the section 6217 management area. The adoption of the Pollution Prevention Management
Measure does not exclude applicability of other management measures to those sources covered by this management
measure. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of
requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and will have
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

This management measure is intended to prevent and reduce NPS pollutant loadings generated from a variety of
activities within urban areas not addressed by other management measures within Chapter 4. Source reduction is
considered preferable over waste recycling for pollution reduction (DOI, 1991; USEPA, 1991). Everyday activities
have the potential to contribute to nonpoint source pollutant loadings. Some of the major sources include households,
garden and lawn care activities, turf grass management, diesel and gasoline vehicles, OSDS, illegal discharges to
urban runoff conveyances, commercial activities, and pets and domesticated animals. These sources are described
below. By reducing pollutant generation, adverse water quality impacts from these sources can be decreased.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-119

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

a. Households

Everyday household activities generate numerous pollutants that may affect water quality. Common household NPS
pollutants include paints, solvents, lawn and garden care products, detergents and cleansers, and automotive products
such as antifreeze and oil. The use and disposal of these products are chronic sources of pollution (Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, 1991). Table 4-25 summarizes estimated pollutant loadings from various household
chemicals that may contaminate runoff. These pollutants are typically introduced into the environment due to
ignorance on the part of the user or the lack of proper disposal options., Storm drains are commonly mistaken for
treatment systems, and significant loadings to waterbodies result from this misconception. Other wasp.-s and
chemicals are dumped directly onto the ground (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1990).

b. Improper Disposal of Used Oil

The improper disposal of used oil and antifreeze can significantly degrade surface waters. The Washington
Department of Ecology estimated that over 4.5 million gallons of used oil are dumped in Washington State each year.
Of this total, 2 million gall'ons eventually are discharged into the Puget Sound (USEPA, 1988). Such loadings can
severely degrade surface waters. One quart of oil can contaminate up to 2 million gallons of drinking water;
4 quarts of oil can form an oil slick approximately 8 acres in size (University -of Maryland Cooperative Extension
Service, 1987).

Table 4-25. Estimates of Improperly Disposed Used Oil
and Household Hazardous Waste

Reference Chemical and Estimated Amount

USEPA, 1989 Estimated that 40% of used oil from DlySa is poured onto roads, driveways, or
yards or into storm sewers (80 million gallons per year).

Hoffman et al., 1980 Survey of Providence, Rl, residents revealed that 35% were DlYs. Of this
group, 42% used improper disposal methods (30% disposed of used oil by
backyard dumping, 7% by dumping into sewers or storm drains, and 5% by
pouring onto roads).

Stanek et al., 1987 Survey of Massachusetts households revealed that one-third changed their oil
(17% dumped used oil on the ground and 3% discharged used oil into the town
sewers); 17% changed their antifreeze (54% used ground disposal and 14%
discharged into the sewer). The majority of the 10% who disposed of oil-based
paints or pesticides annually used improper methods.

Voorhees and Temple, Baker Survey of studies estimated that between 52% and 64% of private vehicle
and Sloane, Inc., 1989 owners are DlYs. Nationally, DlYs have been estimated to generate 193 million
gallons of used oil per year. Of this amount, it was estimated that 61% (118
million gallons) was improperly disposed of.

King County Solid Waste Estimated that 15% to 20% of household hazardous wastes end up in storm
Division, 1990 drains or runoff. Estimated that one-third of DlYs dump used oil directly into
storm drains or onto the ground.

King County Solid Waste Estimated that 83% of DlYs that changed their antifreeze flushed their car
Division, 1990 radiators directly into a storm sewer or street.

DlYs - Do-it-yourself oil changers.

4-120 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

c. Landscape Maintenance and Turf Management

The care of landscaped areas, including golf courses, can contribute significantly to nonpoint source pollutant
loadings. The application of fertilizers and pesticides in coastal areas can be detrimental to surface waters. After
a site is developed, a significant area of maintained landscape may be regularly treated with fertilizer and pesticides.
Heavily landscaped areas ihclude residential yards, golf courses, and parks. In the coastal zone, much residential
development commonly is sited on unconsolidated coastal plain with sandy soils. Where such soils are present,
frequent fertilization, pesticide application, and watering must occur to maintain turf grasses. Turf management
programs and landscaping ordinances that require minimum maintenance and minimum disturbance or xeriscaping
can effectively reduce these loadings.

In areas where nitrogen is a problem pollutant, measures to control tfie introduction of nitrogen into ninoff anu
leachate are important. Several studies have been completed that demonstrate the leaching potential of nitrogen from
turf. Researchers at Cornell University found that 60 percent of nitrogen applied to turf leached to ground water
(Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984). Shultz (1989) suggests that 50 percent of the nitrogen applications
are leached out and not used by plants. A study completed by Exner and others (1991) showed that as much as 95
percent of nitrate applied in late August on an urban lawn was leached below the turf grass root zone. In coastal
areas, where soils are highly permeable and ground water and surface waters are hydrologically connected, reduced
applications of nutrients may be necessary to control subsurface flow of nutrients into surface waters.

A recent nonpoint source loading analysis (Cahill and Associates, 199 1) indicated that 10 percent of the nitrogen and
4 percent of the phosphorus applied annually in a 193-square-mile area (an area approximately 10 miles by 20 miles)
of maintained landscaped residential development end up in surface waters as the result of overapplication. A total
of 512.7 tons of nitrogen and 49.4 tons of phosphorus enter surface waters from this area. These estimated pollutant
delivery rates are conservative. Delivery rates in coastal areas with sandy soils may be much higher. Schultz (1989)
found that over 50 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer leaches from lawns when improperly applied. In addition,
the proxiniity of sources to waterbodies may result in increased loadings. Where waterbodies are nitrogen- or
phosphorus-limited, applications of fertilizers should be reduced or prohibited. Fertilizer control programs can
effectively reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loadings by encouraging the proper application of nutrients. Fertilizer
costs may also be reduced.

A study in Rhode Island concluded that medium-density residential development has the highest loading factor of
pesticides and fertilizers of all land uses in the State (RIDEM, 1988). These results echoed the findings of research
conducted on the Chesapeake Bay watershed that identified medium- and high-density residential development as
having the highest loading factors for nitrogen and phosphorus in the Bay area (Chesapeake Bay Local Advisory
Committee, 1989). Table 4-26 shows a summary of results from various studies quantifying application rates of
household fertilizers. Table 4-27 summarizes recommended application rates.

Home use is estimated to account for 20 percent of pesticide use in the Puget Sound area, and household users often
apply pesticides excessively or in too concentrated a formulation (PSWQA, 1991). The Puget Sound Water Quality

Table 4-26. Summary of Application Rates of Fertilizers from Various Studies

Estimated Application Rates Reference
3.3 lb/1000 ft2 (affluent areas) Cornell Water Resources Institute, 1985
1.1 lb/1000 ft2 (less affluent areas)
2.2 lb/1 000 ft/yr to 3.9 lb/1 000 ft2/yr Long Island Planning Board, 1984
3.03 lb/ft2/yr (Nitrogen) Cahill and Associates, 1992
0.77 lb/ft/yr (Phosphorus)
(New Jersey)

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-121

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

Table 4-27. Recommended Fertilizer Application Rates

Recommended Rate Reference

Virginia - No more than 1 lb11 000 ft2 at any one time - Hall, personal communication, 1991;
not to exceed 3 lb/1 000 ft2 /yr No. VA Soil and Water Conservation District, 19,91;
VA Cooperative Extension, 1991

Virginia - 1.5 to 2 lb/1000 ft/yr Bowling, personal communication, 1991

Long Island - 1 lb/1000 ft/yr Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984

Long Island - no more than 1 lb/1000 ft/yr on mature Myers, 1988
lawns

General - 2 lb/1000 ft/yr Shultz, 1989

Authority summarized available data in a 1990 issue paper on pesticides in the Puget Sound. This research revealed
that 50 to 80 percent of all household users apply some form of pesticides for lawn and garden use. EPA Region
10 and the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA, 1990) reviewed data and surveyed pesticide use in 12
counties in the Puget Sound basin and concluded that household pesticide use in 1988 was greater than 213,000
pounds. Unnecessary pesticide loadings to surface waters may result from homeowner overapplication, poor
knowledge of proper application techniques, or applications during grass dormancy. Both the PSWQA and the
Virginia Cooperative Extension Survey (1991) have determined that such improper use commonly occurs.

Consideration of the potential for exposure and toxic effects of applied fertilizers and pesticides should be an
important component of golf course policy decisions. Some of the technical issues concerning intensive management
of turf grass include (1) extent of nutrient and pesticide applications, (2) chronic and acute toxicity to nontarget
organisms, (3) potential for exposure of nontarget organisms to applied chemicals, (4) use of increasingly scarce
water resources for irrigation, (5) potential off-site movement of fertilizers and pesticides, (6) effects of maintenance
and storage facilities on soil and water quality, and (7) potential loss of and effects on wetlands resulting from
construction and turf grass maintenance (Balogh and Walker, 1992).

While quantitative information is not currently available regarding the effectiveness of fertilizer and pesticide control
measures, it can be assumed that application reductions will result in corresponding decreases in pollutant loadings.
Table 4-28 provides guidance useful for reducing fertilizer and pesticide use. This guidance was developed by the
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, the Lake Barcroft Watershed Improvement District, the
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, and the Virginia Cooperative Extension service for use by
commercial lawn care companies and households that choose to use commercial lawn care services. This advice,
however, is useful for 0 turf grass management.

d. Yard Trimmings Management

Improper disposal of yard trimrrdngs can lead to increased nutrient levels in runoff. Yard trimmings deposited on
street comers may be washed down storm sewers and result in elevated nutrient loadings to surface waters. Proper
management of yard trimmings and home composting can reduce the level of nutrients in runoff and decrease overall
runoff volumes through the addition of humus to the soil. Increased levels of humus enhance soil permeability,
decrease erodibility, and provide nutrients in a less soluble form than commercial fertilizers.

e. Improper Installation and Maintenanoe of Onsite Disposal Systems

As discussed in Section V of this chapter, failing or improperly sited or designed OSDS may contribute both
pathogens and nutrients to surface waters. Many engineers, contractors, surveyors, drain-layers, sanitarians, OSDS
installers, waste haulers, building inspectors, local and State officials, and owners of OSDS are insufficiently
informed regarding the need for proper siting, design, and maintenance of onsite systems. While a number of States

4-122 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention
Nutrient and Pesticide Table 4-28. Watershed Chemical 6ontrol Standards
Control Standard Estimated Savings and Impacts

Decrease fertilizer use. The average Dlya applies 2 to 4 times the desirable amount of fertilizer.
By reducing fertilizer amounts, costs can be reduced accordingly.
Use phosphorus-free or low- Cost increases $1.00 to $1.50 per household where phosphate-free
phophorus-content fertilizers. fertilizer are used. In the Lake Barcroft, Virginia, Water Management
District, Natural Lawn estimated a 7,000-pound reduction in fall
phosphorus loadings and an 80-85% decrease in spring loadings due to
the use of phosphate-free fertilizers (Natural Lawn, personal
communication, 1991).

Use slow-release fertilizers. Organic fertilizers tend to be slow acting and less soluble than chemical
fertilizers (Shultz, 1989). Depending on the fertilizer source, conversion
to organic fertilizers would reduce costs to $0.00 where compost from a
municipal or county facility is used; costs would increase $1.00 per
100 ft2 for the purchase of commercial organic fertilizer (Cook, 1991)

Test soils to determine appropriate Soil tests and fertilizer recommendations range in cost from $0.00 to
application rates. $5.00 if done by a Cooperative Extension Service. Private soil test labs
may charge $30-00 to $45.00 for the service (Carr et al., 1991).

Stagger fertilizer applications instead Excess fertilizer may leach into ground water if not utilized by plants.
of using one large application. Plants have a limited capacity to utilize fertilizer in any one application;
fertilizer costs can be reduced by staggered applications so that the bulk
of available nutrients are utilized and excess fertilizers are not applied.

Spot-apply pesticides to control broad- Natural Lawn Company reports that by switching from blanket
leafed weeds. applications to spot applications of herbicides, herbicide use can be
reduced 85% to 90% (Bonifant, personal communication, 1991). Volume
reductions will result in a comparable cost savings.

Mow lawn at the recommended height. Shultz (1989) and Carr (1991) suggest that proper mowing techniques
result in healthier lawns and can reduce pesticide and fertilizer use.

Retain grass clippings on lawns and Research conducted by Starr and DeRoo (1981) on grass grown in low-
other areas planted with turf grass. nitrogen sandy loam soils showed that grass clippings are beneficial as
fertilizer for continued grass growth. Use of clippings as fertilizer can
enhance grass growth, reduce the need for additional fertilizer, and
decrease total fertilizer costs. (This recommendation is promoted by the
Professional Lawn Care Association of America.)

DIY - Do-it-yourself lawn caretaker.

currently license OSDS installers and waste haulers in accordance with State health standards, these licensing
procedures may be out-of-date. In addition, many of these standards address only limited health-related issues and
do not address the complex joint issues of water quality and public health (Myers, 1991).

Many homeowners are unaware of proper OSDS operation and maintenance principles. They often do not know how
frequently their septic tanks need to be pumped, what hydraulic load their systems can accommodate, and what
should or should not be disposed of in their systems (Huang, 1983). Some homeowners use septic system cleaners
containing substances that may contaminate ground water, may provide little to no benefit to the OSDS, and may
even be harmful to the system (RIDEM, 1989). Public education programs can help homeowners to prepare, operate,
and maintain OSDS and thus help to ensure the continued pollutant removal effectiveness of the 0S]DS. A variety
of brochures and other educational materials regarding OSDS have already been developed, and these materials have

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-123

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

been used in many areas to educate the general public about proper OSDS operation and maintenance (e.g
,., the
Chesapeake Bay Region, Puget Sound). State and local agencies should make use of these materials and implement
mailing and information dissemination programs. Brochures mailed to homeowners as part of general utility
correspondence or as special mailings are also effective. Posters and other materials distributed at libraries can help
disseminate this information to the public. Educational and outreach programs should target builders, buyers, system
installation contractors, inspectors, and enforcement personnel, in addition to homeowners, realtors, and pumpers.

f. Discharges Into Storm Drains

Significant loadings of NPS pollutants enter surface waters and tributaries via illegal discharges into storm drains.
The public unknowingly assumes that storm drains discharge into sanitary sewers, and materials are dumped into
storm drains under the assumption that treatment will occur at the sewage treatment plant. Illicit discharges may
also be a problem. Public education programs, such as storm drain stenciling, and identification of illicit discharges
can be effective tools to reduce pollutant loadings. Sanitary surveys are also a useful method to help managers
identify the presence and entry point(s) of illicit discharges or other sources of pollutants to storm sewer systems.

g. Litter

Litter along coastal waterways, estuaries, and inland shorelines has become a significant source of nonpointsource
pollution. Litter, debris, and dumped large solid items impair coastal water quality, as well as the aesthetic and
recreational value of coastal waters, and may also be a hazard to wildlife. Storm sewers have been identified as a
significant source of marine debris (Younger and Hodge, 1992).

Plastics are the major debris problem in the marine environment. Plastic accounts for 59 percent of the debris
collected in coastal cleanup efforts (Younger and Hodge, 1992). Other litter may also be a problem. The State
Adopt-a-Highway programs have revealed that beverage cans are the item most frequently removed from the side
of roads. These wastes commonly have entered surface waters via storm sewers or swale systems. During 1991- 0
1992, participants in the Virginia Adopt-a-Highway program removed 36,000 cubic yards of debris with volunteer
hours valued at $2 million (M. Kornwolf, Virginia Dept. of Transportation, personal communication, 1992).

h. Commercial Activities

Nonpoint source runoff from commercial land areas such as shopping centers, business districts, and office parks,
and large parking lots or garages may contain high hydrocarbon loadings and metal concentrations that are twice
those found in the average urban area (Woodward-Clyde, 1991). These loadings can be attributed to heavy traffic
volumes and large areas of impervious surface on which these pollutants concentrate (Long Island Sound Regional
Planning Board, 1982). For example, contributions of lead to the Milwaukee River south watershed have been
estimated as 20 to 25 percent from commercial areas and 40 to 55 percent from industrial areas (Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 1991). Where activities other than traffic, such as@ liquids storage and equipment
use and maintenance, are associated with specific commercial activities, other pollutants may also be present in
runoff. BMPs suited to the control of automotive-related pollutants and any other pollutants associated with specific
commercial uses should be used to control their entry into surface waters.

Gas stations, in most communities, are designated as a commercial land use and are subject to the same controls as
shopping centers and office parks. However, gas stations may generate high concentrations of heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, and other automobile-related pollutants that can enter runoff (Santa Clara Valley Water Control
District, 1992). Since gas stations have high potential loadings and pollutant profiles similar to those of industrial
sites, the good housekeeping controls used on industrial sites are usually necessary.

i. Pet Droppings

Pet droppings have been found to be important contributors of NPS pollution in estuaries and bays where there are
high populations of dogs. Fecal coliform and fecal streptococcal bacteria levels in runoff in several drainage basins

4-124 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

in Long Island, New York, can be attributed to the dog population (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982).
Although dogs cause the more common pet droppings problem, other urban animals, such as domestic or semi-wild
ducks, also contribute to NPS pollution where their populations are high enough. Eliminating or significantly
reducing the quantity of pet droppings washed into storm drains and hence into surface waters can improve the
quality of urban runoff. It has been estimated that for a small bay watershed (up to 20 square miles), 2 to 3 days
of droppings from a population of 100 dogs contribute enough bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus to temporarily close
a bay to swimming and shellfishing (George Heufelder, personal communication, 1992).

The Soil Conservation Service in the Nassau-Suffolk region of New York collected data indicating that domestic
animals contribute BOD, COD, bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus to ground water and surface waters (Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978). Runoff containing pet droppings has been found to be responsible for
numerous shellfish bed closures in Massachusetts (George Heufelder, personal communication, 1992; Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Planning Board, 1978). In New York the large populations of semi-wild White Pekin ducks contribute
heavily to runoff problems, while in a Massachusetts study, dog feces alone were found to be sufficient to account
for the closures.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected to ensure that communities implement solutions that may result in behavioral
changes to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loading from the sources listed in the management measure. A number
of States and local communities, including Washington, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, and Alameda County, California,
are using pollution prevention activities to protect or enhance coastal water quality. Such activities include public
education, promotion of alternative and public transportation, proper management of maintained landscapes, pollution
prevention, training and urban runoff control plans for commercial sources, and OSDS inspection and maintenance.
To allow flexibility, specific controls have not been specified in the management measure. Communities may select
practices that best fit local priorities and the availability of funding. In addition, flexibility is necessary to account
for community acceptance, which is often the major determinant affecting whether education and outreach activities
and administrative mechanisms such as certification and training requirements are practical or effective solutions.

CASE STUDY - ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Arlington County, Virginia, is drafting a source control plan for "minimizing impacts on its streams, a well as
impacts to the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay, from pollutants entering the streams from many diverse
sources." The plan is aimed at implementing individual programs for controlling sources of nonpoint pollution.
Projects include:

Storm drainage master plan;
Educational programs for lawn management;
Evaluation of street sweeping programs;
Stream valley stabilization and restoration;
Evaluation of parking lot and street design requirements;
Land use planning;
Leaf and debris collection;
Household hazardous waste disposal; and
Storm drain stenciling.

4. Practices, Effectiveness Information, and Cost Information

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 4-125

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

a. Promote public education programs regarding proper use and disposal of household hazardous
materials and chemicals.

Public education is an important component of this management measure. The provision of information regarding
the environmental impacts of common household activities can produce'long-term shifts in behavior and may result
in significant reductions in household-generated pollutants. School curricula on watershed protection, including
nonpoint pollution control, have been developed for elementary and secondary school education programs. An
example is the program developed by the Washington State Office of Environmental Education (Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, 1989). Incorporating such programs into regular school curricula is an effective way to educate
youth about the importance of environmentally conscious behavior, which in turn can help reduce the need for and
cost of technology-based pollution control.

Florida developed a comprehensive Statewide plan for environmental education coordinated by its Council on
Comprehensive Environmental Education to be implemented through formal and informal education programs and
State agency programs. All teachers receive the training, as well as State agency personnel and school children in
grades kindergarten through 12 (Florida Council on Comprehensive Environmental Education, 1987).

Public participation is an effective means of educating the public and is also necessary for successfully creating and
implementing a nonpoint pollution control plan. Public involvement should be encouraged during the planning
process through attendance at meetings, workshops, and private or group consultations, and by encouraging the public
to comment on planning documents. Support for the documents and the plans being developed is fostered through
public involvement. Newsletters are an effective means of keeping the public informed of what planning steps are
being taken and how the public can become and stay involved. Metropolitan Seattle has printed an educational
brochure concerning waste oil disposal in six languages in order to reach a wider audience (Washington State
Department of Ecology" 1992).

b. Establish programs such as Amnesty Days to encourage proper disposal of household hazardous
chemicals.

Recognizing the potential impacts for environmental degradation from the improper disposal of hazardous household
materials and chemicals, many communities have implemented programs to collect these chemicals. There has been
an exponential growth in the number of such collection programs since the early 1980s. Two programs were in place
in 1980; 822 were in place in 1990. The most common type of collection system is a 1-day event at a temporary
site (often referred to as an Amnesty Day). More local governments are beginning to sponsor these programs several
times a year, and many communities are establishing permanent programs, including retail store drop-off programs,
curbside collection, and mobile permanent facilities (Duxbury, 1990). Table 4-29 summarizes the cost and
effectiveness of some household chemical collection programs.

In spite of relatively low participation rates, collection programs can have a significant impact on the amount of
hazardous chemicals and materials entering the waste stream. It has been estimated that the amount of hazardous
chemicals collected in States having approved coastal management programs was approximately 51,000 drums, or
280,500 gallons, in 1990 (extrapolated from Duxbury, 1990).

M c. Develop used oil, used antifreeze, and hazardous chemical recycling programs and site collection
centers in convenient locations.

Household hazardous chemical (HHC) collection programs already exist in many counties throughout the United
States. Specific days are usually designated as drop-off days and are advertised through television, newspapers,

4-126 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

Table 4-29. Waste Recycling Cost and Effectiveness Summary

Program Description Eff ectiveness Cost

University of Alabama - Project ROSE' Of the approximately 17 million Annual budget is $80,000
� Initiated in 1977 gallons of used oil generated ($45,000 is spent on public
� Focuses on used oil annually in Alabama, 8 million education).
� Includes curbside collection (as part of gallons (47 percent) was
regular garbage pick-up), collection centers reclaimed in 1990.
(primarily service stations), and drum
placement (in more rural areas)
� Involves public outreach program

Sunnyvale, CA, Curbside Used Oil 75 to 120 gallons of used oil from Exact breakdowns were not
Collection b 28,000 homes collected daily. available. Costs are kept low by
� Curbside collection of used oil, along with incorporating the program into an
other recyclable products A 40 percent increase in existing recycling program; public
� Residents provided with gallon containers to participation was observed from information is distributed by such
hold the oil FY 87-88 to FY 90-91. means as flyers in utility bills and
� Involves large public outreach program brochures left by city employees
such as repair crews and street
sweepers.

Seattle, WA, Mobile Permanent Collection In the first 6 months of operation, The Wastemobile cost $110,000.
System 276.8 tons of material was King County has budgeted $1.5
* Established in 1989 by King County Solid collected; participation was twice million (including public outreach
Waste Department that expected (one site recorded and staff) over a 28-month period.
* 5,000 ft2 mobile facility equipped to collect 875 cars in 6 days)
household hazardous materials
("Wastemobile") In the first quarter, 98.3 tons were
e Collected material is either recycled, collected with the following
detoxified, or taken to a secured hazardous breakdown:
waste facility - 44.3 tons (45%) paint
* Includes extensive public outreach program o 23.1 tons (23.5%) waste oil
* 8.6 tons (8.8%) solvents
9 5.9 tons (6%) pesticides.
The balance was miscellaneous
other household wastes.

San Francisco, CA, Permanent Collection 30,730 gallons of hazardous Operated by the private company
Fac:lltyd wastes (excluding batteries) were that hauls the city's solid waste.
* A permanent household waste site that was collected the first year. The most Funds are obtained from the
initiated as a pilot project common type of waste was paint, residential rate mechanism.
* 65 percent of the collected material was which was recycled and used by
recycled or roused citizens groups to paint over The city is responsible for public
graffiti. education, waste disposal, and
facility inspection.

USEPA, 1989; Project ROSE Fact Sheet, 1991.
b USEPA, 1988.
' Johnston and Kehoe, 1989.
d Misner, 1990

flyers, and radio. In Arlington County, Virginia, collection during the week is by appointment with a water pollution
chemist employed by the county and on one Saturday a month. Other HHC collection programs have once-a-week
or once-a-month collection days, and some programs have a single day set aside each year for all HHC collection
for the county or region. The waste collected by these programs is usually disposed of by a licensed HHC
contractor. Table 4-29 presents program descriptions, effectiveness, and cost information for representative HHC
collection programs. Many service stations currently provide used oil and antifreeze recycling facilities for "do-it-
yourselfers" to encourage environmentally sound disposal.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-127

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

d. Encourage proper lawn management and landscaping.

The care of landscaped areas can contribute significantly to NPS pollutant loadings. Results of a telephone survey
conducted in 1982 by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University showed that only 12 to 15 percent of
home lawns in Virginia were being managed properly. The majority of homeowners preferred to do their own lawn
work; only 8 to 10 percent of the households used commercial lawn care companies. A similar survey e onducted
on Long Island concluded that in affluent neighborhoods, 72 percent of the respondents used a lawn care service;
in the least affluent neighborhoods, no one subscribed to commercial lawn care (Cornell Water Resources Institute,
1985). The extent of nonpoint source pollution from fertilizer application is site-specific and depends on a number
of factors, including soil type, application rate, type of fertilizer, precipitation and watering amount, and
socioeconomic status of residents. Because most people are not trained in proper fertilization and maintenance
application, homeowner lawn care may result in significant amounts of nonpoint source pollution.

To significantly decrease homeowners' pesticide and fertilizer loadings requires a broad-based educational effort.
The State Cooperative Extension Service (CES) is one educational vehicle; however, the CES reaches only a small
percentage of the population. Mass media approaches are generally the most effective way to reach a large part of
the population, though some other possibilities are discussed below (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991).
The following practices are part of proper lawn management and landscaping.

* Proper pesticide and herbicide use, and reduced applications

While few studies have been conducted to correlate pesticide and herbicide use with adverse effects on
marine water quality, the magnitude of potential impacts can be inferred from incidents such as the
extensive ground-water contamination in counties bordering the Puget Sound following widespread use of
the pesticide ethylene dibromide (EDB) (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1989). Estimates of
pesticide use in the Puget Sound area reveal that 20 percent of the volume of pesticides applied is from
residential sources and that these applications are typically in excess of recommended amounts or are too
concentrated (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991).

Maintaining a buffer between surface water and areas treated with pesticides is one method to increase the
transport distance and reduce the potential for offsite movement of toxics. Selection of less toxic, mobile,
and persistent chemicals with greater selective control of pests is encouraged (Spectrum Research, 1990).

* Reduced fertilizer applications and proper application timing

Lawn fertilization has been identified as a source of excess nitrogen and phosphorus loadings that may lead
to eutrophication. A modeling study of urban runoff pollution conducted in Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Washington, DC, and Virginia by Cohn-Lee and Cameron (1991) estimated that the nonpoint source
loadings of nutrients were equal to or greater than loadings discharged from POTWs and industries in the
Chesapeake Bay area.

Ground-water contamination also may be of concern especially where interflow exists between surface
waters and ground waters. Schultz (1989) found that over 50 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizer leaches
from a lawn when improperly applied. NVSWCD et al. (1991) found that up to two-thirds less fertilizer
can be applied than is typically recommended by manufacturers. The use of slow-release forms of nitrogen
and proper watering may also decrease nonpoint source pollution loadings (Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, 1978).

0 Limited lawn watering

Nonpoint source runoff from lawns can be reduced by employing efficient watering techniques.
Overwatering can increase nitrogen loss 5 to I I times the amount lost when proper watering strategies are
used (Morton et al., 1988).

4-128 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

Soaker hoses and trickle or drip irrigation systems are an alternative to sprinkler systems. These types of
systems deliver water at lower rates, which can increase the volume infiltrated, conserve water, and avoid
runoff that can be associated with improperly operated sprinkler systems.

Use of minimum maintenance/minimum disturbance and IPM methods

Minimum maintenance/minimum disturbance policies and strategies can effectively reduce land disturbance
and associated soil loss and can reduce fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide loadings. Where new development
is occurring, community standards that limit the use of fertilizers or require commercial lawn care
companies to use low-impact lawn care practices can decrease NPS loadings. Such practices can be
promoted through public education programs for both new and existing developments.

Effective use of IPM strategies can further reduce nonpoint source loadings. Regional soil conservation
services, agricultural extension offices, local conservation districts, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture
are good sources of information on IPM. A study in Maryland on IPM for street and landscape trees in
a planned suburban community demonstrated that pesticide use could be reduced by 79 to 87 percent when
spot application techniques were substituted for cover spray techniques. An average annual cost savings
of 22 percent also resulted from the program.

Effective IPM Strategies include (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992):

-Use of natural predators and pathogens;
- Mechanical control;
-Use of native and resistant plantings;
- Maintainenance of proper growing conditions;
- Removal of or substitutions for less-favored pest habitat;
Timing annual crops to avoid pests;
- Localized use of appropriate chemicals as a last alternative.

� Xeriscaping

Xeriscaping, creative landscaping for decreased water, energy, and pesticide/fertilizer inputs, can be used
to reduce urban runoff and minimize the application of lawn care products that may adversely impact coastal
waters. The use of xeriscaping practices can reduce required lawn maintenance up to 50 percent and reduce
watering requirements by 60 percent (Clemson University, 1991). Florida has passed legislation requiring
xeriscaping on the grounds of all State buildings. Several other States, including New Jersey and California,
actively support xeriscaping efforts. A more detailed discussion of xeriscaping is in Section II.C of this
chapter.

� Reduced runoff potential

Rainwater from roofs can be infiltrated into the ground in gravel-filled trenches in well-drained soils or
collected in rain barrels for later irrigation. Wood decking or brick pavers allow greater infiltration than
do solid concrete structures. Landscape terracing reduces runoff and erosion when gardening on slopes
(Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992).

� Training, certification, and licensing programs for landscaping and lawn care professionals

Training, certification, and licensing programs are an effective method to educate lawn care professionals
about potential nonpoint pollution problems associated with fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide applications.
The State Cooperative Extension Service commonly provides these services. Trained lawn care professional
can also help educate the general public about the advantages of low-input approaches.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-129

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

0 e. Encourage proper onsite recycling of yard trimmings.

Home composting promotes onsite recycling of plant nutrients contained in yard trimn-dngs and reduces the potential
for nutrients to enter surface waters. Unlike most commercial fertilizers, compost releases nutrients slowly and is
a source of trace metals (Hansen and Mancl, 1988). When added as an amendment to lawn or garden soils, compost
increases the organic content of the soil, which increases infiltration, reduces runoff, and decreases the need for
watering. Sediment and bound nutrients in soils with high organic content are less mobile and less likely to migrate
from the site. Compost applications may also result in increased plant health and vigor, allowing for the reduced
use of pesticides (Logsdon, 1990).

Home composting programs may result in municipal cost savings. An average suburban yard generates up to 1,500
pounds of yard trimmings per year, most of which is usually landfilled (McNelly, undated). Homeowners should
be encouraged to place compost piles or bins away from streams and roadways that may serve as conveyances of
leached nutrients. Recycling of grass clippings and mulched leaves should also be encouraged through education
programs. The retention of grass clippings and mulched leaves reduces the need for supplemental water and fertilizer
inputs.

Suggested backyard composting programs include the following:

� Provide compost bins free or at cost.

� Create pamphlets explaining benefits and methods.

� Start a "Master Composter" program in which graduates receive free equipment and conduct their own
workshops.

� Provide credits on waste removal fees to people who compost yard wastes.

f. Encourage the use of biodegradable cleaners and other alternatives to hazardous chemicals.

Improperly disposed household cleaners containing nonbiodegradable chemicals have the potential to contaminate
surface waters and ground water. OSDS systems may also be adversely impacted by these substances (PSWQA,
1989). The use of nontoxic, biodegradable alternatives, which quickly break down, should be encouraged through
public education efforts (Reef Relief, 1992).

Mg. Manage pet excrement to minimize runoff into surface waters.

The Soil Conservation Service in the Nassau-Suffolk region of New York collected data indicating that domestic
animals contribute BOD, COD, bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus to ground water and surface waters (Nassau-
Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978). Urban runoff containing pet excrement has been found to be responsible
for numerous shellfish bed closures in New York and has been implicated in shellfish bed closures in Massachusetts
(George Huefelder, personal communication, 1992; Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978). In New York,
the large populations of semi-wild Pekin ducks contribute heavily to water quality problems. A study in
Massachusetts found that dog droppings alone were significant enough to cause shellfish bed closures.

Curb laws, requiring that dogs be walked close to street curbs so they will defecate on the streets near curbs, are
intended to ensure that street sweeping operations collect the droppings and prevent them from entering runoff.
However, traditional street sweeping has been found to be an ineffective means for controlling fines and soluble NPS
pollution and the dog droppings are more often swept into sewers and delivered to bays and estuaries during rain
storms (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982; 1984; Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1978). Curbing
ordinances should therefore be repealed where they are in effect, and laws requiring pet owners to clean up after their
pets when they are walked in public areas and to dispose of the droppings properly. should be enacted.

4-130 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter *4 V1. Pollution Prevention

per cleanup and disposal of canine fecal material and discouragement of public feeding of waterfowl are two ways
of potentially controlling the adverse impacts of animal droppings. The following examples from the Long Island
PRreogional Planning Board (1984) illustrate controls for NPS pollution from animal droppings.

Control of NPS pollution from dogs:

� Enactment of "pooper-scooper" laws requiring the removal and proper disposal of dog feces on public
property.

� Enforcement of existing "pooper-scooper" and leash laws should be improved in priority target areas where
animal feces are known to be an NPS pollution problem.

Control of NPS pollution from horses:

� Instituting zoning ordinances to control the keeping of horses. These ordinances should include:

- Minimum acreage requirements per horse;
- Specifying areas where horse waste may be stored; and
- Designated areas where horses may be kept.

� Limiting the density of horses in deep aquifer recharge areas, in selected shallow aquifer recharge areas,
in areas immediately adjacent to surface waters, and where slopes are greater than 5 percent.

Public education programs:

The Cooperative Extension Service and similar agencies should be encouraged to develop and distribute
informational material on all aspects of animal waste problems.

Owners of large animals should use BMPs similar to those for pasture management, including the fencing of animals
away from surface waters, avoidance of "overgrazing," "grazing area" rotation, and limited "grazing" when soil is
wet. Manure is best stored away from waterbodies on an impervious surface with a cover or roof (Washington State
Department of Ecology, 1992).

The following actions can be used to help control the problem of pet excrement:

� Pass regulations controlling the disposal of excrement from domestic animals;

� Enact domestic animal clean-up regulations; and

� Require commercial domestic animal operations (e.g., pet stores, kennels) to implement BMPs for the
control and proper disposal of animal excrement.

Oh. Use storm drain stenciling in appropriate areas.

Storm drain stenciling programs can be effective tools to reduce illegal dumping of litter, leaves, and toxic substances
down urban runoff drainage systems. These programs also serve as educational reminders to the public that such
storm drains often discharge untreated runoff directly to coastal waters.

A successful program was initiated in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The program was implemented by
volunteers to prevent dumping of harmful material into storm drains that ultimately discharge to the Chesapeake Bay.
The county's only involvement has been to publicize the program and provide stencils and painting materials.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-131

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

Approximately 60 to 70 percent of all communities in the county have participated. Several other counties around
the Chesapeake Bay have inquired about the program. Data on effectiveness in terms of pounds of pollutant removed
were not available; however, an informal survey that occurred after the program was implemented revealed that there
is increased public understanding that storm drains should not be used for disposal of hazardous materials and
dumping has decreased. Costs were nominal ($7.00 per stencil kit, including paint and brushes; the average
neighborhood cost was $40.00). There is a similar program in place in Puget Sound, Washington. The total cost
of implementing the stenciling program for the Sound was $2,644.39, including materials and labor. This practice
is currently being used in other States and localities, including the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, drainage basin.

0 i. Encourage alternative designs and maintenance strategies for impervious parking lots.

Parking lot runoff accounts for a significant percentage of nonpoint source pollution in commercial areas, depending
on the proportion of building size to parking lot size. Sweeping is a viable method of reducing this runoff from
paved areas. If a lot is rectangular and has no parking bumpers or medians dividing it, the job is easier and less
expensive. As indicated in the case study, a computer model proved to be a useful tool in evaluating the
effectiveness of pavement sweeping as a method to control one source of nonpoint pollution (Broward County
Planning Council, 1982).

CASE STUDY - FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA

Through an EPA Continuing Planning Process Grant, the Broward County Planning Council received funding to
conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of parking lot sweeping as a method to abate water pollution.
A computer model, utilizing simple and multiple regression equations, was used to simulate the conditions at the
study area and to predict the runoff loads from the area due to rainfall. Some results of the study are as
follows: for paved commercial parking lots, the 3-day to 28-day sweeping cycle produces a pollutant removal
range of 60 percent to 20 percent, respectively; as the quantity of residue increases, sweeper efficiency also
increases, and there is a point of diminishing return for pollutant removal by sweeping and for sweeper
efficiency in removing pollutant loadings (Broward County Planning Council, 1982).

Equipment types commonly.used for street sweeping include abrasive brush and vacuum device sweepers. Both
abrasive brush and vacuum sweepers have been shown to be generally inefficient at picking up fine solids of less
than 43 microns. Although vacuum sweepers are more effective at removing fine particulates than brush sweepers,
they are still generally considered to be inefficient. A newly developed helical brush sweeper that incorporates a
steel brush with vacuum has been shown to be more effective at removing fine solids and is currently being
evaluated. Although currently used sweeper technologies have been shown to be inefficient at removing fine
particulates, their use in conjunction with other BMPs that are effective in trapping fine solids could improve
downstream water quality (NVPDC, 1987).

Another promising method of street cleaning that concentrates on oil and grease removal is wet-sweeping. By
spraying a small area with water containing biodegradable soaps or detergents that solubilize the oil and grease
deposited on pavement'surfaces, increased removal can occur with a combination of sweeping and vacuum action.
This method, however, is a fairly new concept and requires further testing (Silverman et al., 1986).
1

Vegetated areas/grassed swales are another method commonly used to reduce pollutant loadings from pavement
runoff. These areas can be designed to accept runoff with relatively high oil and grease concentrations from parking
lots. Percolation through soil and underlying layers typically results in hydrocarbon filtration and adsorption, and
degradation by naturally occurring soil bacteria.

4-132 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

Mj. Control commercial sources of NPS pollutants by promoting pollution prevention assessments and
developing NPS pollution reduction strategies or plans and training materials for the workplace.

The opportunities for and advantages of pollution prevention practices vary from industry to industry, location to
location, and activity to activity. Therefore, it is important to develop pollution prevention programs tailored
specifically to an activity or site. Pollution prevention assessments on a site-by-site basis reduce some wastes and
possibly eliminate the generation of other wastes. Such assessments are often necessary for successful pollution
prevention programs (DOI, 1991).

States should promote and/or provide pollution prevention training and on-site assessments of individual facilities
to help reduce the amount of hazardous wastes entering the environment from households and commercial facilities.
A typical assessment for a facility will identify the types of waste produced, appropriate disposal methods and sites,
and source reduction techniques. An education program to instruct personnel about proper materials handling and
waste reduction strategies is- also recommended.

The Alachua County, Florida, Office of Environmental Protection produced a handbook of BMPs to be applied in
12 separate commercial operations. Many of the BMPs are common to more than one type of operation, though
specifics are mentioned for each category of activities. The 12 operations mentioned are small and large mechanical
repair, dry cleaning, junk yards, photo processing, print and silk screening, machine shops and airport maintenance,
boat manufacturing and repair, concrete and mining, agricultural, paint manufacturers and distributors, and plastic
manufacturers (Alachua County Office of Environmental Protection, 1991).

The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program and the San Jose Office of Environmental
Management produced a. handbook of BMPs for automobile service stations (Santa Clara Valley Water Control
District, 1992). The handbook describes 18 BMPs that can be used to control onsite nonpoint source pollutants.
Many of these BMPs require little or no investment for implementation. Most of the BMPs rely on education-
induced behavior changes to minimize spills and disposal of chemicals and wastewaters down storm drains.
Recycling, spill prevention and response plans, and proper material storage are also covered.

The City of Lacy, Washington, developed guidelines to control NPS pollution impacts from service stations and
automotive repair facilities on Puget Sound. These include:

� Straining used solvents and paint thinner for reuse;
� Recycling antifreeze, oil, metal chips, and batteries;
� Properly disposing of wastes, including oils, machine-tool coolant, and batteries;
� Using dry floor cleaners, such as kitty litter or vermiculite; and
� Limiting use of water to clean driveways and walkways.

The city developed educational material for distribution that describes these guidelines, defines procedures for
potential hazardous materials problems, and provides the State Hazardous Substance Hotline.
I

The City of Bellevue, Washington, Storm and Surface Water Utility, in cooperation with local businesses, has
conducted a series of workshops aimed at the prevention of nonpoint pollution for automotive, construction,
landscaping, food, and building maintenance businesses. The city gives recognition to businesses that attend a
workshop and prepare a water quality action program. Videos of the workshops and accompanying manuals are also
produced by the City of Bellevue (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992).

M k. Promote water conservation.

Excessive use of water contributes to numerous NPS pollution problems, including runoff from fertilized areas,
OIDS drainfield failures, and sewage leaks. Water overuse may also contribute indirectly to NPS pollution
problems: streams, rivers, and ground water may be excessively drawn down for water supply, decreasing their

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-133

V1. Pollution Prevention Chapter 4

capacity to absorb pollutant runoff and upsetting their natural flow (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982-1
Maddaus, 1989). Additional information on water conservation is contained in the OSDS section of this chapter.

0 L Discourage the use of septic system additives.

A 1980 EPA study identified 23 priority pollutants that are Rely to be disposed of down household drains. Disposal
of these chemicals into OSDS may impair OSDS function and contaminate ground water. Septic system cleaners
are included in this category. There is little scientific evidence that septic system cleaners are effective in improving
the function of septic systems. Many of the septic system cleaners contain chemicals such as chlorinated
hydrocarbons, aromatic organic compounds, and acids and bases that may have an adverse affect on the biological
treatment system and that may also pollute ground water. Many of these chemicals are also highly persistent in the
ground water. Studies of ground-water contamination in New York and Connecticut have monitored these
compounds in ground water and have found that (1) the septic system additives are not effective in improving the
treatment systems and (2) the additives pass into ground water in relatively unaltered form (RIDEM, 1988).

Many States and local governments have adopted legislation prohibiting the use of septic system cleaning solvents,
including the States of Maine and Delaware, the New Jersey Pinelands Regional Planning Commission, and several
jurisdictions in Massachusetts. Rhode Island prohibits the disposal of acids or organic chemical solvents in septic
systems and specifically discourages the use of septic tank cleaners. The State of Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection has taken the process one step further by banning the sale and use of cleaning solvents and
also implementing the law through press releases, statewide surveys, direct manufacturer contact, and contact with
the State Retail Merchants Association.

M m. Encourage litter, control.

While street sweeping historically has been found to provide little benefit in reducing fines and pollutants associated
with small particulates because of outdated sweeping equipment and irregular sweeping frequencies, litter control
can be an effective means to improve the quality of urban runoff. Both the Baltimore and Long Island Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) projects found that litter control substantially influenced the quality of runoff from
urban areas (Myers, 1989). Suggestions for controlling litter include: '

� Encouraging businesses to keep the streets in front of their buildings free of litter;

� Developing local ordinances restricting or prohibiting food establishments from using disposable food
packaging, especially plastics, styrofoam, and other floatables;

� Implementing "bottle bills" and mandatory recycling laws;

� Providing technical and financial assistance for establishing and maintaining community waste collection
programs;

� Distributing public education materials on the benefits of recycling; and

� Developing "user-friendly" ways for recycling, such as curbside pick-up, voluntary container buy-back
systems, and drop-off recycling centers.

M n. Promote programs such as Adopt-a-Strearn to assist in keeping waterways free of litter and other
debris.

Such programs can eliminate much of the floatable debris found in coastal waters and their tributaries. These
programs involve volunteers who pick up trash along designated streambeds. Several successful programs similar
to these are being implemented in Maryland, Alaska, Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington. The International

4-134 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 4 V1. Pollution Prevention

Coastal Cleanup, the largest coastal cleanup effort in the country, is coordinated by the Center for Marine
Conservation (CMC). With the use of data cards, plastic gloves, and trash bags, 130,152 volunteers cleared 4,347
miles of beaches and waterways of 2,878,913 pounds of trash during the 1991 cleanup effort (Younger and Hodge,
1992).

In addition to the visible benefits of such clean-up efforts, these programs offer valuable educational opportunities
for volunteers and provide a significant amount of data on the amounts and types of debris being found in waterways.
The sources of various types of debris can be traced as well. Debris can be traced to a specific company or
organization based on labeling or marking. Where possible, CMC contacts these organizations about the finding of
their debris, informs them of the problems caused by marine debris, and asks them to join the battle against the
debris problem. From the 1990 CMC coastal clean-up effort, approximately 150 organizations were identified and
contacted. As a result, the majority of organizations responded positively by printing educational "Do not litter"
slogans on their products, and several launched internal investigations into current waste-handling procedures
(Younger and Hodge, 1992).

Mo. Promote proper operation and maintenance of OSDS through public education and outreach
programs.

Many of the problems associated with improper use of OSDS may be attributed to lack of knowledge on operation
and maintenance of onsite systems. Training courses for installers and inspectors and education materials for
homeowners on proper maintenance may reduce some of the incidences of OSDS failure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-135

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

VII. ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

NOTE: Management Measures ILA and 113 of this chapter also apply to planning, siting, and developing roads and
highways.6

A. Management Measure for Planning, Siting, and
Developing Roads and Highways
1
Plan, site, and develop roads and highways to:

(1) Protect areas that provide Important water quality benefits or are parficularly
susceptible to erosion or sediment lose;

(2) Limit land disturbance such as clearing and grading and cut and fill to reduce
erosion and sediment loss; and

(3) Limit disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.

1. Applicability

This measure is intended to be applied by States to site development and land disturbing activities for new, relocated,
and reconstructed (widened) roads (including residential streets) and highways in order to reduce the generation of
nonpoint source pollutants and to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff and associated pollutants from such activities.
Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and will have some flexibility
in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The best time to address control of NPS pollution from roads and highways is during the initial planning and design
phase. New roads and highways should be located with consideration of natural drainage patterns and planned to
avoid encroachment on surface waters and wet areas. Where this is not possible, appropriate controls will be needed
to minimize the impacts of NPS ninoff on surface waters.

This management measure emphasizes the imporcance of planning to identify potential NPS problems early in the
design process. This process involves a detailed analysis of environmental features most associated with NPS
pollution, erosion and sediment problems such as topography, drainage patterns, soils, climate, existing land use,
estimated traffic volume, and sensitive land areas. Highway locations selected, planned, and designed with
consideration of these features will greatly minimize erosion and sedimentation and prevent NPS pollutants from
entering watercourses during and after construction. An important consideration in planning is the distance between

6 Management measure 11A applies only to runoff that emanates from the road, highway, and bridge right-of-way. This
management measure does not apply to runoff and total suspended solid loadings from upland areas outside the road, highway,
or bridge pmject.

4-136 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

a highway and a watercourse that is needed to buffer the runoff flow and prevent potential contaminants from
entering surface waters. Other design elements such as project alignment, gradient, cross section, and the number
of stream crossings also must be taken into account to achieve successful control of erosion and nonpoint sources
of pollution. (Refer to Chapter 3 of this guidance for details on road designs for different terrains.)

The following case study illustrates some of the problems and associated costs that may occur due to poor road
construction and design. These issues should be addressed in the planning and design phase.

CASE STUDY - ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND

Poor road siting and design resulted in concentrated runoff flows and heavy erosion that threatened several
house foundations adjacent to the road. Sediment-laden runoff was also discharged into Herring Bay. To
protect the Chesapeake Bay and the nearby houses, the county corrected the problem by installing diversions,
a curb-and-drain urban runoff conveyance, and a rock wall filtration system, at a total cost of $100,000 (Munsey,
1992).

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because it follows the approach to highway development recommended by
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidance, and highway location and design guidelines used by the States of Virginia,
Maryland, Washington, and others.

Additionally, AASHTO has location and design guidelines (AASHTO, 1990, 1991) available for State highway
agency use that describe the considerations necessary to control erosion and highway-related pollutants. Federal
Highway Administration policy (FHWA, 199 1) requires that Federal-aid highway projects and highways constructed
under direct supervision of the FHWA be located, designed, constructed, and operated according to standards that
will minimize erosion and sediment damage to the highway and adjacent properties and abate pollution of surface
water and ground-water resources.

4. Practices

Wa. Consider type and location of permanent erosion and sediment controls (e.g., vegetated filter strips,
grassed swales, pond systems, infiltration systems, constructed urban runoff wetlands, and energy
dissipators and velocity controls) during the planning phase of roads, highway, and bridges.
(AASHTO, 1991; Hartigan et al., 1989)

M b. All wetlands that are within the highway corridor and that cannot be avoided should be mitigated.
These actions will be subject to Federal Clean Water Act section 404 requirements and State
regulations.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-137

VIL Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

c. Assess and establish adequate setback distances near wetlands, waterbodies, and riparian areas
to ensure protection from encroachment in the vicinity of these areas.

Setback distances should be determined on a site-specific basis since several variables may be involved such as
topography, soils, floodplains, cut-and-fill slopes, and design geometry. In level or gently sloping terrain, a general
rule of thumb is to establish a setback of 50 to 100 feet from the edge of the wetland or riparian area and the right-
of-way. In areas of steeply sloping terrain (20 percent or greater), setbacks of 100 feet or more are recommended.
Right-of-way setbacks from major waterbodies (oceans, lakes, estuaries, rivers) should be in excess of 100 to 1000
feet.

d. Avoid locations requiring excessive cut and fill. (AASHT0, 1991)

e. Avoid locations subject to subsidence, sink holes, landslides, rock outcroppings, and highly erodible
soils. (AASHTO, 1991; TRB, Campbell, 1988)

f. Size rights-of-way to include space for siting runoff pollution control structures as appropriate.
(AASHTO, 1991; Hartigan, et al., 1989)

Erosion and sediment control structures (extended detention dry ponds, permanent sediment traps, catchment basins,
etc.) should be planned and located during the design phase and included as part of the design specifications to
ensure that such structures, where needed, are provided within the highway right-of-way.

Mg. Plan residential roads and streets in accordance with local subdivision regulations, zoning
ordinances, and other local site planning requirements (international City Managers Association,
Model ZoninglSubdivision Codes). Residential road and street pavements should be designed with
minimum widths.

Local roads and streets should have right-of-way widths of 36 to 50 feet, with lane widths of 10 to 12 feet.
Minimum pavement widths for residential streets where street parking is permitted range from 24 to 28 feet between
curbs. In large-lot subdivisions (I acre or more), grassed drainage swales can be used in lieu of curbs and gutters
and the width of paved road surface can be between 18 and 20 feet.

h. Select the most economic and environmentally sound route location. (FHWA, 1991)

i. Use appropriate computer models and methods to determine urban runoff impacts with all
proposed route corridors. (Driscoll, 1990)

Computer models to determine urban runoff from streets and highways include TR-55 (Soil Conservation Service
model for controlling peak runoffy-, the P-8 model to determine storage capacity (Palmstrom and Walker); the FHWA
highway runoff model (Driscoll et al., 1990); and others (e.g., SWMM, EPA's stormwater management model; HSP
continuous simulation model by Hydrocomp, Inc.).

Mj. Comply with National Environmental Policy Act requirements including other State and local
requirements. (FHWA, T6640-8A)

k. Coordinate the design of pollution controls with appropriate State and Federal environmental
agencies. (Maryland DOE, 1983)

4-138 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 Vil. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

Develop local official mapping to show location of proposed highway corridors.

Official mapping can be used to reserve land areas needed for public facilities such as roads, highways, bridges, and
urban runoff treatment devices. Areas that require protection, such as those which are sensitive to disturbance or
development-related nonpoint source pollution, can be reserved by planning and mapping necessary infrastructure
for location in suitable areas.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

The most economical time to consider the type and location of erosion, sediment, and NPS pollution control is early
in the planning and design phase of roads and highways. It is much more costly to correct polluted runoff problems
after a road or highway has already been built. The most effective and often the most economical control is to
design roads and highways as close to existing grade as possible to minimize the area that must be cut or filled and
to avoid locations that encroach upon adjacent watercourses and wet areas. However, some portions of roads and
highways cannot always be located where NPS pollution does not pose a threat to surface waters. In these cases,
the impact from potential pollutant loadings should be mitigated. Interactive computer models designed to run on
a PC are available (e.g., FHWA's model, Driscoll et al., 1990) and can be used to examine and project the runoff
impacts of a proposed road or highway design on surface waters. Where controls are determined to be needed,
several cost-effective management practices, such as vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, and pond systems, can
be considered and used to treat the polluted runoff. These mitigating practice's are described in detail in the
discussion on urban developments (Management Measure IV.A).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-1@9

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

B. Management Measure for Bridges :Xbo

Site, design, and maintain bridge structures so that sensitive and valuable aquatic
ecosystems and areas providing important water quality benefits are protected from
adverse effects.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new, relocated, and rehabilitated bridge structures
in order to control erosion, streambed scouring, and surface runoff from such activities. Under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS
programs in conformity with this management measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application
of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program
Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

This measure requires that NPS runoff impacts on surface waters from bridge decks be assessed and that appropriate
management and treatment be employed to protect critical habitats, wetlands, fisheries, shellfish beds, and domestic
water supplies. The siting of bridges should be a coordinated effort among the States, the FRWA, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Locating bridges in coastal areas can cause significant erosion and
sedimentation, resulting in the loss of wetlands and riparian areas. Additionally, since bridge pavements are
extensions of the connecting highway, runoff waters from bridge decks also deliver loadings of heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, toxic substances, and deicing chemicals to surface waters as a result of discharge through scupper
drains with no overland buffering. Bridge maintenance can also contribute heavy Joads of lead, rust particles, paint,
abrasive, solvents, and cleaners into surface waters. Protection against possible pollutant overloads can be afforded
by minimizing the use of scuppers on bridges traversing very sensitive waters and conveying deck drainage to land
for treatment. Whenever practical, bridge structures should be located to avoid crossing over sensitive fisheries and
shellfish-harvesting areas to prevent washing polluted runoff through scuppers into the waters below, Also, bridge
design should account for potential scour and erosion, which may affect shellfish beds and bottom sediments.

3. Management Measure Selection
I
This management measure was selected because of its documented effectiveness and to protect against potential
pollution impacts from siting bridges over sensitive waters and tributaries in the coastal zone. There are several
examples of siting bridges to protect sensitive areas. The Isle of Palms Bridge near Charleston, South Carolina, was
designed without scupper drains to protect a local fishery from polluted runoff by preventing direct discharge into
the waters below. In another example, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development specified
stringent requirements before allowing the construction of a bridge to protect'destruction of fragile wetlands near
New Orleans. A similar requirement was specified for bridge construction in the Tampa Bay area in Florida (ENR,
1991).

4-140 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

4. Practices

Additional erosion and sediment control management practices are listed in the construction section for urban sources
of pollution (Management Measure IV.A).

Ma. Coordinate design with FHWA, USCG, COE, and other State and Federal agencies as appropriate.

Ob. Review National Environmental Policy Act requirements to ensure that environmental concerns are
met (FHWA, T6640.8A and 23 CFR 771).

Mc. Avoid highway locations requiring numerous river crossings. (AASHTO, 1991)

Md. Direct pollutant loadings away from bridge decks by diverting runoff waters to land for treatment.

Bridge decks should be designed to keep runoff velocities low and control pollutant loadings. Runoff waters should
be conveyed away from contact with the watercourse and directed to a stable storm drainage, wetland, or detention
pond. Conveyance systems should be designed to withstand the velocities of projected peak discharge.

M e. Restrict the use of scupper drains on bridges less than 400 feet in length and on bridges crossing
very sensitive ecosystems.

Scupper drains allow direct discharge of runoff into surface waters below the bridge deck. Such discharges can be
of concern where the waterbody is highly susceptible to degradation or is an outstanding resource such as a spawning
area or shellfish bed. Other sensitive waters include water supply sources, recreational waters, and irrigation systems.
Care should be taken to protect these areas from contaminated runoff.

M f. Site and design new bridges to avoid sensitive ecosystems.

Pristine waters and sensitive ecosystems should be protected from degradation as much as possible. Bridge structures
should be located in alternative areas where only minimal environmental damage would result.

Mg. On bridges with scupper drains, provide equivalent urban runoff treatment in terms of pollutant load
reduction elsewhere on the project to compensate for the loading discharged off the bridge.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

Effectively controlling NPS pollutants such as road contaminants, fugitive dirt, and debris and preventing accidental
spills from entering surface waters via bridge decks are necessary to protect wetlands and other sensitive ecosystems.
Therefore, management practices such as minimizing the use of scupper drains and diverting runoff waters to land
for treatment in detention ponds and infiltration systems are known to be effective in mitigating pollutant loadings.
Tables 4-7 and 4-8 in Section 11 provide cost and effectiveness data for ponds, constructed wetlands, and filtration
devices.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-141

VII. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

Us@
C. Management Measure for Construction Projects

(1) Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and
after construction and

(2) Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion control
plan or similar administrative document that contains erosion and sediment
control provisions.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new, replaced, restored, and rehabilitated road,
highway, and bridge consfruction projects in order to control erosion and offsite movement of sediment from such
project sites. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of
requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and will have some
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development andApproval Guidance, published jointly by the U:S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Erosion and sedimentation from construction of roads, highways, and bridges, and from unstabilized cut-and-fill
areas, can significantly impact surface waters and wetlands with silt and other pollutants including heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, and toxic substances. Erosion and sediment control plans are effective in describing procedures for
mitigating erosion problems at construction sites before any land-disturbing activity begins. Additional relevant
practices are described in Management Measures IILA and IILB of this chapter.

Bridge construction projects include grade separations (bridges over roads) and waterbody crossings. Erosion
problems at grade separations result from water running off the bridge deck and runoff waters flowing onto the
bridge deck during construction. Controlling this runoff can prevent erosion of slope fills and the undermining
failure of the concrete slab at the bridge approach. Bridge construction over waterbodies requires careful planning
to limit the disturbance of streambanks. Soil materials excavated for footings in or near the water should be removed
and relocated to prevent the material from being washed back into the waterbody. Protective berms, diversion
ditches, and silt fences parallel to the waterway can be effective in preventing sediment from reaching the waterbody.

Wetland areas will need special consideration if affected by highway construction, particularly in areas where
construction involves adding fill, dredging, or installing pilings. Highway development is most disruptive in wetlands
since it may cause increased sediment loss, alteration of surface drainage patterns, changes in the subsurface water
table, and loss of wedand habitat. Highway structures should not restrict tidal flows into salt marshes and other
coastal wetland areas because this might allow the intrusion of freshwater plants and reduce the growth of salt-
tolerant species. To safeguard these fragile areas, the best practice is to locate roads and highways with sufficient
setback distances between the highway right-of-way and any wetlands or riparian areas. Bridge construction also
can impact water circulation and quality in wetland areas, making special techniques necessary to accommodate
construction. The following case study provides an example of a construction project where special considerations
were given to wetlands.

4-142 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

CASE STUDY - BRIDGING WETLANDS IN LOUISIANA

To provide protection for an environmentally critical wetland outside New Orleans, the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development (DOTD) required a special construction technique to build almost 2 miles of
twin elevated structures for the Interstate 310 link between 1-10 and U.S. Route 90. A technique known as "end-
on" construction was devised to work from the decks of the structures, building each section of the bridge from
the top of the last completed section and using heavy cranes to push each section forward one bay at a time.
The cranes were also used to position steel platforms, drive in support pilings, and lay deck slabs, alternating
this procedure between each bay. Without this technique, the Louisiana DOTD would not have been permitted
to build this structure. The twin 9,200-foot bridges took 485 days to complete at a cost of $25.3 million
(Engineering News Record, 1991).

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because it supports FHWA's erosion and sediment control policy for all
highway and bridge construction projects and is the administrative policy of several State highway departments and
local governmental agencies involved in land development activity. Examples of erosion and sediment controls and
NPS pollutant control practices are described in AASHTO guidelines and in several State erosion control manuals
(AASHTO, 199 1; North Carolina DOT, 199 1; Washington State DOT, 1988). A detailed discussion of cost-effective
management practices is available in the urban development section (Section 11) of this chapter. These example
practices are also effective for highway construction projects.

4. Practices

Additional erosion and sediment control management practices are listed in the construction section (Section III) of
this chapter.

Ma. Write erosion and sediment control requirements into plans, specifications, and estimates for
Federal aid construction projects for highways and bridges (FHWA, 1991) and develop erosion
control plans for earth-disturbing activities.

Erosion and sediment control decisions made during the planning and location phase should be written into the
contract, plans, specifications, and special provisions provided to the construction contractor. This approach can
establish contractor responsibility to carry out the explicit contract plan reconuriendations for the project and the
erosion control practices needed.

M b. Coordinate erosion and sediment controls with FHW4, AASHT0, and State guidelines.

Coordination and scheduling of the project work with State and local authorities are major considerations in
controlling 'anficipated erosion and sediment problems. In addition, the contractor should submit a general work
schedule and plan that indicates planned implementation ol temporary and permanent erosion control practices,
including shutdown procedures for winter and other work interruptions. The plan also should include proposed
methods of control on restoring borrow pits and the disposal of waste and hazardous materials.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 4-143

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

c. install permanent erosion and sediment control structures at the earliest practicable time in the
construction phase.

Permanent or temporary soil stabilization practices should be applied to cleared areas within 15 days after final grade
is reached on any portion of the site. Soil stabilization should also be applied within 15 days to denuded areas that
may not be at final grade but will remain exposed to rain for 30 days or more. Soil stabilization practices protect
soil from the erosive forces of raindrop impact and flowing water. Temporary erosion control practices usually
include seeding, mulching, establishing general vegetation, and early application of a gravel base on areas to be
paved. Permanent soil stabilization practices include vegetation, filter strips, and structural devices.

Sediment basins and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers, and other practices intended to trap sediment on site
should be constructed as a first step in grading and should be functional before upslope land disturbance takes place.
Structural practices such as earthen dams, dikes, and diversions should be seeded and mulched within 15 days of
installation.

d. Coordinate temporaty erosion and sediment control structures with permanent practices.

All temporary erosion and sediment controls should be removed and disposed of within 30 days after final site
stabilization is achieved or after the temporary practices are no longer needed. Trapped sediment and other disturbed
soil areas resulting from the disposition of temporary controls should be permanently stabilized to prevent further
erosion and sedimentation (AASHTO, 1991).

Me. Wash all vehicles prior to leaving the construction site to remove mud and other deposits. Vehicles
entering or leaving the site with trash or other loose materials should be covered to prevent
transport of dust, dirt, and debris. Install and maintain mud and silt traps.

f. Mitigate welland areas destroyed during construction.

Marshes and some types of wetlands can often be developed in areas where fill material was extracted or in ponds
designed for sediment control during construction. Vegetated strips of native marsh grasses established along
highway embankments near wetlands or riparian areas can be effective to protect these areas from erosion and
sedimentation (FHWA, 1991).

Mg. Minimize the area that is cleared for construction.

Mh. Construct cut-and-O slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion.

Cut-and-fill slopes should be constructed in a manner that will minimize erosion by taking into consideration the
length and steepness of slopes, soil types, upslope drainage areas, and ground-water conditions. Suggested
reconimendations are as follows: reduce the length of long steep slopes by adding diversions or terraces; prevent
concentrated runoff from flowing down cut-and-fill slopes by containing these flows within flumes or slope drain
structures; and create roughened soil surfaces on cut-and-fill slopes to slow runoff flows. Wherever a slope face
crosses a water seepage plane, thereby endangering the stability of the slope, adequate subsurface drainage should
be provided.

0 L Minimize runoff entering and leaving the site through perimeter and onsite sediment controls.

Mi. Inspect and maintain erosion and sediment control practices (both on-site and perimeter) until
disturbed areas are permanently stabilized.

4-144 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

Ok. Divert and convey ofisite runoff around disturbed soils and steep slopes to stable areas in order
to prevent transport of pollutants off site.

ML After construction, remove temporaq control structures and restore the affected area. Dispose of
sediments in accordance with State and Federal regulations.

M m. All storm drain inlets that are made operable during construction should be protected so that
sediment-laden water will not enter the conveyance system without first being filtered or otherwise
treated to remove sediment.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

The detailed cost and effectiveness information presented under the construction measure for urban development is
also applicable to road, highway, and bridge construction. See Tables 4-15 and 4-16 in Section Ill.

EPA.840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 4-145

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

D. Management Measure for Construction Site
Chemical Control

(1) Limit the application, generation, and migration of toxic substances;

(2) Ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials; and

(3) Apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without
causing significant nutrient runoff to surface water.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new, resurfaced, restored, and rehabilitated road,
highway, and bridge construction projects in order to reduce toxic and nutrient loadings from such project sites.
Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and will have some flexibility
in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Departrnent of Commerce.

2. Description

The objective of this measure is to guard against toxic spills and hazardous loadings at construction sites from
equipment and fuel storage sites. Toxic substances tend to bind to fine soil particles; however, by controlling
sediment mobilization, it is possible to limit the loadings of these pollutants. Also, some substances such as fuels
and solvents are hazardous and excess applications or spills during construction can pose significant environmental
impacts. Proper management and control of toxic substances and hazardous materials should be the adopted
procedure for all construction projects and should be established by erosion and sediment control plans. Additional
relevant practices are described in Management Measure III.B of this chapter.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because of existing practices that have been shown to be effective in
mitigating construction-generated NPS pollution at highway project sites and equipment storage yards. In addition,
maintenance areas containing road salt storage, fertilizers and pesticides, snowplows and trucks, and tractor mowers
have the potential to contribute NPS pollutants to adjacent watercourses if not properly managed (AASHTO, 1988,
1991 a). This measure is intended to safeguard surface waters and ground water from toxic and hazardous pollutants
generated at construction sites. Examples of effective implementation of this measure are presented in the section
on construction in urban areas. Several State environmental agencies are using this approach to regulate toxic and
hazardous pollutants (Florida DER, 1988; Puget Sound Basin, .1991).

4-146 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 19.93

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, H@ghways, and Bridges

4. Practices

The practices that are applicable to this management measure are described in Section 11I.B.

S. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

The detailed cost and effectiveness data presented in the Section 11LA of this chapter describing NPS controls for
construction projects in urban development areas are also applicable to highway construction projects.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 4-147

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

. .... ........... E. Management Measure for Operation and Maintenan

Incorporate pollution prevention procedures into the operation and mainten
roads, highways, and bridges to reduce pollutant loadings to surface wate

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to existing, restored, and rehabilitated roads, highways,
and bridges. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of
requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measures and will have
some flexibility in doing so. The application of measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Substantial amounts of eroded material and other pollutants can be generated by operation and maintenance
procedures for roads, highways, and bridges, and from sparsely vegetated areas, cracked pavements, potholes, and
poorly operating urban runoff control structures. This measure is intended to ensure that pollutant loadings from
roads, highways, and bridges are minimized by the development and implementation of a program and associated
practices to ensure that sediment and toxic substance loadings from operation and maintenance activities do not
impair coastal surface waters. The program to be developed, using the practices described in this management
measure, should consist of and identify standard operating procedures for nutrient and pesticide management, road
salt use minimization, and maintenance guidelines (e.g., capture and contain paint chips and other particulates from
bridge maintenance operations, resurfacing, and pothole repairs).

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure for operation and maintenance was selected because (1) it is recommended by FHWA
as a cost-effective practice (FHWA, 1991); (2) it is protective of the human environment (Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, 1989); (3) it is effective in controlling erosion by revegetating bare slopes (AASHTO, 1991b); (4) it is
helpful in minimizing polluted runoff from road pavements (Transportation Research Board, 1991); and (5) both
Federal (Richardson, 1974) and State highway agencies (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1989; Pitt, 1973)
advocate highway maintenance as an effective practice for minimizing pollutant loadings.

Maintenance of erosion and sediment control practices is of critical importance. Both temporary and permanent
controls require frequent and periodic cleanout of accumulated sediment. Any trapping or filtering device, such as
silt fences, sediment basins, buffers, inlets, and check dams, should be checked and cleaned out when approximately
50 percent of their capacity is reached, as determined by the erodible nature of the soil, flow velocity, and quantity
of runoff. Seasonal and climatic differences may require more frequent cleanout of these structures. The sediments
removed from these control devices should be deposited in permanently stabilized areas to prevent further erosion
and sediment from reaching drainages and receiving streams. After periods of use, control devices may require
replacement of deteriorated materials such as straw bales and silt fence fabrics, or restoration and reconstruction of
sediment basins and riprap installations.
n@

4-148 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

Permanent erosion contrc;ls such as vegetated filter strips, grassed swales, and velocity dissipators should be inspected
periodically to determine their integrity and continued effectiveness. Continual deterioration or damage to the se
controls may indicate a need for better design or construction.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by,EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully apply
to achieve the management measure described above.

0 a. Seed and fertilize, seed and mulch, andlor sod damaged vegetated areas and slopes.

b. Establish pesticidelherbicide use and nutrient management programs.

Refer to the Management Measure for Construction Site Chemical Control in this chapter.

Wc. Restrict herbicide and pesticide use in highway rights-of-way to applicators certified under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure safe and effective
application.

d. The use of chemicals such as soil stabilizers, dust palliatives, sterflants, and growth inhibitors
should be limited to the best estimate of optimum application rates. All feasible measures should
be taken to avoid excess application and consequent intrusion of such chemicals into surface
runoff.

M e. Sweep, vacuum, and wash residentiallurban streets and parking lots.

f Collect and remove road debris.

g. Cover saft storage piles and other deicing materials to reduce contamination of surface waters.
Locate them outside the 100-year floodplain,

Oh. Regulate the application of deicing salts to prevent oversalting of pavement.

M i. Use specially equipped saft application trucks.

Mj. Use alternative deicing materials, such as sand or saft substitutes, where sensitive ecosystems
should be protected.

M k. Prevent dumping of accumulated snow into surface waters.

01. Maintain retaining walls and pavements to minimize cracks and leakage.

Mm. Repair potholes.

M n. Encourage fitter and debris control management.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-149

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

M o. Develop an inspection program to ensure that general maintenance is performed on urban runoff
and NPS pollution control facilities.

To be effective, erosion and sediment control devices and practices must receive thorough and periodic inspection
checks. The following is a suggested checklist for the inspection of erosion and sediment controls (AASHTO
Operating Subcommittee on Design, 1990):

� Clean out sediment basins and traps; ensure that structures are stable.
� Inspect silt fences and replace deteriorated fabrics and wire connections; properly dispose of deteriorated
materials.
� Renew riprapped areas and reapply supplemental rock as necessary.
� Repair/replace check dams and brush barriers; replace or stabilize straw bales as needed.
� Regrade and shape berms and drainage ditches to ensure that runoff is properly channeled.
� Apply seed and mulch where bare spots appear, and replace matting material if deteriorated.
� Ensure that culverts and inlets are protected from siltation.
� Inspect all permanent erosion and sediment controls on a scheduled, programmed basis.

Mp. Ensure that energy dissioators and velocity controls to minimize runoff velocity and erosion are
maintained.

M q. Dispose of accumulated sediment collected from urban runoff management and pollution control
facilities, and any wastes generated during maintenance operations, in accordance with appropriate
local, State, and Federal regulations.

M r. Use techniques such as suspended larps, vacuums, or booms to reduce, to the extent practicable,
the delivery to surface waters of pollutants used or generated during bridge maintenance (e.g.,
paint, solvents, scrapings).

M s. Develop education programs to promote the practices listed above.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

Preventive maintenance is a time-proven, cost-effective management approach. Operation schedules and maintenance
procedures to restore vegetation, proper management of salt and fertilizer application, regular cleaning of urban
runoff structures, and frequent sweeping and vacuuming of urban streets have effective results in pollution control.
Litter control, clean-up, and fix-up practices are a low-cost means for eliminating causes of pollution, as is the proper
handling of fertilizers, pesticides, and other toxic materials including deicing salts and abrasives. Table 4-30 presents
summary information on the cost and effectiveness of operation and maintenance practices for roads, highways, and
bridges. Many States and communities are already implementing several of these practices within their budget
limitations. As shown in Table 4-30, the use of road salt alternatives such as calcium magnesium acetate (CMA)
can be very costly. Some researchers have indicated, however, that reductions in corrosion of infrastructure, damage
to roadside vegetation, and the quantity of material that needs to be applied may offset the higher cost of CMA.
Use of road salt minimization practices such as salt storage protection and special salt spreading equipment reduces
the amount of salt that a State or community must purchase. Consequently, implementation of these practices can
pay for itself through savings in salt purchasing costs. Similar programs such as nutrient and pesticide management
can also lead to decreased expenditures for materials.

4-150 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges
0 CMA Eligible for Matching Funds

Calcium magnesium acetate (CIVIA) is now eligible for Federal matching funds under the Bridge Program of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, The Act provides 80 percent funding for use
of CMA on salt-sensitive bridges in order to protect against corrosion and to extend their useful life. CIVIA can
also be used to protect vegetation from salt damage in environmentally sensitive areas.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-151

Table 4-30. Effectiveness and Cost Summary for Roads, Highways, and Bridges Operation and Maintenance Management Practices

% Removal

Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Cost

MAINTAIN VEGETATION
For Sediment Control Natural succession allowed to occur -
9b
Averag6- - 90 NA NA NA NA NA Avg: $1 00/ac/year zi
QL
Reported.Range: 50-100 NA NA NA NA NA Reported Range: $50-$200tactyear
Probable Range: 80-100
Q

For Pollutant Removal Natural succession not allowed to occur -
Average: 60 40 40 so 50 50 Avg: $800/ac/year
Reported Range 0-100 0-100 0-70 20-80 0-100 50-60 Reported Range: $700-$900/actyear
Probable Range: 0-100 0-100 0-100 0-100 0-100 0-100
PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE USE Generally accepted as an economical
MANAGEMENT program to control excessive use
Average: NA
Reported Range: NA
Probable Range:

STREET SWEEPING
Smooth Street, Frequent Cleaning Avg: $20/curb mile
(One or More Passes Per Week) Reported Range: $10-$30/curb mile
Average: 20 NA NA 5 25 NA
Reported Range: 20 NA NA 0-10 5-35 NA
Probable Range: 20-50 0-10 20-50 10-30

Infrequent Cleaning
(One Pass'Per Month or Less)
Average: NA NA NA NA 5 NA
Reported Range: NA NA NA NA 0-10 NA
Probable Range: 0-20 0-20 0-10
LITTER CONTROL Generally accepted as an economical
Average: NA approach to control excessive use
Reported Range: NA
Probable Range:

Tj
i6

Table 4-30. (Continued)

tp % Removal
Management Practice TSS TP TN COD Pb Zn Cost
GENERAL MAINTENANCE Generally accepted as an economical
preventive maintenance program by local
z pothole and roadside repairs)
a Averagg: NA and State agencies
Reported Range: NA
Probable Range:
i2
PROTECTION OF SALT PILES For salt storage building -
Average: NA Ave: $30/ton salt
Reported Range: NA Reported Range: $10-$70/ton salt
Probable Range: go-100a
MINIMIZATION OF APPLICATION Generally accepted as an economical
OF DEICING SALTS preventive maintenance program by local
Average: NA and State agencies
Reported Range: NA
Probable Range: Deicing safts that are not applied to roads will not enter runoff,
SPECIALLY EQUIPPED SALT For spread rate control on truck -
APPLICATION TRUCKS Ave: $6,000/truck
Average: NA Reported Range: $6,000ttruck
Reported Range: NA
Probable Range: Deicing safts; that are not applied to roads will not enter runoffa
USE OF ALTERNATIVE DEICING CMA -
MATERIALS Ave:$650/ton
Average: NA Reported Range:$650/ton
Reported Range: NA (note: cost of salt $30tton)
Probable Range: Deicing safts that are not applied to roads will not enter runoff,
C,
CONTAIN POLLUTANTS GENERATED Varies with method of containment use
DURING BRIDGE MAINTENANCE 19
Average: NA 1*
NA
Reported Range:
Probable Range: 50-1 00b

rM
NA - Not applicable. 4
Measured as reduction in salt
ca bMeaSUred as reduction of all pollutants.

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

F. Management Measure for Road, Highway, and Bridge
Runoff Systems

Develop and Implement runoff management systems for existing roads, highways,
and bridges to reduce runoff pollutant concentrations and volumes entering surface
waters.

(1) Identify priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities (e.g.,
improvements to existing urban runoff control structures; and

(2) Establish schedules for implementing appropriate controls.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to existing, resurfaced, restored, and rehabilitated
roads, highways, and bridges that contribute to adverse effects in surface waters., Under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS
programs in conformity with this management measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application
of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program
Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

This measure requires that operation and maintenance systems include the development of retrofit projects, where
needed, to collect NPS pollutant loadings from existing, reconstructed, and rehabilitated roads, highways, and bridges.
Poorly designed or maintained roads and bridges can generate significant erosion and pollution loads containing
heavy metals, hydrocarbons, sediment, and debris that run off into and threaten the quality of surface waters and their
tributaries. In areas where such adverse impacts to surface waters can be attributed to adjacent roads or bridges,
retrofit management projects to protect these waters may be needed (e.g., installation of structural or nonstructural
pollution controls). Retrofit projects can be located in existing rights-of-way, within interchange loops, or on
adjacent land areas. Areas with severe erosion and pollution runoff problems may require relocation or
reconstruction to mitigate these impacts.

Runoff management systems are a combination of nonstructural and structural practices selected to reduce nonpoint
source loadings from roads, highways, and bridges. These systems are expected to include structural improvements
to existing runoff control structures for water quality purposes; construction of new runoff control devices, where
necessary to protect water quality; and scheduled operation and maintenance activities for these runoff control
practices. Typical runoff controls for roads, highways, and bridges include vegetated filter strips, grassed swales,
detention basins, constructed wetlands, and infiltration trenches.

4-154 EPA-840-8-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because of the demonstrated effectiveness of retrofit systems for existing
roads and highways that were constructed with inadequate nonpoint source pollution controls or without such
controls. Structural practices for mitigating polluted runoff from existing highways are described in the literature
(Silverman, 1988).

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above genlarally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Ma. Locate runoff treatment facilities within existing rights-of- way or in medians and interchange loops.

Mb. Develop multiple-use treatment facilities on adjacent lands (e.g., parks and golf courses).

Mc. Acquire additional land for locating treatment facilities.

Md. Use underground storage where no alternative is available.

Me. Maximize the lehgth and width of vegetated filter strips to slow the travel time of sheet flow and
increase the infiltration rate of urban runoff.

5. Effectiveness Information and Cost Information

Cost and effectiveness data for structural urban runoff management and pollution control facilities are outlined in
Tables 4-15 and 4-16 in Section III and discussed in Section IV of this chapter, and are applicable to determine the
cost and effectiveness of retrofit projects. Retrofit projects can often be more costly to construct because of the need
to locate the required structures within existing space or the need to locate the structures within adjacent property
that requires purchase. However, the use of multiple-use facilities on adjacent lands, such as diverting runoff waters
to parkland or golf courses, can offset this cost. Nonstructural practices described in the urban section also can be
effective in achieving source control. As with other sections of this document, the costs of loss of habitat, fisheries,
and recreational areas must be weighed against the cost of retrofitting control structures within existing rights-of-way.

6. Pollutants of Concern

Table 4-31 lists the pollutants commonly found in urban runoff from roads, highways, and bridges and their sources.
The disposition and subsequent magnitude of pollutants found in highway runoff are site-specific and are affected
by traffic volume, road or highway design, surrounding land use, climate, and accidental spills.

The FHWA conducted an extensive field monitoring and laboratory analysis program to determine the pollutant
concentration in highway runoff from 31 sites in I I States (Driscoll et al., 1990). The event mean concentrations
(EMCs) developed in the study for a number of pollutants are presented in Table 4-32. The study also indicated that
for highways discharging into lakes, the pollutants of major concern are phosphorus and heavy metals. For highways
discharging into streams, the pollutants of major concern are heavy metals--cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-155

V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges Chapter 4

Table 4-31. Highway Runoff Constituents and Their Primary Sources

Constituents Primary Sources

Particulates Pavement wear, vehicles, atmosphere, maintenance

Nitrogen, Phosphorus Atmosphere, roadside fertilizer application

Lead Leaded gasoline (auto exhaust), tire wear (lead oxide filler
material, lubricating oil and grease, bearing wear)

Zinc Tire wear (filler material), motor oil (st abilizing additive), grease

Iron Auto body rust, steel highway structures (guard rails, bridges,
etc.), moving engine parts

Copper Metal plating, bearing and bushing wear, moving engine parts,
brake lining wear, 'fungicides and insecticides

Cadmium Tire wear (filler material), insecticide application

Chromium Metal plating, moving engine parts, break lining wear

Nickel Diesel fuel and gasoline (exhaust), lubricating oil, metal plating,
bushing wear, brake lining wear, asphalt paving

Manganese Moving engine parts

Cyanide Anticake compound (ferric ferrocyanide, sodium ferrocyanide,
yellow prussiate of soda) used to keep deicing salt granular

Sodium, Calcium, Chloride Deicing salts

Sulphate Roadway beds, fuel, deicing salts
Petroleum Spills, leaks or blow-by of motor lubricants, antifreeze and
hydraulic fluids, asphalt surface leachate

In colder regions where deicing agents are used, deicing chemicals and abrasives are the largest source of pollutants during
winter months. Deicing salt (primarily sodium chloride, NaCI) is the most commonly used deicing agent. Potential pollutants
from deicing salt include sodium chloride, ferric ferrocyanide (used to keep the salt in granular form), and sulfates such as
gypsum. Table 4-33 summarizes potential environmental impacts caused by road salt. Other chemicals used as a salt
substitute include calcium magnesium acetate (CMA) and, less frequently, urea and glycol compounds. Researchers have
differing opinions on the environmental impacts of CIVIA compared to those of road salt (Chevron Chemical Company, 1991;
Salt Institute, undated; Transportation Research Board, 1991).

4-156 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 V11. Roads, Highways, and Bridges

Table 4-32. Pollutant Concentrations in Highway Runoff (Driscoll et al., 1990)

Event Mean Concentration for Event Mean Concentration for
Highways With Fewer Than Highways With More Than
30,000 Vehicles/Day' 30,000 Vehicles/Dar
Pollutant (mg/L) (mg/L)

Total Suspended Solids 41 142

Volatile Suspended Solids 12 39

Total Organic Carbon 8 25

Chemical Oxygen Demand 49 114

Nitrite and Nitrate 0.46 0.76

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.87 1.83

Phosphate Phosphorus 0.16 0.40

Copper 0.022 0.054

Lead 0.080 0.400

Zinc 0.080 0.329

'Event mean concentrations are for the 50% median site.

Table 4-33. Potential Environmental Impacts of Road Salts

Environmental Resource Potential Environmental Impact of Road Salt (NaCI)

Soils May accumulate in soil. Breaks down soil structure, increases erosion.
Causes soil compaction that results in decreased permeability.
Vegetation Osmotic stress and soil compaction harm root systems. Spray causes
foliage dehydration damage. Many plant species are salt-sensitive.

Ground Water Mobile Na and Cl ions readily reach ground water. Increases NaCl
concentration in well water, as well as alkalinity and hardness.

Surface Water Causes density stratification in ponds and lakes that can prevent
reoxygenation. Increases runoff of heavy metals and nutrients through
increased erosion.

Aquatic Life Monovalent Na and Cl ions stress osmotic balances. Toxic levels: Na -
500 ppm for strickleback; Cl - 400 ppm for trout.

Human/Mammalian Sodium is linked to heart disease and hypertension. Chlorine causes
unpleasant taste in drinking water. Mild skin and eye irritant. Acute oral
LD50 in rats is approximately 3,000 mg/kg (slightly toxic).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993 4-157

V111. Glossary Chapter 4

Vill. GLOSSARY

Unless otherwise noted, the source of these definitions is Glossary of Environmental Terms and Acronym List
(USEPA, 1989).

Bankfull event (also bankfull discharge): A flow condition in which strearnflow completely fills the steam channel
up to the top of the bank. In undisturbed watersheds, the discharge condition occurs on average every 1.5 to 2 years
and controls the shape and form of natural channels. (Schueler, 1987)

Berm: An earthen mound used to direct the flow of runoff around or through a best management practice (BMP)
(Schueler, 1987).

Constructed urban runoff wetlands: Those wetlands that are intentionally created on sites that are not wetlands for
the primary purpose of wastewater or urban runoff treatment and are managed as such. Constructed wetlands are
normally considered as part of the urban runoff collection and treatment system.

Conveyance system: The drainage facilities, both natural and human-made, which collect, contain, and provide for
the flow of surface water and urban runoff from the highest points on the land down to a receiving water. The
natural elements of the conveyance system include swales and small drainage courses, streams, rivers, lakes, and
wetlands. The human-made elements of the conveyance system include gutters, ditches, pipes, channels, and most
retention/detention facilities (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Denitrification: The anaerobic biological reduction of nitrate nitrogen to nitrogen gas.

Discharge: Outflow; the flow of a stream, canal, or aquifer. One may also speak of the discharge of a canal or
stream into a lake, river, or ocean. (Hydraulics) Rate of flow, specifically fluid flow; a volume of fluid passing a
point per unit of time, commonly expressed as cubic feet per second, cubic meters per second, gallons per minute,
gallons per day, or millions of gallons per day. (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992)

Drainage basin: A geographic and hydrologic subunit of a watershed (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological community and its nonliving environmental surroundings.

Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally from weather or runoff
but can be intensified by land-clearing practices related to farming, residential or industrial development, road
building, or timber cutting.

Forebay: An extra storage space provided near an inlet of a BMP to trap incoming sediments before they
accumulate in a pond BMP (Schueler, 1987).

Heavy metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights, e.g., mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, and lead.
They can damage living things at low concentrations and tend to accumulate in the food chain.

Illicit discharge: All nonurban runoff discharges to urban runoff drainage systems that could cause or contribute
to a violation of State water quality, sediment quality, or ground-water quality standards, including but not limited
to sanitary sewer connections, industrial process water, interior floor drains, car washing, and greywater systems
(Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Impervious surface: A hard surface. area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil mande as
under natural conditions prior to development and/or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in
greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the flow present under natural conditions prior to development.
Common impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots,

4-158 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 4 V111. Glossary

storage areas, concrete or asphalt paving, gravel roads, packed earthen materials, and oiled, macadam, or other
surfaces that similarly impede the natural infiltration of urban runoff. Open, uncovered retention/detention facilities
shall not be considered as impervious surfaces. (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992)

Invasive exotic plants: Non-native plants having the capacity to compete and proliferate in introduced environments
(Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Land conversion: A change in land use, function, or purpose (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Land-disturbing activity: Any activity that results in a change in the existing soil cover (both vegetative and
nonvegetative) and/or the existing soil topography. Land-disturbing activities include, but are not limited to,
demolition, construction, clearing, grading, filling, and excavation. (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992)

Local government: Any county, city, or town having its own incorporated government for local affairs (Washington
Department of Ecology, 1992).

Municipal separate storm sewer systems: Any conveyance or system of conveyance that is owned or operated by
the State or local government entity, is used for collecting and conveying storm water, and is not part of a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW), as defined in EPA 40 CFR Part III (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Onsite disposal system (OSDS): Sewage disposal system designed to treat wastewater at a particular site. Septic
tank systems are common OSDS. (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992)

Organophosphate: Pesticide chemical that contains phosphorus; used to control insects. Organophosphates are short-
lived, but some can be toxic when first applied.

Postdevelopment peak runoff.- Maximum instantaneous rate of flow during a storm, after development is complete
(Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Retrofit: The creation or modification of an urban runoff management system in a previously developed area. This
may include wet ponds, infiltration systems, wetland plantings, strearnbank stabilization, and other BMP techniques
for improving water quality and creating aquatic habitat. A retrofit can consist of the construction of a new BMP
in a developed area, the enhancement of an older urban runoff management structure, or a combination of
improvement and new construction. (Schueler et al., 1992)

Soil absorption field: A subsurface area containing a trench or bed with clean stones and a system of distribution
piping through which treated sewage may seep into the surrounding soil for further treatment and disposal.

Turbidity: A cloudy condition in water due to suspended silt or organic matter.

Urban runoff.- That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows
via overland flow, underflow, or channels or is piped into a defined surface water channel or a constructed infiltration
facility (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992).

Vegetated buffer. Strips of vegetation separating a waterbody from a land use with potential to act as a nonpoint
pollution source; vegetated buffers (or simply buffers) are variable in width and can range in function from a
vegetated filter strip to a wetland or riparian area.

Watershed: The land area that drains into a receiving waterbody.

Wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions; wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (This definition is consistent

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-159

Vill. Glossafy Chapter 4

with the Federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3; December 24, 1989. As amendments are made to the wetland
definition, they will be considered applicable to this guidance.)

Xeriscaping: A horticultural practice that combines water conservation techniques with landscaping; also known as
dry landscaping (Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service, 1991).

4-160 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

IX. REFERENCES

AASHTO. 1987. AASHTO Manual for Bridge Maintenance. American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials.

AASHTO. 1988. Guide Specifications for Highway Construction (Sections 201 and 208). American Association
of State Highway Transportation Officials.

AASHTO. 1989. Standard Specificationsfor Highway Bridges (Section 1). American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials.

AASHTO. 1990. Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control in Highway Construction - 5th Draft. American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials.

AASHTO. 1991a. A Guide For Transportation Landscape and Environmental Design. American Association of
State Highway Transportation Officials.

AASHTO. 1991b. Model Drainage Manual (Chapter 16). American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials.

ABAG. 1979. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff by a MarshlFlood Basin: Interim Report. Association of Bay Area
Governments, in association with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. and Ramlit Associates, Berkeley, CA.

ABAG. 199 1. San Francisco Estuary Project: Status and Trends Rebort on Wetlands and Related Habitats in the
San Francisco Bay Estuary. Prepared under cooperative agreement with U.S. EPA. Agreement No. 815406-01-0.
Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, California.

Alachua County Office of Environmental Protection. 1991. Best Management Practices for the Use and Storage
of Hazardous Materials. Gainesville, Florida.

Amberg, L.W. 1990. Rock-Plant Filter an Alternative for Septic Tank Effluent Treatment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Wash@ington, DC.

American Public Works Association Research Foundation. 1981. Costs of Stormwater Management Systems. In
Urban Stormwater Management. American Public Works Association, Chicago, IL.

American Public Works Association Research Foundation. 1991. Water Quality: Urban Runoff Solutions. The
American Public Works Association, Chicago, IL.

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1988. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. 5. In Proceedings of the
Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Engineers,
Chicago, Illinois, December 14-15, 1987. ASAE Publication No. 10-87.
1
Apogee Research, Inc. 199 1. Nutrient Trading in the Dillon Reservoir. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, by Apogee Research, Inc.

August, L., and T. Graupensperger. 1989. Impacts of Highway Deicing Programs on Groundwater and Surface
Water Quality in Maryland. In Proceedings of the Groundwater Issues and Solutions in the Potomac Riv@r
BasinlChesapeake Bay Region. National Water Well Association.

Balogh, J.C., and W.J. Walker. 1992. Golf Course Management and Construction: Environmental Issues. Lewis
Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 24, 244-245.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-161

IX References Chapter 4

Barten, J.M. 1987. Stofmwater Runoff Treatment in a Wetland Filter: Effects on the Water Quality of Clear Lake.
Lake and Reservoir Management, 2:297-305.

Barrett, T.S., and P. Livermore. 1983. The Conservation Easement in California. Island Press, Covelo, CA

Bassler, R.E., Jr. Undated. Grassed Waterway Maintenance. In Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet No. 129,
Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Baumann, J. 1990. Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Madison.

Bazemore, D.E., C.R. Hupp, and T.H. Diehl. 1991. Wetland Sedimentation and Vegetation Patterns Near Selected
Highway Crossings in West Tennessee. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Beasley, R. 1972. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control. The Iowa State University Press.

Bennett, D.B., and J.P. Heaney. 1991. Retrofitting for Watershed Drainage. Water Environment Technology,
3(9):63-68.

Birkitt, B.F., et al. 1979. Effects of Bridging on Biological Productivity and Diversity. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

Borromeo, N.R. 1992. Leaching of Turfgrass Pesticides. A thesis presented to the faculty of the graduate school
of Cornell University.

British Columbia Research Corporation. 1991. Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A Comprehensive Review.
Greater Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, Canada.

Broward County, Florida. 1990. Land Development Code. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Broward County Planning Council. 1982. Determining the Effectiveness of Sweeping Commercial Parking Areas to
Reduce Water Pollution. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.

Brunswick, Maine, Zoning: Ordinance. 1991.

Bubeck, R.C., W.H. Diment, B.L. Deck, A.L. Baldwin, and S.D. Lipton. 1971. Runoff of Deicing Salt: Effect on
Irondequoit Bay, Rochester, New York. Science, 172:1128-1132.

Buck, E.H. 1991. CRS Reportfor Congress: Corals and Coral Reef Protectio.i. Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC.

Butch, G.K. Undated. Measurement of Scour at Selected Bridges in New York. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA.

Buttle, J.M. and F. Xu. 1988. Snowmelt Runoff in Suburban Environments. Nordic Hydrology, 19:19-40.

Cahill Associates. 1991. Limiting NPS Pollutionfrom New Development in the New Jersey Coastal Zone. Prepared
for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton.

Cahill Associates. 1992. A Comparison: NPS Pollutant Removal EffectivenessforNew Land Development Comparing
Nonstructural Best Management Practices (Minimum DisturbancelMinimum Maintenance) and Various Structural
BMP Techniques. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,
Washington, DC.

4-162 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Cahill, T.H., W.R. Homer, J. McGuire, and C. Smith. 1991. Interim Report: Infiltration Technologies - Draft.
Cahill and Associates. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,
Washington, DC.

Cahoon, D.R., D.R. Clark, D.G. Chambers, and J.L. Lindsey. 1981. Managing Louisiana's Coastal Zone: The
Ultimate Balancing Act. In Proceedings of the Water Quality and Wetland Management Conference. Louisiana
Environmental Professionals Association, New Orleans, LA.

Campbell, B. 1988. Methods of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Highway Projects. National Research Council,
Transportation Research Boal7d, Washington, DC.

Canning, D.J. 1988a. Construction erosion control: Shorelands Technical Advisory Paper No. 3. Shorelands and
Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Canning, D.J. 1988b. Urban Runoff Water Quality: Effects and Management Options (Shorelands Technical
Advisory Paper No. 4). Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.

Cape Cod Commission. 1991. Regional Policy Plan. Barnstable, MA.

Carlile, B.L., C.G. Cogger, M.D. Sobsey, J. Scandura, and S.J. Steinbeck. 198 1. Movement and Fate of Septic Tank
Effluent in Soils of the North Carolina Coastal Plain.

Carr, A., M. Smith, L. Gilkeson, J. Smillie, and B. Wolf. 1991. Chemical-Free Yard and Garden. Rodale Press,
Emmaus, PA.

Casman, E. 1990. Selected BMP Efficiencies Wrenchedfrom Empirical Studies. Interstate Commission on Potomac
River Basin.

Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. 1988. Recommendations ofthe Nonpoint Source Control
Subcommittee to the Local Government Advisory Committee Concerning Nonpoint Source Control Needs. A draft
white paper for discussion at the Local Government Advisory Committee's First Annual Conference.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1990. Annual Progress Report for the Baywide Nutrient Strategy.

Chevron Chemical Company. 199 1. Comments on Chapter 4, Sections IV and V of EPA's Proposed Guidance
Speciffing Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. November 4, 1991.

Chevron Chemical Company and New York State Highway Administration. 1990. Proceedings on Environmental
Symposium on Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA).

City of Austin, Texas. 1988a. Environmental Criteria Manual. Sections 1.1 through 1.6.

City of Austin, Texas. 1988b. Inventory of Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Practices.

City of Austin Environmental Resource Management Division, Environmental and Conservation Services Department.
1990. Removal Efficiencies ofStormwater Control Structures. Environmental Resource Management, Austin, Texas.

Clemson University Cooperative Extension Service. 1991. Xeriscape: Landscape Water Conservation in the
Southeast. Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Cohn-Lee, R.G., and D.M. Cameron. 199 1. Urban Stormwater Runoff Contamination ofthe Chesapeake Bay: Sources
and Mitigation. Natural Resources Defense Council, Water and Coastal Program, Washington, DC.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-163

IX References Chapter 4

Colleton Area Joint Planning Advisory Commission. 1988. Colleton County Development Standards Ordinance.
Walterboro, SC. September 1988.

I
Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation. 1988. Connecticut Guidelinesfor Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control. Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Conservation, Hartford, CT.

Cook, A. Guidebook for the PC Gardener. Washington Post, September 26, 1991.

Cooperative Extension Service, University of Maryland. 1991. Maintaining Your Septic Tank. Water Re�ources
28, University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service, College Park, MD.

Dana Duxbury and Associates. 1990. The National Listing of Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs
1990.

Davenport, T.E. 1988. Nonpoint Source Regulation - A Watershed Approach. In Nonpoint Pollution: 1988 -
Policy, Economy, Management, and Appropriate Technology. American Water Resources Association and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Day, G., D.R. Smith, and J. Bowers. 1981. Runoff and Pollution Abatement Characteristics of Concrete Grid
Pavements. Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.

Delaware DNREC. 1989. Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

Decker, R.W. 1987. Crystal Lake Life or Death. Board of Public Works, Benzie County, Mi.

Defoe, J.H. 1989. Evaluation of Improved Calcium Magnesium Acetate as an Ice Control Agent. Michigan
Transportation Commission, Lansing, MI.

Degen, M.B., R.B. Renbeau, Jr., C. Hagedom, and D.C. Martens. 1991. Denitrification in Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA.

DeWalle, F.B. 1981. Failure Analysis of Large Septic Tank Systems. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, 107:229-240. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Reneau, S. Mostaghimi, V.0. Shanholtz, and W.L. Magette. 1987. Evaluating Nutrient and
Sediment Losses from Agricultural Lands: Vegetative Filter Strips. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee. 1989. Long Term Effectiveness of Vegetative Filter Strips. Water
Environment and Technology, 1:418-421.

Dix, S.P. 1986. Case Study No. 4 Crystal Lakes, Colorado. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Small
Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.

Dorman, M.E., J. Hartigan, R.F. Steg, and T. Quasebarth. 1989. Retention, Detention and Overland Flow for
Pollutant Removalfrom Highway Stormwater Runoff. Volume L Research report. Federal Highway Administration.
August 1989.

Dreher, D.W., and T.H. Price. 1992. Best Management Practice Handbook for Urban Development. Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.

4-164 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References
I

Driscoll, E.D. 1986. Detention and Retention Controls for Urban Runoff. In Urban Runoff Quality - Impact and
Quality Enhancement Technology, ed. B. Urbonas and L.A. Roes.ner, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp.
381-393.

Driscoll, E., P. Shelley, and E. Strecker. 1989a. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts From Highway Stormwater
Runoff - Volume 11. Federal Highway Administration. April 1989.

Driscoll, E., P. Shelley, and E. Strecker. 1989b. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts From Highway Stormwater
Runoff - Volume IV. Federal Highway Administration. May 1989.

Driscoll, E., P. Shelley, and E. Strecker. 1990. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts From Highway Stormwater Runoff,
Volume 1. Federal Highway Administration. April 1990.

Duda, A.M., and K.D. Cromartie. 1982. Coastal Pollution from Septic Tank Drainfields. Joumal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, 108:1265-1279. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco,
CA.

Dupuis, T.V., et al. 1985. Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters. Volume III. Resource Document for
Environmental Assessments. Federal Highway Administration. March 1985. Report No. FHWA/RD-84/064.

Dupuis, T.V., and N.P. Kobriger. 1985. Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters. Volume IV. Procedural
Guidelinesfor Environmental Assessments. Federal Highway Administration. July 1985. Report No. FHWA/RD-
84/065.

Duxbury, D. 1990. Emerging Prominence for HHW. Waste Age, 21:37.

Dwyer, T., and K. Sylvester. 1989. Natural Processes for Tertiary Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Coupled with
Shallow Ground-Water Discharge in a Saltwater Marsh Environment. In Proceedings of Groundwater Issues and
Solutions in the Potomac River Basin/Chesapeake Bay Region, March 14-16, 1989, National Water Well Association,
Washington, DC.

Enckson, P., G. Camougio, and N. Miner. 1980. Impact Assessment, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures. In
Highways and Wetlands - Volume 11. Federal Highway Administration. July, 1980.

Engle, B.W., and Jarrett, A.R. 1990. Improved Sediment Retention Efficiencies of Sedimentation Basins American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL. Paper No. 90-2629.

Exner, M.E., M.E. Burbach, D.G. Watts, R.C. Shearman, and R.F. Spalding. 1991. Deep Nitrate Movement in the
Unsaturated Zone of a Simulated Urban Lawn. Journal of Environmental Quality, 20:658-662.

FHWA. 1985. Construction Manual. Federal Highway Administration.

FHWA. 1987. Technical Summary, Sources and Migration of Highway Runoff Pollutants. Federal Highway
Administration. Report No. FHWA/RD-84/057-060-XX.

FHWA. 1991. Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Federal Highway Administration.

Field, R. 1985. Urban Runoff: Pollution Sources, Control, and Treatment. American Water Resource Association,
Water Resources Bulletin, 21121.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-165

IX References Chapter 4

Field, R., et al. 1974. Water Pollution and Associated Effects from Street Salting. Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division.

Finnemore, E.J. 1982. Stormwater Pollution Control: Best Management Practices. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 108:706-721

Firehock, K. 1991. Virginia's Erosion and Sediment Control Law. Isaac Walton League.

Fisher, L.S., and Jarrett, A.R. 1984. Sediment Retention Efficiency of Synthetic Filter Fabrics. In Transactions
of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 27(2):429-436.

Florida Council on Comprehensive Environmental Education. 1987. Comprehensive Plan for Environmental
Education. Orlando, FL.

Florida DER. 1988. Florida Development Manual: A Guide -to Sound Land and Water Management. Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

Foster, B. 1990. Alternative Technologies for Deicing Highways. National Conference of State Legislatures. State
Legislative Report, 15(10). April 1990.

Franklin County, Florida. 1987. Land Planning Regulations for the Appalachicola Bay Area of Critical State
Concern. Franklin County Administration Commission, Appalachicola, FL.

Fritzche, C. 1987. CMA in Winter Maintenance: Massachusetts Confronts Environmental Issues. Public Works.

Fritzche, C. 1992. Calcium Magnesium Acetate Deicer - An Effective Alternative for Salt-Sensitive Areas. Water
Environment and Technology.

Fulhage, C.D., and D. Day. 1988. Design, Installation and Operation of a Low Pressure Pipe Sewage Absorption
System in the Missouri Claypan Soil. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Chicago, Illinois, December 14-15, 1987. pp. 114-121. ASAE Publication No. 10-87.

Galli, J., and R. Dubose. 1990. Water Temperature and Freshwater Stream Biota: An Overview. Maryland
Department of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater Administration, Baltimore.

GESAMP. 1990. The State of the Marine Environment, United Nations Environment Progrm (UNEP) Regional Seas
Reports and Studies no. 115. IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, New York.

Glick, R., M.L. Wolfe, and T.L. Thurow. 1991. Urban Runoff Quality as Affected by Native Vegetation. Presented
at the 1991 International Summer Meeting sponsored by American Society of Engineers, Albuquerque, NM. ASAE
Paper No. 91-2067.

Gold, A.J., T.G. Morton, W.M. Sullivan, and J. McClory. 1987. Leaching of 2,4-D and Dicamba from Home Lawns.
Water, Air, and Soil, 37:121-129.

Goldman, C., and G. Maly. 1989. Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing. U.C. Dans. Inst.

Goldman, S.J., K. Jackson, and T.A. Borstztynksy. 1986. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook McGraw-Hill,
Inc.
1 0

4-166 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 iX References

Gray, D.H., and A.T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.

Griffin, Jr, D.M., C. Randall, and T.J. Grizzard. 1980. Efficient Design of Stormwater Holdingf Basins Used for
Water Quality Protection. Water Research, 14:1549-1554.

Gupta, M.K. 1981. Constituents of Highway Runoff. Vol. 1. Federal Highway Administration.

Hansen, R.C., and K.M. Mancl. 1988. Modem Composting-A Natural Way to Recycle Wastes. Ohio State
University, Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Columbus. Bulletin #792.

Hanson, M.E., and H.M. Jacobs. 1987. Land Use and Cost Impacts of Private Sewage System Policy in Wisconsin.
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems, Chicago, IL, December 14-15, 1987. pp. 26-39. ASAE Publication No. 10-87.

Harding, M.V. 1990. Erosion Control Effectiveness: Comparative Studies of Alternative Mulching Techniques.
Environmental Restoration, pp. 149-156.

Harper, H.H., M.P. Wanielista, B.M. Fries, and D.M. Baker. 1986. Stormwater Treatment by Natural Systems. STAR
project #84-026 - Final Report. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

Hartigen, J.P., T.S. George, T.F. Quasebarth, and M.E. Dorman. 1989. Retention, Detention, and Overland Flow
for Pollutant Removal from Highway Stormwater Runoff. Vol. 11 Design Guidelines. Federal Highway
Administration. Report No. F14WA/RD-89/203.

Hawkins, R.H,, and J.H, Judd. 1112, Water Pollution as Affected by Street Salting. American Water Resources
Association. Water Resources Bulletin, 8 (6).

Healy, K.A. 1982. Water Compliance Unit Seepate and Pollutant Renovation Analysisfor Land Treatment, Sewage
Disposal Systems. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.

Hey, D.L., and K.R. Barrett. 1991. Hydrologic, Water Quality, and Meteorollogic Studies. In The Des Plaines River
Wetlands Demonstration Project, Final Draft Report to the Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
Wetlands Research, Inc., Chicago, IL.

Hickok, E.A., M.C. Hannaman, and N.C. Wenck. 1977. Urban Runoff Treatment Methods: Volume I - Non-Structural
Wetland Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/2-77-217.

Hill, D.E., and C.R. Frink. 1974. Longevity of Septic Systems in Connecticut Soils. Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 747.

Hoffman, E.J., A.M. Falke, and J.G. Quinn. 1980. Waste Lubricating Oil Disposal Practices in Providence, Rhode
Island: Potential Significance to Coastal Water Quality. Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 8.

Holler, S. 1989. Buffer Strips in Watershed Management. In Watershed Management Strategiesfor New Jersey, Cook
College Department of Environmental Resources and New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 69-116.

Homer, R.R. 1988. Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation of Calcium Magnesium Acetate. National Research
Council, Transportaion Research Board, Washington, DC.
I
Horsely Witten Hegeman, Inc. 1991, Quantification and Control of Nitrogen Inputs to Buttermilk Bay. Vol. 1.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-167

IX. References Chapter 4

Houlihan, J.M. 1990. The Effectiveness of the Maryland Critical Area Act in Reducing Nonpoint Source Pollution
to the Rhode River Estuary. Master's Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Hoxie, D.C., R.G. Martin, and D.P. Rocque. 1988. A Numerical Classification System to Determine Overall Site
Suitability for Subsurface Wastewater Disposal. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth
National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, American Association of Agricultural
Engineers, Chicago, IL, December 14-15, 1987, pp. 366-374. ASAE Publication No. 10-87.

Huang, J.Y.C. 1983. Management of On-Site Disposal Systems: Case Study. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 109(4):845-858.

Hurst, C.J., W.H. Benton, and K.A. McClellan, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Undated. Thermal and
Water Source Effects upon the Stability of Enteroviruses in Surface Freshwaters. Canadian Journal of Microbiology,
35:474-480.

IEP, Inc. 199 1. Vegetated Buffer Stiip Designation Method Guidance Manual. Narragansett Bay Project. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
Providence, RI.

Indiana Administrative Code. 1991. Cumulative Supplement. Title 327 IAD 2-5-1.

International City Management Association. 1979. The Practice of Local Government Planning. American Planning
Association.

Irwin, G.A., and G.T. Losey. 1978. Water Quality Assessment of Runoff from a Rural Highway Bridge Near
Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

Jacobs, H.M. 1992. Planning the use of land for the 21st century. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 47(l):32-
34.

Jarrett, A.R., D.D. Fritton, and W.E. Sharpe. 1985. Renovation of Failing Absorption Fields by Water Conservation
and Resting. American Association of Agricultural Engineers, Paper No. 85-2630.

Jenkins. 1991. Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Innovations at the Local Level. A Compilation of Local Government
Programs. The Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Annapolis, MD.

Johnson, F., and F. Chang. 1084. Drainage of Highway Pavements. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.

Johnston, K., and C. Kehoe. 1989. Facility Prepares HHW for Recycling, Reuse. Waste Age, July 1989.

Jones, P., B. Jefficy, P. Walter, and H. Hutc. 1986. Environmental Impact of Road Salting - State of the Art. R&D
Ontario Ministry.

Kelly, J., M. Haque, D. Shuping, and J. Zahner. 1991. Xeriscape: Landscape Water Conservation in the Southeast.
Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

King County Solid Waste Division. 1990. Local Hazardous Waste Managemnet Plan for Seattle-King County: Final
Plan and Environmental Inpact Statementfor the Management of Small Quantities of Hazardous Waste in the Seattle-
King County Region. King County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA.

4-168 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Klein, R.D. 1985. Effects of Urbanization on Aquatic Resources, draft. Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, MD.

Klein, R. 1990. Protecting the Aquatic Environment From the Effects of Golf Courses. Community & Environmental
Defense Associates, Maryland Line, MD.

Kobriger, N. et al. 1983. Guidelines for the Management of Highway Runoff on Wetlands. National Research
Council, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Kuo, C.Y., K.A. Cave, and G.V. Loganathan. 1988. Planning of Urban Best Management Practices. American
Water Resources Association. Water Resources Bulletin.

Lamb, B., A.J. Gold, G. Loomis, and C. McKiel. 1988. Evaluation of Nitrogen Removal Systems for On-Site
Sewage Disposal. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. No. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on
Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL,
December 14-15, 1987, pp. 151-160. ASAE Publication No. 10-87.

Landers, M.N. Undated. A Bridge Scour Measurement Data Base System. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Lemly, D.A. 1982. Erosion Control at Construction Sites on Red Clay Soils. Environmental Management, 6(4):343.

Leonard, D. et al. 1991. The 1990 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch, Washington, DC.

Leopold, L.B. 1968. Hydrology for Urban Land Planning, Circular 559. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.

Lindsey G., L. Roberts, and W. Page. 1991. Stormwater Management Infiltration Practices in Maryland: A Second
Survey. Maryland Departmerit of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater Admini@tration, Baltimore. June 1991.

Linker, L. 1989. Creation of Wetlands for the Improvement of Water Quality: A Proposal for the Joint Use of
Highway Right-of-Way. .

Livingston, E.H., and E. McCarron. 1992. Stormwater Management: A Guide for Floridians. Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.

Logsdon, G. 1990. Greenhouse Industry Breakthrough: Plant Protection Through Compost. Biocycle, January 1990:
52-54.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Hauppauge, New York. December. Chapter 5, pp. 115-13 1.

Long Island Regional Planning Board. 1984. Nonpoint Source Management Handbook. Hauppauge, New York.

Lowrance, R., R. Leonard, and J. Sheridan. 1985. Managing Riparian Ecosystems to Control Nonpoint Pollution.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 40(l):87-91.

Lugbill, J. 1990. Potomac River Basin Nutri ent Inventory. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC.

Macal, C.M., and B.J. Broomfield. 1980. Costs and Water Quality Effects of Controlling Point and Nonpoint
Pollution Sources. National Science Foundation, Argonne National Laboratory.

Maddaus, W.O. 1989. Water Conservation. American Water Works Association

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-169

IX References Chapter 4

Maestri, B., and B. Lord. Undated. Guide for Mitigation of Highway Stormwater Runoff Pollution. Society of
Transportation Engineers.

Maine DER 1990. Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. Maine Department of Evironmental
Protection, Bureau of Water Quality, and York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Sanford, ME.

Maine DEP. 1991. Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Maine Department of Environmental
Protection and York County Soil and Water Conservation District, Sanford, ME.

Mancl, K.M. 1985a. Mound System for Wastewater Treatment. Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet. The
Pennsylvania State University, PA.

Mancl, K.M. 1985b. Septic System Failure. Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet. The Pennsylvania State
University, PA.

Mancl, K., and W. Magette. 1991. Maintaining Your Septic Tank. Water Resources 28. Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Maryliand, College Park, MD.

Mantell, M.A., S.F. Harper, and L. Propst. 1990. Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth
Management Strategies. Island Press, Washington,'DC.

Marble, A.D. 1990. A Guide to Wetland Functional Design. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
July 1990.

Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an Urban Runoff Detention Pond-Wetlands System. Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 114(4):810-827.

McKenzie, D., and G. Irwin. 1983. Water-Quality Assessment of Stormwater Runofffrom a Heavily Usea Urban
Highway Bridge in Miami, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee.

McLusky, D.S. 1989. TheEstuarine Ecosystem. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York, NY.

McNelly, J. Undated. Yard waste composting guide for Michigan communities. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing.

Maryland Cooperative Extension Service. 1987. Your Farm and the Chesapeake Bay, Bay Leaflet 1. Maryland
Cooperative Extension Service, Maryland Dept. of Agriculture, Maryland Farm Bureau, and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

Maryland DOE. 1983. 1983 Maryland Standards and Specificationsfor Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Maryland
Department of the Environment, Sediment and Stormwater Administration, Baltimore

Meeks, G., Jr. 1990. State Land Conservation and Growth Management Policy: A Legislator's Guide. National
Conference of State Legislators. Washington, DC.

Meiorin, E.C. 1986. Urban Stormwater Treatment at Coyote Hills Marsh. Association of Bay Area Governments,
Oakland, CA.

Metro-Dade Planning Department. 1988. Comprehensive Development Master Plan. Miami, FL.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1989. Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St Paul.

4-170 EPA-640-8-92-002 danuaty 19

Chapter 4 IX References

Misner, M. 1990. King County's Wastemobile Project. Waste Age, 21:44.

Mitchell, D. Undated. Laboratory and Prototype Onsite Denitr@fication by an Anaerobic-Aerobic Fixed Film System
WWPCREI I. University of Arkansas.

Monroe County Florida, Planning Department. Undated. Monroe County Code.
I
Morris, F.A., M.K. Morris, T.S. Michaud, and L.R. Williams. 1981. Meadowland Natural Treatment Processes in
the Lake Tahoe Basin: A Field Investigation (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. EPA-600/4-81-026.

Morton, T.G., A.J. Gold, and W.M. Sullivan. 1988. Influence of Overwatering and Fertilization on Nitrogen Losses
from Home Lawns. Journal of Environmental Quality, 17(l):124-130.

MSHA. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Initl@tives Action Plan. Maryland State Highway Association.

Munsey, C. Project Wipes Out Washouts. The Capitol. June 26, 1992.

Munson, T. 1991. A Flume Study Examining Silt Fences. In Proceedings of the 5th Federal Interagency
Sedimentation ConferenceLas Vegas, NV, March 18, 1991.

Murray, D., and E. Ulrich. 1976. An Economic Analysis of the Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

MWCOG. 1983. Urban Runoff in the Washing!on Metropolitan Area: Final Report Washington, D.C. Area Urban
Runoff Project, Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Washington,
DC.

MWCOG. 1989. State of the Anacostia - 1989 Status Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC.

MWCOG. 1991. Coastal Urban NPS Management Measures-Draft Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC.

Myers, J. 1991. Draft Management Measuresfor Onsite Sewage,Disposal Systems in Coastal Areas. The Land
Management Project. Providence, RI.

Myers, J.C. 1988. Governance of Non-Point Source Inputs to Narragansett Bay: A Plan for Coordinated Action.
Prepared for The Narragansett Bay Project, Providence, RI. NBP-88-09.

Myers, L.H. 1989. Grazing and Riparian Management in Southwestern Montana. In Practical Approaches to
Riparian Res. Management: An Educational Workshop. Montana State University, pp. 117-120.

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. 1978. Areawide Water Treatment Management 208 Summary Plan. Interim
report series: 7. Hauppauge, NY. May 1988, pp. 71-218.

New Hampshire State. 1991. New Hampshire State Model Shoreland Protection Ordinance.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1986. Best Management Practices. In Stream Corridor
Management: A Basic Reference Manual. Division of Water, Bureau of Water Quality, Albany, NY. pp. 65-93.

New York Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1988. New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment
Control. Empire State Chapter, Soil and Water Conservation Service.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-171

IX References Chapter 4

Nichols, M., E. Towle, et al. 1977. Water, Sediments and Ecology of The Mangrove Lagoon and Benner Bay, St.
Thomas. Island Resources Foundation, Virgin Islands, Technical Report 1. Department of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs Division of Natural Resources Management, U.S. Virgin.Islands.

NOAA. 1991. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1991. NCDOT Erosion and Sediment Control Manual - New
Standards. I

North Carolina State University. 1990. Evaluation of the North Carolina Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Program. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission, Raleigh. pp. V6-VI3.
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 19$8. Model Stream and Wetland Protection Ordinancefor the Creation
of a Lowland Conservancy Overlay District: A Guide for Local Officials. Chicago, IL.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. 1980. Guidebook for Screening Urban Nonpoint Pollution
Management Strategies. A Final Report. Prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, DC.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. 1987. BMP Handbook for the Occoquan Watershed. Annandale,
VA.

NVSWCD. 1991. Newsletter entitled, Please Don't Feed Ou@ Streams - How to Feed Your Lawn Without
Overloading the Bay. Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation District, Lake Barcroft Watershed
Improvement District, Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, and Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
(Fairfax Office), Fairfax, VA.

Nottingham, D. et al. 1983. Costs to the Public Due to Corrosive Deicing Chemicals. Alaska Department of
Transportation.

Novotny, V. 199 1. Urban Diffuse Pollution: Sources and Abatement. Water Environment and Technology, December
1991.

Novotny, V., and G. Chesters. 1981. Handbook of Nonpoiunt Pollution: Sources and Management. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.

Nutter, W.L., and JW. Gaskin. 1989. Role of Streamside Management Zones in Controlling Discharges to Wetlands.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 81-84.

O'Neill, W.A., and L. Carothers. 1985. Connecticut Guidelinesfor Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Connecticut
Council on Soil and Water Conservation, January 1985.

Oberts, G., P.J. Wotzka, and J.A. Hartsoe. 1989. The Water Quality Performance of Select Urban Runoff Treatment
Systems: Part One of a Report to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Metropolitan Council of the
Twin Cities Area, St. Paul, MN. Pub. No. 590-89-062a.

OECD. 1989. Curtailing Usage of Deicing Agents in Winter Maintenance. Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, Paris.

Olivieri, A.W., R.J. Roche, and G.L. Johnston. 1981. Guidelines for Control of Septic Tank Systems. Journal of
the Environmental Engineering Division, 107:1025-1034.

4-172 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Otis, R.J. Undated. Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Mound Systems. In Small Flows Clearinghouse,
ed. West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Otis, R.J. Undated. Subsurface Soil Absorption of Wastewater: Trenches and Beds. In Small Flows Clearinghouse,
ed. West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1990. Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Program
Manual.

Pitt, D.G. 1990. Land Use Policy: A Key to Ground Water Management, Water Resources Information.
University of Maryland System, Cooperative Extension Service. Water Resources 33.

Pitt, D.G., W. Gould, Jr. and L. LaSota. 1990. Landscape Design to Reduce Surface Water Pollution in Residential
Areas, Water Resources Information. University of Maryland, Cooperative Extension Service. Water Resources
32.

Pitt, R., and G. Amy. 1973. Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Contaminants. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.

Pitt, R. and J. McLean. 1992. Stormwater, Baseflow, and Snowmelt Pollutant Contributions from an Industrial Area.
Water Environment Federation 65th Annual Conference & Exposition, Surface Water Quality & Ecology Symposia,
Volume V11, September 20-24, New Orleans, LA. Order No. C2007.

Pitt, R., and B. Shawley. 198 1. San Francisco NURP Project: NPS Pollution Management on Castro Valley Creek.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Pitt, R. 1986. Runoff Controls in Wisconsin's Priority Watersheds. Urban Runoff Quality-Impact and Quality
Enhancement Technology. In Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Henniker, NH, June 23-27, 1986, pp. 290-313. ASCE.

Portele, G., et al. 1982. Effects of Seattle Area Highway Stormwater Runoff on Aquatic Biota. Washington State
Department of Transportation, Olympia.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1986. Issue paper. Nonpoint source Pollution. Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, Seattle, WA, May 1986.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution-An Action Plan Handbookfor Puget
Sound Watersheds. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1990. Pesticides in Puget Sound Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, WA.

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 199 1. Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Chapter 3: Action Plan.
Household Hazardous Waste Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA, pp. 134-139.

Reed, S.C. 1991. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. BioCycle: Journal of Waste Recycling.

Reef Relief. 1992. Brochure for public education on septic tanks. Key West, FL.

Reneau, R. 1977. Changes in Organic Nitrogenous Compounds from Septic Tank Effluent in a Soil with Fluctuating
Water Table. Journal of Environmental Quality, 8:189-196.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-173

IX References Chapter 4

Rhode Island, Land Management Project. 1989. Nitrate Nitrogen Pollution from Septic systems; and Phosphorus
Pollution from Septic Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Land Management Project, Providence, RI.

RIDEM. 1988. An Assessment ofNonpoint Sources of Pollution to Rhode Island's Waters. Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management, Providence, RI.

RIDEM. 1988. ISDS Task Force Report, pp. 1-9. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
Providence, RI.

Richardson, D.L., C.P. Campbell, R.J. Carroll, D.I. Hellstrom, J.B. Metzger, P.J. O'Brien, R.C. Terry, and Arthur
D. Little, Inc. 1974. Manual for Deicing Chemicals: Storage and Handling. NERC, ORD, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 670/2-74-033.

Richardson, D.L., et al. 1974. Manual for Deicing Chemicals: Application Practices. NERC, ORD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Ritter, W. 1986. Nutrient Budgets for the Inland Bays.

Ritter, W. 1990. Impact of Alternative Onsite Wastewater System on Ground Water Quality in Delaware.

Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of Coral Reefs and Reef Organisms to Sedimentation. Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 62:185-202.

Rushton, B.T., and C. Dye. 1990. Hydrologic anbd Water Quality Characteristics of a Wet Detention Pond. In The
Science of Water Resources: 1990 and Beyond, November 4-9, 1990, ed. M. Jennings. American Water Resources
Association, Betesda, MD.

Salt Institute. Undated a. Deicing Salt and Our Environment. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA.

Salt Institute. Undated b. Deicing Salt Facts. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA

Salt Institute. Undated c. Salt Storage. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA

Salt Institute. Undated d. Sensible Salting Program. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA

Salt Institute. 1987. The Salt Storage Handbook. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA.

Salt Institute. 1988. Snowball Snowflighter. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA

Salt Institute. 1991a. Salt and Highway Deicing. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA.

Salt Institute. 1991b. The Showflighters Handbook. Salt Institute, Alexandria, VA.

Sandy, A.T., W.A. Sack, and S.P. Dix. 1988. Enhanced Nitrogen Removal Using a Modified Recirculating Sand
Filter (RSF'). On-Site Wastewater Treatment Vol. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Individual
and Small Community Sewage Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL, December 14-15,
1987. ASAE Publication No. 10-87. pp. 161-170.

Santa Clara Valley Water Control District. Undated. Best Management PracticesforAutomotive-Related Industries.
Practices for Sanitary Sewer Discharges and Storm Water Pollution Control. Santa Clara, CA.

4-174 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Santa Clara Valley Water Control District. 1992. Best Management Practices for Automotive-Related Industries.
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program and the San Jose Office of Environmental
Management, Santa Clara, CA.

Sartor, J., and G. Boyd. 1972. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
I

Schiffer, D. 1990a. Wetlands for Stormwater Treatment. U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

Schiffer, D. 1990b. Impact of Stormwater Management Practices on Groundwater. U.S. Geological Survey and
the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

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., J. Galli, L. Herson, P. Kumble, and D. Shepp. 1991. Developing Effective BMP Strategies for Urban
Watersheds. In Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop, September 1, 1991, Seminar Publication, pp. 69-83. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/625/4-91/027.

Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices:
Techniquesfor Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal Zone. Department of Environmental Programs,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Schueler, T.R., and J. Lugbill. 1990. Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures at Maryland Construction
Sites. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Schultz, W. 1989. The Chemical-Free Lawn. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA.

Schwab, G., R. Frevert, T. Edminster, and K. Barnes. 1966. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. John Wiley
& Sons, Inc, New York.

Seattle-King County Department of Public Health. 1990. Local Hazardous Waste Management Planfor Seattle-King
County.

Shaheen, D. 1975. Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.

Shaver, E. 199 1. Sand Filter Design for Water Quality Treatment. Presented at 1991 ASCE Stormwater Conference
in Crested Butte, CO.

Shaver, H., and F. Poirko. 199 1. The Role of Education and Training in the Development of the Delaware Sediment
and Stormwater Management Program. Delaware Department of Natural Resources, Dover.

Silverman, G.S., and M.K. Stenstrom. 1988. Source Control of Oil and Grease in an Urban Area. Design of Urban
Runoff Quality Controls. In Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, Potosi, MO, July 10-15, 1988,
pp. 403-420. American Association of Civil Engineers.

Simmons, M.M. 1991. Coastal Barriers Protection Issues in the 101st Congress. Congressional Reporting Service,
Environment and Natural Resource Policy Division, Washington, DC.

Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, ed. 1989. Small Flows Clearinghouse, Morgantown.

EPA-840-B-.92-002 January 1993 4-175

IX References Chapter 4

Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, ed. 1991. Very Low Flush Toilets WWBKGN09. (Product
information from various vendors.) Small Flows Clearinghouse and West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, ed. 1992. More States Using Constructed Wetlands for
Onsite Wastewater Treatment. Small Flows, 6 (1). Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University,
Morgantown.

Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, ed. Undated. On-Site Systems. (A series of fact sheets.) Small
Flows Clearinghouse and West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Small Flows Clearinghouse, West Virginia University, ed. Undated. Introduction Package on Sand Filters. Small
Flows Clearinghouse and West Virginia University, Morgantown.

Silverman, G.S., M.K. Stenstrom, and S. Fam. 1986. Best Management Practices for Controlling Oil and Grease
in Urban Stormwater Runoff. The Environmental Professional, 8.

Smith, D.R. 1981. Life Cycle Cost and Energy Comparison of Grass Pavement and Asphalt Based on Data and
Experiencefrom the Green Parking Lot, Dayton, Ohio. City of Dayton, OH.

Smith, D.R., M.K. Hughes, and D.A. Sholtis. 1981. Green Parking Lot Dayton, Ohio-An Experimental Installation
of Grass Pavement. City of Dayton, OH.

Smith, D., and B. Lord. 1989. Highway Water Quality Control-Summary of 15 Years of Research. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.

Smith, D., and M. Raupp. 1986. Economic and Environmental Assessment of an Integrated Pest Management
Program for Community-Owned Landscape Plants. Journal of Economic Entomology, 79:162-165.

Sonzogni, W., and T. Heidtke, 1986. Effect of Influent Phosphorus Reductions on Great Lakes Sewage Treatment
Costs. American Water Resources Association, Water Resources Bulletin, 22(4):623-627.

South Florida Water Management District. 1988. Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan.
West Palm Beach, FL.

Southeastern Wisconsin.Regional Planning Commission. 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Control Measures. SWRPC, Waukesha, WI. Technical Report Number 31.

Spectrum Research, Inc. 1990. Environmental Issues Related to Golf Course Construction and Management: A
Literature Search and Review. Afinal report submitted to the United States Golf Association, Green Section. p. 245.

Spotts. D. 1989. Effects of Highway Runoff on Brook Trout. Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

Stack, W.P., and K.T. Belt. 1989. Modifying Stormwater Management Basins for Phosphorous Control. Lake Line.
May 1989, pp. 1-8. (A publication of the Virginia Regional Symposium, April 1988.)

Stanek, III, E.J., R.W. Tuthill, C. Willis, and G.S. Moore. 1987. Household Hazardous Waste in Massachusetts.
Archives of Environmental Health, 42(2):83-86.

Starr and DeRoo. 1981. The Fate of Nitrogen Fertilizer Applied to Turfgrass. Crop Science, 21:351-356.

State of Washington Water Research Center. .1991. Nonpoint Source Pollution: The Unfinished Agenda for the
Protection of Our Water Quality. In Proceedingsfrom the Technical Sessions of the Regional Conference, March
20-21, Tacoma, WA.

4-176 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Swanson, S.W., and S.P. Dix. On-Site Batch Recirculation Bottom Ash Filter Performance. On-Site Wastewater
Treatment Vol. No. 5. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage
Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, IL, December 14-15, 1987, pp. 132-141. ASAE
Publication No. 10-87.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1988. Water Quality Managementfor the Lake Tahoe Region, Handbook of Best
Management Practices, Vol. 11. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Tahoe, NV.

The Land Management Project - Rhode Island. 1989. Land Use and Water Quality; and Best Management
Practices Series-Fact Sheets. The Land Management Project, Providence, RI.

Transportation Research Board. 1991. Highway Deicing: Comparing Salt and Calcium Magnesium Acetate.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Special Report No.235.

Tull, L. 1990. Cost of SedimentationlFiltration Basins. City of Austin, TX

U.S. ACOE. 1990. Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,
Baltimore, MD.

USDA-SCS. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC. Technical Release 55.

USDA-SCS. 1988. 1-4 Effects of Conservation Practices on Water Quantity and Quality. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDOI. 1991. Pollution Prevention Handbook: Housing Maintenance. No. 16 in a series of fact sheets. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Affairs, Washington, DC.

USDOT, U.S. Coast Guard. Undated. Bridge Permit Application Guide. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S.
Coast Guard, Washington, DC.

USDOT, U.S. Coast Guard. 1983. Bridge Administration Manual. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast
Guard, Washington, DC. M16590.5.

USEPA. 1973. Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution Resulting from All Construction Activity.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, DC. EPA 430/9-73-007.

USEPA. 1977a. Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems. (Volumes 1, 2 and 3). U.S. EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.

USEPA. 1977b. Nonpoint Source-Stream Nutrient Level Relationvhips: A Nationwide Study. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. NTIS No. PB-276 600.

USEPA. 1980. Design Manual-Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. (in revision),

USEPA. 1983. Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1984. Handbook: Septage Treatment and Disposal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning
Division. Municipal Environmental Research Lab, CERI.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-177

iX. References Chapter 4

USEPA. 1986. Septic Systems and Groundwater Protection: A Program Manager's Guide and Reference Book.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1987a.

USEPA. 1987b. DRASTIC: A Standardized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using
Hydrogeologic Settings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-600/2-87-035.

USEPA. 1988. Used Oil Recycling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/530-SW-89-
006.

USEPA. 1989a. How to Set Up a Local Program to Recycle Used Oil. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA/530-SW-89-039A.

USEPA. 1989b. Septic Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Ile Land Management
Project, Providence, RI.

USEPA. 1989c. Recycling Works! State and Local Solutions to Solid Waste Management Problems. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/530-SW-89-014.

USEPA. 1989d. Process Design Manual Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. With the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U,S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1989e. Research Review: Nitrate Nitrogen Pollutionfroin Septic Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, The Land Management Project, Providence, RI.

USEPA. 1989f. Research Review: Phosphorus Pollution from Septic Systems. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, The Land Management Project, Providence, Rl.

USEPA. 1991a. Guides to Pollution Prevention: The Automotive Refinishing Industry. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington,' DC. EPA/625n-91/016. October 1991.

USEPA. 1991b. A Method for Tracing On-Site Effluent from Failing Septic Systems. In U.S. EPA Nonpoint
Source News Notes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991b. Snowmelt Literature Review. Prepared by Tetra Tech for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991d. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992a. Environmental Impacts of Stormwater Discharges. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992b. Notes of Riparian and Forestry Management. In U.S. EPA, Nonpoint Source News Notes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. March 1992, pp. 10- 11.

USEPA. 1992c. Sequencing Batch Reactorsfor Nitrification and Nutrient Removal. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Enforcement and Compliance, Washington, DC.

USFWS. Undated. Specification: Riparian Forest Buffer, unpublished memorandum. U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region.

4-178 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

U.S. Geological Survey. 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Strearnflow and Sediment Transport in the Rock Creek and
Anacostia RiverBasins, Montgomery County, Maryland, 1962-74, Professional paper 1003. United States Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC.

University of Wisconsin. 1978. Management of Small Waste Flows. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/2-78-173.

VADCHR and DSWC. 1987. Chesapeake Bay Research/Demonstration Project Summaries. July 1, 1984 - June 30,
1985. Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources, Richmond.

Venhuizen, D. 1991. Town of Washington, W1, Wastewater System Feasibility Study-Exploration of Treatment
Technology and Disposal System Alternatives. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison.

Venhuizen, D. 1992. Equ (ivalent Environmental Protection Analysis - Draft.
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1991. Report on
Pesticides and Fertilizes in the Urban Environment. Prepared for the Governor and the General Assembly of
Virginia. House Document No. 14. Richmond, VA.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources. 1987. Chesapeake Bay ResearchlDemonstration Project
Summaries, December 2, 1987.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 1980, 1990. Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Draft.

taliano, D. 1991a. An Economic Assessment of the Social Costs of Highway Salting and the Efficiency of
Su
Vi bstituting a New Deicing Material. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Vitaliano, D. 1991b. Infrastructure Costs of Road Salting. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Voorhees, Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc. 1989. Generation and Flow of Used Oil in the United States in 1988.
Undated. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, under EPA Contract No.
68-01-7290.

Wanielista, M., et al. 1978. Shallow-Water Roadside Ditches for Stormwater Purification. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

Wanielista, M., et al. 1980. Management of Runofffrom Highway Bridges. Florida Department of Transportation,
Tallahassee.

Wanielista, M., et al. 1987. Best Management Practices - Enhanced Erosion and Sediment Control Using Swale
Block. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee. FLDOT-ER-35-87.

Wanielista, M.P., and Y.A. Yousef, ed. 1985. Overview of BMP's and Urban Storinwater Management. In:
Proceedings: Stormwater Management - 'An Update", University of Central Florida Environmental Engineering
Systems Institute, Orlando, FL. Pub. 85-1.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1989. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Management Program.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. Document No. 88-17.

Washington State Department of Ecology, 1990, 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-179

IX References Chapter 4

Washington State Department of Ecology. 199 1. Stormwater Management Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin - Public
Review Draft. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Washington State Dep"ent of Ecology. 1992. Stormwater Program Guidance Manualfor the Puget Sound Basin.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Washington State Department of Transportation/University of Washington. 1988. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Highway Water Quality Manual. Chapters I and 2. Washington State Department of Transportatign,
Olympia, WA.

Washington State Department of Transportati6n/University of Washington. 1990. Washington State DOT Highway
Water Quality Manual. Chapter 3. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.

Welinski and Stack, Baltimore Department of Public Works. 1989. Detention Basin Retrofit Project and Monitoring
Study Results. Water Quality Management Office, Baltimore, MD.

Westchester County, New York. 1981. Highway Deicing Storage and Application Methods. Westchester County,
NY, White Plains.

Whalen, P.J., and M.G. Cullum. 1989. An Assessment of Urban Land UselStormwater Runoff Quality Relationships
and Treatment Efficiencies of Selected Stormwater Management Systems. South Florida Water Management District
Resource Planning Department, Water Quality Division. Technical Publication No. 88-9.

Wiegand C., T. Schueler, W. Chitterden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. Urban
Runoff Quality - Impact and Quality Enhancement Technology. In Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation
Conference, Henniker, NH, June 23-27, 1986. American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 366-380.

Wieman, T., D. Komac, and S. Bigler. 1989. Statewide Experiments with Chemical Deicers-Final Report Winter
of '881'89. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 199 1. A Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Milwaukee River South
Priority Watershed Project. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program, Madison. PUBL-WR-245-9 1.

Wisconsin Legislative Council. 1991. Wisconsin Legislation on Nonpoint Source Pollution. Wisconsin Legislative
Council, Madison.

Woodward-Clyde. 1986. Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basins for Control of Urban Runoff Quality.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Division, Washington, DC.

Woodward-Clyde. 1989. Analysis of Storm Event Characteristicsfor Selected Rainfall Gages Throughout the United
States.

Woodward-Clyde. 1990. Urban Targeting and BMP Selection, An Information and Guidance Manual for State
Nonpoint Source Staff Engineers and Managers. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Water Division, Chicago, IL, and the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

Woodward-Clyde. 1991a. The Use of Wetlands for Controlling Stormwater Pollution. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IL.

Woodward-Clyde. 1991b. Urban BMP Cost and Effectiveness Summary Datafor 6217(g) Guidance: Erosion and
Sediment Control During Construction - Draft. December 12, 1991.

4-180 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 4 IX References

Woodward-Clyde. 1991c. Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Resource Notebook. Final Draft Report.

Woodward-Clyde. 1992a. Urban Management Practices Cost and Effectiveness Summary Data for 6217(g)
Guidance: Onsite Sanitary Disposal Systems. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.

Woodward-Clyde. 1992b. Urban BMP Cost and Effectiveness Summary Data For 6217(g) Guidance: Erosion and
Sediment Control During Construction. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Wotzka, P., and G. Oberts. 1988. The Water Quality Performance of a Detention Basin-Wetland Treatment System
in an Urban Area. In Nonpoint Pollution: 1988 - Policy, Economy, Management, and Appropriate Technology, pp.
237-247. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.

Yates, M.V. 1985. Septic Tank Density and Groundwater Contamination. Groundwater, 23:5.

Yorke, T.H., and W.J. Herbe. 1978. Effects of Urbanization on Streamflow and Sediment Transport in the Rock
Creek and Anacostia Basins, Montgomery County Maryland, 1962-1974. Professional Paper 1003. U.S. Geological
Survey, Washington, DC.

Young, G. K., and D. Danner. 1982. Urban Planning Criteriafor Non-Point Source Water Pollution Control. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, Washington, DC.

Younger, L.K., and K. Hodge. 1992. 1991 International Coastal Cleanup Results. Center for Marine Conservation,
Washington, DC.

Yousel Y., et al. 1985. Consequential Species of Heavy Metals in Highway Runoff. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

Yousef, Y., et al. 1986. Effectiveness of RetentionlDetention Pondsjor Control of Contaminants in Highway Runoff.
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

Yousef, Y.A., L. Lin, J. Sloat, and K. Kay. 1991. Maintenance Guidelines For Accumulated Sediments in
Retention/Detention Ponds Receiving Highway Runoff. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee.

Yousef, Y.A., M.P. Wanielista, H.H. Harper, D.B. Pearce, and R.D. Tolbert. 1985. Best Management
Practices-Removal of Highway Contaminants by Roadside Swales. Final Report. Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee.

Yu, S.L., and D.E. Benelmouffok. 1988. Field Testing of Selected Urban BMP's. In Critical Water Issues and
Computer Applications: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Water Resources Conference. American Society of Civil
Engineers, Water Resources Planning and Management Division, pp. 309-312.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 4-181

CHAPTER 5: Management Measures for
Marinas and Recreational Boating

1. INTRODUCTION

A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect coastal waters from sources of nonpoint pollution from
marinas and recreational boating. "Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition of
pollutants to our coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the
application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating
methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the managrment measures generally
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.
The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can
be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these practices, or
appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and economic impacts
of achieving the management measures, (Economic impacts of the management measures are addressed in a separate
document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.)
i
EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
thepanagement measure.

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter addresses categories of sources of nonpoint pollution from marinas and recreational boating that affect
coastal waters. This chapter specifies 15 management measures grouped under two broad headings: (1) siting and
design and (2) operation and maintenance.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-1

L Introduction Chapter 5

Each category of sources is addressed in a separate section of this guidance. Each section contains (1) the
management measure(s); (2) an applicability statement that describes, when appropriate, specific activities and
locations for which the measure is suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis
for the management measure's selection; (5) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or
in combination with other practices, to achieve the management measure; (6) information on the effectiveness of the
management measure and/or of practices to achieve the measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or
practices to achieve the measure.

D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA
Documents

I.. Chapter I of this document contains detailed information on the legislative background for this guidance, the
process used by EPA to develop this guidance, and the technical approach used by EPA in this guidance.

2. Chapter 7 of this document conta iins management measures to protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve
a nonpoint source abatement function. These measures apply to a broad variety of sources, including marinas
and recreational boating sources.

4. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifting Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

5. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains details on how State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control'Programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on the following:

� The basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to provide for the implementation of management measures
"in conformity" with this management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 11'rograms;

� Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

� Requirements concerning how States are to implement their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

E. Problem Statement

Marinas and recreational boating are increasingly popular uses of coastal areas. The growth of recreational boating,
along with the growth of coastal development in general, has led to a growing awareness of the need to protect
waterways. In the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended, Congress declared it to be national
policy that State coastal management programs provide for public access to the coasts for recreational purposes.
Clearly, boating and adjunct activities (e.g., marinas) are an important means of public access. When these facilities
are poorly planned or managed, however, they may pose a threat to the health of aquatic systems and may pose other
environmental hazards. Ensuring the best possible siting for marinas, as well as the best available design and

5-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 1. Introduction

construction practices and appropriate operation and maintenance practices, can greatly reduce nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution from marinas.

Because marinas are located right at the water's edge, there is often no buffering of the release of pollutants to
waterways. Adverse environmental impacts may result from the following sources of pollution associated with
marinas and recreational boating:

� Poorly flushed waterways where dissolved oxygen deficiencies exist;

� Pollutants discharged from boats;

� Pollutants transported in storm water runoff from parking lots, roofs, and other impervious surfaces;

� The physical alteration or destruction of wetlands and of shellfish and other bottom communities during the
construction of marinas, ramps, and related facilities; and

� Pollutants generated from boat maintenance activities on land and in the water.

The management measures described in this chapter are designed to reduce NPS pollution from marinas and
recreational boating. Effective implementation will avoid impacts associated with marina siting, prevent the
introduction of nonpoint sgurce pollutants, and/or reduce the delivery of pollutants to water resources.
I
Pollution prevention should be at the fore of any NPS management strategy. It is expected that each coastal State's
decision on implementation of these management measures will be based on a management strategy that balances
the need for protecting the coastal environment and the need to provide adequate public access to coastal waters.

F. Pollutant Types and Impacts

A marina can have significant impacts on the concentrations of pollutants in the water, sediment, and tissue of
organisms within the marina itself. Although sources of pollutants outside the marina are part of the problem, marina
design, operation, and location appear to play crucial roles in determining whether local water quality is impacted
(NCDEM, 1991).

Marina construction may alter the type of habitat found at the site. Alterations can have both negative and positive
effects. For example, a soft-bottom habitat (i.e., habitat characterized by burrowing organisms and deposit feeders)
could be replaced with a habitat characterized by fouling organisms attached to the marina pilings and bulkhead.
These fouling organisms, however, may attract other organisms, including invertebrates and juvenile fish.

The presence of a marina is not necessarily an indicator of poor water quality. In fact, many marinas have good
water quality. Despite this, they may still have degraded biological resources and contaminated sediments resulting
from bioaccumulation in organisms and adhesion of pollutants to sediments. A brief summary of some of the
impacts that can be associated with marina and boating activities is presented below.

1. Toxicity in the Water Column

Pollutants from marinas can result in toxicity in the water column, both lethal and sublethal, related to decreased
levels of dissolved oxygen and elevated levels of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. These pollutants may enter
the water through discharges from boats or other sources, spills, or storm water runoff.

Low Dissolved Oxygen. The organics in sewage discharged from recreational boats require dissolved oxygen (DO)
to decompose. The biological oxygen demand (BOD) of a waterbody is a measure of the DO required to decompose
sewage and other organic matter (Milliken and Lee, 1990). Accumulation of organic material in sediment will result
in a sediment oxygen demand (SOD) that can negatively impact water column DO. The effect of boat sewage on

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-3

L Introduction Chapter 5

DO can be intensified in temperate regions because the peak boating season coincides with the highest water
temperatures and thus the lowest solubilities of oxygen in the water and the highest metabolism rates of aquatic
organisms. (As temperature increases, dissolved oxygen levels decrease.) Cardwell and Koons (1981) recorded
significant decreases in DO in several northwestern marinas in the late,summer and early fall, which are the peak
times of marina use. Nixon et al. (1973) measured lower DO levels in an area of marina development than in an
adjacent undeveloped bay of similar size. An intensive study in several North Carolina marinas showed significant
decreases in DO concentration compared to ambient concentrations in the receiving waterbody. These decreases in
DO were thought to result from high SOD within the marinas and poor flushing resulting from improper marina
design (NCDEM, 1990).

Metals. Metals and metal,.containing compounds have many functions in boat operation, maintenance, and repair.
Lead is used as a fuel additive and ballast and may be released through incomplete fuel combustion and boat bilge
discharges (NCDEM, 1991). Arsenic is used in paint pigments, pesticides, and wood preservatives. Zinc anodes
are used to deter corrosion of metal hulls and engine parts. Copper and tin are used as biocides in antifoulant paints.
Other metals (iron, chrome, etc.) are used in the construction of marinas and boats.

Many of these metals/compounds are found in marina waters at levels that are toxic to aquatic organisms. Copper
is the most common metal found at toxic concentrations in marina waters (NCDEM, 1990, 1991). Dissolved copper
was detected at toxic concentrations at several marinas within the Chesapeake Bay (Hall et al., 1987). The input
of copper via bottom paints and scrapings has been shown to be quite significant (Young et al., 1974). Tin in the
form of butyltin, an extremely potent biocide, has been detected at toxic levels within marina waters nationwide
(Stephenson et al., 1986; Maguire, 1986; Grovhoug et al., 1986; Stallard et al., 1987). The use of butyltins in bottom
paint is now regulated, and butyltins cannot be used on nonaluminum recreational boats under 25 meters in length.
High levels of zinc, chromium, and lead were also detected in waters within North Carolina marinas (NCDEM,
1990). Table 5-1 presents results of a recent study of boatyard hull pressure-washing wastewater in the Puget Sound
area that revealed concentrations of metals and other pollutants that are of concern to environmental regulators
(METRO, 1992a).

Petroleum Hydrocarbons. McMahon (1989) found elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons in marina waters and
attributed them to refueling activities and bilge or fuel discharge from nearby boats.

2. Increased Pollutant Levels in Aquatic Organisms

Aquatic organisms can concentrate pollutants in the water column through biological activity. Copper and zinc
concentrations in oysters were significantly higher in oysters in South Carolina and North Carolina marinas than at
reference sites (NCDEM, 1991; SCDHEC, 1987). Increased levels of copper, cadmium, chromium, lead, tin, zinc,
and PCBs were found in mussels from southern California marina waters (CARWQCB, 1989; Young et al., 1979).
Three months after planting, concentrations of lead, zinc, and copper in oysters transplanted to several Australian
marinas were two to three times higher than those of control sites (McMahon, 1989). Concentrations of copper in
a green algae and the fouling community were significantly higher in a Rhode Island marina area than in adjacent
control areas (Nixon et al., 1973). Several polymiclear aromatic hydrocarbons were detected in oyster tissue at
marinas in South Carolina (Marcus and Stokes, 1985; Wendt et al., 1990).

3. Increased Pollutant Levels in Sediments

Many of the contaminants found in the storm water runoff of marinas do not dissolve well in water and accumulate
to higher concentrations in sediments than in the overlying water. Contaminated sediments may, in turn, act as a
source from which these contaminants can be released into the overlying waters. Benthic organisms--4hose
organisms that live on the bottom or in the sediment-are exposed to pollutants that accumulate in the sediments
and may be affected by this exposure or may avoid the contaminated area.

Metals. Copper is the major contaminant of concern because most common antifouling paint preparations contain
cuprous oxide as the active biocide component (METRO, 1992a). In most cases metals have a higher affinity for
sediments than for the water column and therefore tend to concentrate there. A recent Puget Sound area study of

5-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 1. Introduction

wastewater from boat hull Oressure washing found that suspended solids accounted for 96 percent of the copper, 94
percent of the lead, and 83 percent of the zinc in the wastewater (see Table 5-1 for concentrations). Most of the
metal concentrations were associated with particles less than 60 microns in size, resulting in their settling out of
solution slowly (METRO, 1992a). Stallard et al. (1987) noted that the sediments of nearly every California marina
tested had high concentration of butyltins. Marina sites in North Carolina had significantly higher levels of arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc than did reference sites (NCDEM, 1991). McMahon
(1989) found significantly higher concentrations of copper, lead, zinc, and mercury in the sediments at a marina site
than in the parent waterbody. Within the marina, higher levels of copper and lead were found near a maintenance
area drain and fuel dock, suggesting the drain as a source of copper and lead and the fuel dock as a possible source
of lead. Sediments at most stations within Marina Del Rey were sufficiently contaminated with copper, lead,
mercury, and zinc to affect fish and/or invertebrates, especially at the larval or juvenile stage (Soule et al., 1991).
Researchers thought that this contamination might account for the absence of more sensitive species and the low
diversity within the marina. However, the extent of the sediment contamination resulting from marina-related
activities was unclear.

Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Petroleum hydrocarbons, particularly polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), tend
to adsorb to particulate matter and become incorporated into sediments. They may persist for years, resulting in
exposure to benthic organisms. Voudrias and Smith (1986) reported that sediments from two Virginia creeks with
marinas contained significantly higher levels of hydrocarbons than did control sites. The North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM, 1990) found PAHs in the sediments of six marinas, all of which had fuel
docks. Nearby reference areas did not appear to be affected. Marcus et al. (1988) found an increase in PAHs in
the sediments of two South Carolina marinas. Sources of petroleum hydrocarbons were identified as the origin of

Table 5-1. Boatyard Pressure-washing Wastewater Contaminants and
Regulatory Limits In the Puget Sound Area (METRO, 1992)

Permit Limit Values

Boatyard NPDES
Untreated Untreated Sanitary Receiving Waters'
Analytical Sample Sample Sewers Sanitary
Parameter Units (average)' (high) (Metro) Sewers Marine Fresh

pH pH 7.2 6.7-8.2 5.5-12.0

Turbidity ntu 469 1700 __C

Suspended Solids mg/L 800 3100 __C
Oil/Grease mg/L __.b __.b 100

Copper mg/L 55 190 8.0 2.4 0.006 0.018

Lead mg/L 1.7 14 4.0 1.2 0.280 0.068
Zinc mg/L 6.0 22 10.0 3.3 0.190 0.130

Tin mg/L 0.49 1.4 ___e --- @e __9 __G

Arsenic mg/L 0.08 0.1 4.0 3.6 0.138 0.720

a Values are based on analysis of 18 samples.
b Oil and grease not detected by visible inspections.
c No limit set or known for this parameter.
d No monitoring requirements, but limits will be based on water-quality criteria.
a Tin regulated by restrictions on the application of tributyltin paints.
f Umit values based on 8/13191 draft of the Boatyard General NPDES Permit.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-5

I. Introduction Chapter 5

sediment contamination within several Australian marinas; however, a well-flushed marina in this study did not have
an increase in sediment hydrocarbons (McMahon, 1989). This finding supports the supposition that sufficient
flushing within a marina basin prevents build-up of pollutants in marina sediments.

4. Increased Levels of Pathogen Indicators

Studies conducted in Puget Sound, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay, North Carolina, and Chesapeake Bay have
shown that boats can be a significant source of fecal coliform bacteria in areas with high boat densities and low
hydrologic flushing (NCDEM, 1990; Sawyer and Golding, 1990; Milliken and Lee, 1990; Gaines and Solow, 1990;
Seabloom et al., 1989; Fisher et al., 1987). Fecal coliform levels in marinas and mooring fields become elevated
near boats during periods of high boat occupancy and usage. NOAA identified boating activities (the presence of
marinas, shipping lanes, or intracoastal waterways) as a contributing source in the closure to harvesting of millions
of acres of shellfish-growing waters on the east coast of the United States (Leonard et al., 1989).

S. Disruption of Sediment and Habitat

Boat operation and dredging can destroy habitat; resuspend bottom sediment (resulting in the reintroduction of toxic
substances into the water column); and increase turbidity, which affects the photosynthetic activity of algae and
estuarine vegetation. Paulson and Da Costa (1991) demonstrated that propeller-induced flows can contribute
significantly to bottom scour in shallow embayments and may have adverse effects on water clarity and quality. The
British Waterways Board (1983) noted that propeller-driven boats may impact the aquatic environment and result
in bank erosion. Waterways with shallow water environments would be affected as follows:

(1) The propeller would cut off or uproot water plants growing up from the bottom, and

(2) The propeller agitation of the water (propwash) would disturb the sediments, creating turbidity that would
reduce the light available for photosynthesis of plants, impact feeding and clog the breathing mechanisms
of aquatic animals, and smother animals and plants.

EPA (1974) noted a resuspension of solids from the bottom and disturbance to aquatic macrophytes following boating
activity. Changes in turbidity were dependent on water depth, motor power, operational time and type, and nature
of sediment deposits. The increase in turbidity was generally accompanied by an increase in organic carbon and
phosphorus concentrations. However, the possible contribution of these nutrients to eutrophication was not
determined. The biological communities of rivers may be impacted by boat traffic, which can increase turbidity;
resuspend sediments that move into backwaters; create changes in waves, velocity, and pressure; and increase
shoreline erosion (USFWS, 1982).

Dredging may alter the marina and the adjacent water by increasing turbidity, reducing the oxygen content of the
water, burying benthic organisms, causing disruption and removal of bottom habitat, creating stagnant areas, and
altering water circulation (Chmura and Ross, 1978). Some of these impacts (e.g., turbidity and reduced DO) are
temporary and without long-term adverse effects. Dredging is addressed under CWA section 404 and associated
regulations and is therefore not discussed further in this chapter.

6. Shoaling and Shoreline Erosion

Shoaling and shoreline erosion result from the physical transport of sediment due to waves and/or currents. These
waves and currents may be natural (wind-induced, rainfall runoff, etc.) or human-induced (alterations in current
regimes, boat wakes, etc.).

The British Waterways Board (1983) noted that when vessel-generated waves reach the shallow margins of a
waterway, they can erode the banks and the bed, tending to wash away fringing plants and their associated animal
life. The Waterways Board also found that a substantial volume of the sediment that results in shoaling comes from
bank erosion and that removal of this material by dredging is a costly recurrent expense, especially where boat traffic 40
causes extensive bank erosion. Factors influencing ves sel- generated shoreline erosion,include the distance of the boat

5-6 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 L lntroduct@qn,

from shore, boat speed, side slopes, sediment type, and depth of the waterway (Camfield et al., 1980; Sorensen,
1986; Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980).

G. Other Federal and State Marina and Boating Programs

1. NPDES Storm Water Program

The storm water permit program is a two-phase program enacted by Congress in 1987 under section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act. Under Phase 1, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required
to be issued for municipal separate storm sewers serving large or medium-sized populations (greater than 250,000
or 100,000 people, respectively), and for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity such as certain
types of marinas. Permits are also to be issued, on a case-by-case basis, if EPA or a State determines that a storm
water discharge contributes to a violation of a water quality standard or is a significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States. EPA published a rule implementing Phase I on November 16, 1990.

a. Which marinas are regulated by the NPDES Storm Water Program?

Under the NPDES Storm Water Program, discharge permits are required for point source discharges of storm water
from certain types of marinas. A point source discharge of storm water is a flow of rainfall runoff in some kind of
discrete conveyance (a pipe, ditch, channel, swale, etc.).

If a marina is primarily in the business of renting boat slips, storing boats, cleaning boats, and repairing boats, and
generally performs a range of other marine services, it is classified under the storm water program (using the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system developed by the Office of Management and Budget) as a SIC 4493.
Marinas classified as SIC 4493 are the type that may be regulated under the storm water program and may be
required to obtain a storm water discharge permit.

A marina that is classified as a SIC 4493 is required to obtain an NPDES storm water discharge permit if vehicle
maintenance activities such as vehicle (boat) rehabilitation, mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and lubrication or
equipment cleaning operations are conducted at the marina. The storm water permit will apply only to the point
source discharges of storm water from the maintenance areas at the marinas. Operators of these types of marinas
should consult the water pollution control agency of the State in which the marina is located to determine how to
obtain a storm water discharge permit.

b. Which marinas are not regulated by the NPDES Storm Water Program?

Marinas classified as SIC 4493 that are not involved in equipment cleaning or vehicle maintenance activities are not
covered under the storm water program. Likewise, a maxina, regardless of its classification and the types of activities
conducted, that has no point source discharges of storm water, is also not regulated under the NPDES storm water
program. In addition, some marinas are classified SIC code 5541 - marine service stations and are also not regulated
under the NPDES Storm Water Program. These types of marinas are primarily in the business of selling fuel without
vehicle maintenance or equipment cleaning operations.

c. What marina activities are covered by this guidance?

EPA has not yet promulgated regulations that would designate additional storm water discharges, beyond those
regulated in Phase 1, that will be required to be regulated in Phase Il. Therefore, marina discharges that are not
covered under Phase 1, including those discharges that potentially may be ultimately covered by Phase II of the storm
water permits program, are covered by this management measures guidance and will be addressed by the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. Any storm water discharge at a marina that ultimately is issued an NPDES
permit will become exempt from this guidance and from the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program at the time
that the permit is issued.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-7

Introduction Chapter 5

2. Other Regulatory Programs

The management measures for marinas do not address discharge of sanitary waste from vessels. They do, however,
specify a measure to require that new marinas be designed to include pumpout stations and other facilities to handle
sanitary waste from marine toilets, also refeffed to as marine sanitation devices (MSDs), and another measure to
ensure that these facilities are properly maintained.

Vessels are not required to be equipped with an MSD. If a boat does have an MSD, however, the MSD has to meet
certain standards set by EPA as required by CWA section 312. In addition to EPA standards for MSDs, EPA may
allow a State to prohibit all discharges (treated or untreated) from MSDs, thus declaring the area a "no-discharge
zone." Any State may apply to the EPA Administrator for designation of a "no-discharge zone" in some or all of
the waters of the State; however, EPA must ensure that these waters meet certain tests before granting the
application.

The siting and permitting process to which marinas are subject varies from State to State. State and Federal agencies
both play a role in this process. Under section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) regulates all work and structures in navigable waters of the United States. Under section 404
of the Clean Water Act, USACE permits are issued or denied to regulate discharges of dredged or fill materials in
navigable waters of the United States, including wetlands.

All coastal States with Federally-approved coastal zone management programs can review Federal permit
applications, and some States regulate dredge and fill, marshlands, or wetlands permitting for marina development.
All States with Federally-approved coastal programs have the authority to object to section 10/section 404 permits
if the proposed action is inconsistent with the State's coastal zone management program. Some States require
permits for the use of State water bottomlands. States have authority under the Clean Water Act to issue section
401 water quality certifications for Federally-permitted actions as part of their water quality standards program.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established fecal coliform. standards for certified shellfish-growing
waters. Each coastal State regulates its own shellfish sanitation program under the National Shellfish Sanitation
Program. States must participate if they wish to export shellfish across State lines. Various approaches are used
to comply.

Some States also have a State coastal zone management permit providing them authority over development activities
in areas located within their defined coastal zone. Altematively, or in addition to ihis pen-nitting authority, some
States have regulatory planning authority in given areas of the coast, allowing them to influence the siting of marinas,
if not their actual design and construction.

Finally, Massachusetts has developed a Harbor Planning Program, and other States (e.g., Connecticut, Rhode Island,
New York, and Oregon) are developing similar programs. Municipalities participating in the program develop
Harbor Management Plans. The plans must be consistent with approved coastal zone management plans, and they
offer benefits such as giving municipalities greater influence over -licensing of State tidelands and priority
consideration for grants. The plans recommend comprehensive, long-term management programs that help
municipalities balance conservation and development, address pollution impacts on a cumulative rather than
piecemeal basis, and resolve conflicts over water-dependent and non-water-dependent uses of the waterfront.

H. Applicability of Management Measures

The management measures in this chapter are intended to be applied by States to control impacts to water quality
and habitat from marina siting, construction (both new and expanding marinas), and operation and maintenance, as
well as boat operation and maintenance. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States
are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source (NPS) programs in conformity with
the management measures and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of these management measures
1 0

5-8 . EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 L Introduction

by States is described more fully in Coa8tal Nonpoin, Pollution Control Program: Program Development and
Approval Guidance.

The management measures for marinas are applicable to the facilities and their associated shore-based services that
support recreational boats and boats for hire. The following operations/facilities are covered by the management
measures of this chapter:

� Any facility that contains 10 or more slips, piers where 10 or more boats may tie up, or any facility where
a boat for hire is docked;

� Boat maintenance or repair yards that are adjacent to the water;

� Any Federal, State, or local facility that involves recreational boat maintenance or repair that is on or
adjacent to the water;

� Public or commercial boat ramps;

� Any residential or planned community marina with 10 or more slips; and

� Any mooring field where 10 or more boats are moored.

Many States already use a 5- to 10-slip definition for marinas. The 10-slip definition for marinas is also based on
Federal legislation that implements MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships). This legislation requires adequate waste disposal facilities for ships at facilities with 10 or more slips. This
guidance is not intended to address shipyards where extensive repair and maintenance of larger vessels occur. Such
facilities are subject to NPDES point source and storm water permitting requirements.

Certain types of changes or additions to existing marinas may produce insignificant differences in impacts from such
marinas, while other types of changes and expansions may have a far greater effect. Activities that alter the design,
capacity, purpose, or use of the marina are subject to the siting and design management measures. The States are
to define: (1) activities that significantly change the physical configuratiori or construction of the marina, (2) activities
that significantly change the number of vessels accommodated, or (3) the operational changes that significantly
change the potential impacts of the marina. Potential changes to marinas may be treated in the same manner as new
marinas; i.e., the changes to the marina would be subject to applicable siting and design management measures.

The management measures for siting and design are applicable to new marinas. Application of the management
measures to expanding marinas should be done on a case-by-case basis and should hinge on the potential for the
expansion to impact water iluality and important habitat. For example, an expanding marina would not be required
to implement the flushing, water quality assessment, or shoreline stabilization management measures if the expansion
involved only an increase in the number of parking spaces. The storm water runoff management measure is the only
siting and design measure that is always applicable to existing and expanding marinas, as well as new marinas.

One method that has been used successfully by several States to determine whether an alteration/expansion is
significant is to set a marina perimeter when the marina is constructed. Thereafter, alterations that occur within that
perimeter (such as dock reconfiguration) are considered not significant. Another method that States have used is to
set a fin-tit, such as a 25 percent increase in the number of slips or a set number of slips (e.g., an increase of more
than five slips is considered significant). Rhode Island has successfully implemented a combination of these methods
(Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program, Section 300.4).

Changes to a marina may also result from catastrophic natural disasters such as hurricanes and severe flooding. It
is possible, in smaller marinas, that efforts to rebuild need not be subject to all siting and design management
measures.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 5-9

A Siting and Design Chapter 5

11. SITING AND DESIGN

Siting and design are among the most significant factors affecting a marina's potential for water quality impacts.
The location of a marina-whether it is open (located directly on a river, bay, or barrier island) or semi-enclosed
(located on an embayment or other protected area@-affects its circulation and flushing characteristics. Circulation
and flushing can also be influenced by the basin configuration and orientation to prevailing winds. Circulation and
flushing play important roles in the distribution and dilution of potential contaminants. The final design is usually
a compromise that will provide the most desirable combination of marina capacity, services, and access, while
minimizing environmental impacts, dredging requirements, protective structures, and other site development costs.
The objective of the marina siting and design management measures is to ensure that marinas and ancillary structures
do not cause direct or indirect adverse water quality impacts or endanger fish, shellfish, and wildlife habitat both
during and following marina construction. I

Many factors influence the long-term impact a marina will have on water quality, within the immediate vicinity of
the marina and the adjacgnt waterway. Initial marina site selection is the most important factor. Selection of a site
that has favorable hydrographic characteristics and requires the least amount of modification can reduce potential
impacts. Because marina development can result in reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, many waters with average
dissolved oxygen concentrations barely at or below State standards may be unsuitable for marina development.

5-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 IL Siting and Design

... .. ..........
.... . . ... ...
..... . . .
A. Marina Flushing Management Measure

Site and design marinas such that tides and/or currents will aid in flushing of the
site or renew its water regularly.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas. Under the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop
coastal nonpoint source pr6grams in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

The termflushing or residence time is often misused in that a single number (e.g., 10 days) is sometimes given to
describe the flushing time of an estuary or harbor. In actuality, the flushing time ranges from zero days at the
boundary to possibly several weeks, depending on location within the marina waterbody.

Maintaining water quality within a marina basin depends primarily on flushing as determined by water circulation
within the basin (Tsinker, 1992). If a marina is not properly flushed, pollutants will concentrate to unacceptable
levels in the water and/or sediments, resulting in impacts to biologi'cal resources (McMahon, 1989; NCDEM, 1990,
1991). In tidal waters, flushing is primarily due to tidal advective mixing and is controlled by the movement of the
tidal prism into and out of the marina waterbody. A large tidal prism relative to the mean total volume of the
waterbody indicates a large potential for flushing because more of the "old" water has a chance to become mixed
with the "new" water outside the boundary or opening to the waterbody.

In nontidal coastal waters, such as the Great Lakes, wind drives circulation in the adjacent waterbody, causing a
velocity shear between the marina basin and the adjacent waterbody and thereby producing one or more circulation
cells (vortices). Such cells can have a flushing effect on water within a marina. The current created by local wind
conditions is influenced by its persistence in terms of velocity and direction. The depth of the affected water layer
is controlled by temperature and how the salinity changes with depth. Several hours of consistent wind are required
for full development of wind-driven currents. These currents can be 2 percent of the wind's velocity and are
generally downwind in most shallow areas (Tobiasson and Kollmeyer, 1991). In many situations wind-driven
currents will provide adequate flushing of marina basins.

The degree of flushing necessary to maintain water quality in a marina should be balanced with safety, vessel
protection, and sedimentation. Wave energy should be dissipated adequately to ensure that boater safety and
protection of vessels are not at risk. The protected nature of marina basins can result in high sedimentation rates
in waters containing high concentrations of suspended solids. Methods for assessing and mitigating sedimentation
rates are available (NRC, 1987).

1 Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-11

l/. Siting and Design Chapter 5

3. Management Measure Selection

The measure was selected because it has been shown that adequate flushing will greatly reduce or eliminate the
potential for stagnation of water in a marina and will help maintain biological productivity and aesthetics (Tsinker,
1992; SCCC, 1984). Presented below are some illustrative examples of flushing guidelines in different coastal:
regions and different conditions. In areas where tidal ranges do not exceed I meter, as in the southeastern United
States, a flushing reductiod (the amount of a conservative substance that is flushed from' the basin) of 90 percent over
a 24-hour period has been recommended. For example, a flushing analysis for a proposed marina/canal on the St.
Johns River, Florida, was conducted to predict how an effluent would disperse and to determine the configuration
that would provide for maximum flushing of a hypothetical conservative pollutant (Tetra Tech, 1988). The selected
design provided the recommended flushing reduction of 90 percent over a 24-hour period. This study showed that
employing modeling to demonstrate how to achieve the recommended flushing rate is effective at avoiding adverse
water quality and other environmental impacts. In the Northwest, a minimum flushing reduction of 70 percent per
day was judged to be adequate (Cardwell and Koons, 1981). The 70 percent value, which represents the overall
mean flushing rate for the marina basin, was based on the prevailing 1.82-meter tidal range for a 24-hour period.
However, if the marina was in a protected area, such as an estuary or embayment, where tidal ranges never attain
1.82 meters, then a minimum flushing reduction of approximately 85 percent per day was recommended.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Ch@pter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfally to
achieve the management measure described above.

M a. Site and design new marinas such that the bottom of the marina and the entrance channel are not
deeper than adjacent navigable water unless it can be demonstrated that the bottom will support
a natural population of benthic organisms.

Existing water depths can affect the entire marina layout and design. Therefore, if depth information is not available,
bathymetric surveys should be conducted in the proposed marina basin area as well as in those areas that will,beused
as channels, whether existing or proposed (Schluchter and Slotta, 1978). Flushing rates in marinas can be maximized
by proper design of the entrance channel and basins. For example, in areas of minimal or no tides, marina basin
and channel depths should be designed to gradually increase toward open water to promote flushing (USEPA, 1985a).
Otherwise, isolated deep holes where water can stagnate may be created (SCCC, 1984).

Good flushing alone does not guarantee that a marina's deepest waters will be renewed on a regular basis. Several
studies have concluded that deep canals and holes deeper than adjacent waters are not adequately flushed by tidal
action or by wind-generated forces and thus cause stagnant or semi-stagnant -conditions (Walton, 1983; Barada and
Partington, 1972). Lower layers in canals and basins can act as traps for'fine sediment and organic detritus and
exhibit low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Lower-layer, stagnation can occur in holes of depths less than 10 feet
(Murawski, 1969). The low DO concentrations, resulting from an oxygen demand exerted by resuspended sediments
and decaying organic matter, can impact aquatic life in the Warmer months when the normal DO concentration is
lower because of higher temperatures (Sherk, 1971). Fine sediments trapped in deep holes may form a thin surface
ooze, which gives poor internal oxygen circulation and leads to oxygen reduction both within the sediments,and in
the overlying water (USEPA, 1976).

M b. Design new marinas with as few segments as possible'to.promote circulation within the basin.

Flushing efficiency for a marina is inversely proportional to,the number of segments. For example, a one-segment
marina will not flush as well as a marina in open water, a two-segment marina will not flush as well as a one-

5-12 EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 U. Siting and Design

Ambient
water Ambient
Water

/
Tributary

Symetrical I-Segment Marine Elongated I-Segment Marine

Ambient
Ambient Water
Water

3-Sagment Marina S-Segment Marine

Figure 5-1. Example marina designs (adapted from DNREC, 1990).

segment marina, and so forth. Fipre 5-1 presents examples of marinas with one segment and more than one
segment. The physical configuration of the proposed marina as determined by the orientation of the marina toward
the natural water flow can have a significant effect on the flushing capacity of the waterway. The ideal situation
is one in which the distance between the exchange boundary and the inner portion of the basin is minimized. As
the shape of the basin becomes more elongated (i.e., more than one segment) with respect to total surface area, the
tidal advective or other dispersive mixing processes become more confined along a single flow path, and it takes
longer for a water particle originating in the inner part of the basin to travel the greater distance to the boundary.

The marina's aspect ratio (the ratio of its length to its breadth) should be used as a guideline for marina basin design
with respect to flushing. This ratio should be greater than 0.33 and less than 3.0, preferably between 0.5 and 2.0
(Cardwell and Koons, 198 1). For rectangular marinas with one entrance connected directly to the source waterbody,
the length-to-breadth ratio should be between 0.5 and 3.0 to eliminate secondary circulation cells where mixing and
tidal flushing are reduced (McMahon, 1989).

Marina configurations that promote flushing exhibit, in general, better dissolved oxygen conditions than those with
(I @ I =1

SYTm".1

restrictions or stagnant areas such as improper entrance channel design, bends, and square comers (NCDEM, 1990).
These areas also tend to trap sediment and debris. If debris am allowed to collect and settle to the bottom, an
oxygen demand will be imposed on the water and water quality will suffer. Therefore, square comers should be

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-13

A Siting and Design Chapter 5

avoided in critical downwind or similar areas where this is most likely to be a problem. If square comers are
unavoidable because of other considerations, then points of access'should be provided in those comers to allow for
easy cleanout of accumulated debris.

In tidal waters, marina design should replace conventional rectangular boat basin geometry with curvilinear geometry
to eliminate the stagnation effects of sharp-edged comers and to exploit the natural hydraulic patterns of flow and
prevent the occurrence of areas where flushing is negligible (Cardwell and Koons, 1981). By combining these
elements in the design of a marina, analytical studies have suggested that a strong internal basin circulation system
could develop, resulting in acceptable water quality levels (Layton, 1991).

c. Consider other design alternatives in poorly flushed waterbodies (open marina basin over semi-
enclosed design, wave attenuators over a fixed structure) to enhance flushing.

In selecting a marina site and developing a design, consideration of the need for efficient flushing of marina waters
should be a prime factor along with safety and vessel protection. For example, sites located on open water or at the
mouth of creeks and tributaries usually have higher flushing rates. These sites are generally preferable to sites
located in coves or toward the heads of creeks and tributaries, locations that tend to have lower flushing rates.

In poorly flushed waterbodies, special arrangements may be necessary to ensure adequate overall flushing. In these
areas, selection of an open marina design and/or the use of wave attenuators should be considered. Open marina
designs have no fabricated or natural barriers, which tend to restrict the exchange of water between ambient water
and water within the marina area. Wave attenuators improve flushing rates because water exchange is not restricted.
They are also attractive because they do not interfere with the bottom ecology or aesthetic view. Other advantages
include their easy removal and minimization of potential interference with fish migration and shoreline processes
(Rogers et al., 1982).

The effectiveness of wave attenuators is usually dependent on their mass (Tobiasson and Kollmeyer, 1991). The
greater the horizontal and draft dimensions, the greater their displacement and effectiveness. Floating wave
attenuators have limitations on their use in extreme wave fields, and site-specific studies should be performed as to
their suitability.

M d. Design and locate entrance channels to promote flushing.

Entrance channel alignment should follow the natural channel alignment as closely as possible to increase flushing.
Any bends that are necessary should be gradual (Dunham and Finn, 1974). In areas where the tidal range is small,
it is recommended that the marina's entrance be designed as wide as possible to promote flushing while still
providing adequate protection from waves (USEPA, 1985a). In areas where the tidal range is large, however, a
single narrow entrance channel, if properly designed, has proven to provide adequate flushing (Layton, 1991).

Entrance channel design and placement can alleviate potential water quality problems. In tidal and nontidal waters,
marina flushing rates are enhanced by wind action when entrance channels are aligned parallel to the direction of
prevailing winds because wind-generated currents can mix basin water and facilitate circulation between the basin
and the adjacent waterway (Christensen, 1986).

Shoaling may be significant in areas of significant bed load transport if the entrance channel is located perpendicular
to the waterway. Increased shoaling could require extensive maintenance dredging of the channel or create a sill
at the entrance to the marina-basin. Shoaling at the marina entrance can lead to water quality problems by reducing
flushing and water circulation within the basin (Tetra Tech, 1988; USEPA, 1985a). In Panama City, Florida, a study
of bathymetric surveys before and after the construction of an artificial inlet showed that the areas of deposition and
erosion in the natural bay rapidly changed as a result of alterations of channel positions and depths (Johnston, 1981).

The orientation and location of a solitary entrance can impact marina flushing rates and should be given consideration
along with other factors impacting flushing. When a marina basin is square or rectangular, a single entrance at the

5-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 5 /1. Siting and Design

center of a marina produces better flushing than does a single comer-located asymmetric entrance (Nece, 1981). This
results in part because the jet entering the marina on the flood tide is able to circumnavigate a greater length of the
sub-basin perimeter associated with each of the two gyres than it could in a single-gyre basin with an asymmetric
entrance. If the marina basin is circular, an off-center entrance channel will promote better circulation. Off-center
entrance channels also promote better circulation in circular canals.

Me. Establish two openings, where appropriate, at opposite ends of the marina to promote flow-through
currents.

Where water-level fluctuations are small, alternatives in addition to the ones previously discussed should be
considered to ensure adequate water exchange and to increase flushing rates (Dunham and Finn, 1974). An elongated
marina situated parallel to a tidal river can be adequately flushed using two entrances to establish a flow-through
current so that wind-generated currents or tidal currents move continuously through the marina. In situations where
both openings cannot be used for boat traffic, a smaller outlet onto an adjacent waterbody can be opened solely to
enhance flushing. In other situations a buried pipeline has been used to promote flushing.

M f. Designate areas that are and are not suitable lbr madna development, ie., provide advance
identification of waterbodies that do and dD not expedence flushing adequate for marina
development.

For example, the physical characteristics of some small tidal creeks result in poor flushing and increased
susceptibility to water quality problems (Klein, 1992). These characteristics include:

Bottom configuration - Flushing is retarded when a depression exists that is lower than the entrance to the
waterway.

Entrance configuration - A constricted entrance will decrease flushing.

Tributary inflow - Higher freshwater inflow will increase flushing.

Tidal range - Increased tidal range will increase flushing.

Shape of the waterway - As the configuration of a waterway becomes more convoluted and irregular,
flushing tends to decrease.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Janua@ 1993 5-15

/L Siting and Design Chapter 5

B. Water Quality Assessment Management Measure

Assess water quality as part of marina siting and design.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas. Under the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop
coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this* measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

Assessments of water quality may be used to determine whether a proposed marina design will result in poor water
quality. This may entail predevelopment and/or postdevelopment monitoring of the marina or ambient waters,
numerical or physical modeling of flushing and water quality characteristics, or both. Cost impacts may preclude
a detailed water quality assessment for marinas with 10 to 49 slips (See Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.) A preconstruction
inspection and assessment can still be expected, however. Historically, water quality assessments have focused on
two parameters: dissolved oxygen (DO) and pathogen indicators. The problems resulting from low DO in surface
waters have been recognized for over a century. The impacts of low DO concentrations are reflected in an
unbalanced ecosystem, fish mortality, and odor and other aesthetic nuisances. DO levels may be used as a surrogate
variable for the general health of the aquatic ecosystem (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). Coastal States use pathogen
indicators, such as fecal coliform bacteria (Escherichia coli) and enterococci, as a surrogate variable for assessing
risk to public health through ingestion of contaminated water or shellfish (USEPA, 1988) and through bathing
(USEPA, 1986).

Dissolved Oxygen. Three important factors support the use of DO as an indicator of water quality associated with
marinas. First, low DO is considered to pose a significant threat to aquatic life. For example, fish and invertebrate
kills due to low DO are well known and documented (Cardwell and Koons, 1981). Second, DO is among the few
variables that have been measured historically with any consistency. A historical water quality baseline is extremely
useful for predicting the impacts of a proposed marina. Third, DO is fundamentally important in controlling the
structure-and, in some areas, the productivity-of biological communities.

Pathogen Indicators. Marinas in the vicinity'of harvestable shellfish beds represent potential sources for bacterial
contamination of the sheli Ifish. Siting and construction of a marina or other potential source of human sewage
contiguous to beds of shellfish may result in closure of these beds. Also, nearby beaches and waters used for bathing
should be considered.

Fecal coliform bacteria, Escherichia coli, and enterococci are used as indicators of the pathogenic organisms (viruses,
bacteria, and parasites) that may be present in sewage. These indicator organisms are used because no reliable and

2Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

5-16 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 /L Siting and Design

cost-effective test for pathogenic organisms exists, Water quality assessments can be used to ensure that water
quality standards supporting a designated use are not exceeded. For example, in waters approved for shellfish
harvesting, a marina water quality assessment could be used to document potential fecal coliform concentrations in
the water column in excess of the standard of 14 organisms MPN (most probable number) per 100 milliliters of
water. This standard should not be exceeded in areas where the exceedance would result in the closure of
harvestable or productive shellfish beds. Many States have adopted EPA's 1986 ambient water quality criteria for
bacteria, which recommend E. coli and enterococci as indicators of pathogens for freshwater and marine bathing.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this measure was based on the widespread use and proven effectiveness of water quality assessments
in the siting and design of marinas. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Management conducted a
postdevelopment study to characterize the water quality conditions of several marinas and to provide data that can
be used to evaluate future marina development (NCDEM, 1990). The sampling program demonstrated that marina
water quality monitoring studies are effective at assessing potential water quality impacts from coastal marinas.
Water quality assessments hive been used successfully at a variety of other proposed marina locations nationwide
to determine potential water quality impacts (USEPA, 1992b). Many States require water quality assessments of
proposed marina development (Appendix 5A). Marinas with 10 to 49, slips may not be able to afford monitoring
or modeling. (See Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.) In such instances a preconstruction inspection and assessment can still be performed.
Dredging requires a River and Harbor Act section 10 permit from the U.S. Army Porps of Engineers (USACE).
If there is discharge into waters of the United States after dredging, then a CWA section 404 permit is required.
A CWA section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from the State before a section 404 permit is issued by
the USACE.

4. Practices

Two effective techniques are available to evaluate water quality'conditions for proposed marinas. In the first
technique, a water quality monitoring program that includes predevelopment, during-development, and
postdevelopment phases clan be used to assess the water quality impacts of a marina. In the second approach,
effective assessment can be accomplished through numerical modeling that includes predevelopment and
postconstruction model applications.

Numerical modeling can be used to study impacts associated with several alternatives and to select an optimuin
marina design that avoids and minimizes impacts to both water quality, and habitats existing at the site (e.g., Rive
St. Johns Canal study and Willbrook Island marina). A combination of field surveys and numerical modeling studies
may be necessary to identify all environmental concerns and to avoid or minimize marina impacts on both water
quality conditions and nearby shellfish habitat.

M a. Use a water quality monitoring methodology to predict postconstruction water quality conditions.

A primary objective for use of a water quality assessment is to ensure that the 24-hour average dissolved oxygen
concentration and the 1-hour (or instantaneous) minimum dissolved oxygen concentration both inside the proposed
marina and in adjacent ambient waters will not violate State water- quality standards or preclude designated uses.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-17

/1. Siting and Design Chapter 5

The first step in a marina water quality assessment should be the evaluation ahd the characterization of existing water
quality conditions. Before an analysis of the potential impacts of future development is made, it. should be
determined whether current water quality is acceptable, marginal, or substandard. The best way to assess existing
water quality is to measure it. Acceptable water quality data may already have been collected by various government
organizations. Candidate organizations include the U.S. Geological Survey, the USACE, State and local water quality
control and monitoring agencies, and engineering and oceanographic departments of local universities.

The second step in a marina water quality assessment is to set design standards in terms of water quality. In most
States, the water quality is graded based on DO content, and a standard exists for the 24-hour average concentration
and an instantaneous minimum concentration. A State's water quality standard for DO during the critical season may
be used to set limits of acceptability for good water quality.

The best way to assess marina impacts on water quality is to design a sampling strategy and physically measure
dissolved oxygen levels. During the sampling, sediment oxygen demand and other data that may be used to estimate
dissolved oxygen levels I using numerical modeling procedures can be collected (USEPA, 1992c, 1992d). A
postdevelopment field program may include dye-release and/or drogue-release studies (to verify circulation patterns)
and a water quality monitoring program. Data collected from such studies may be used to assist in the prediction
of water quality or circulation at other potential marina sites.
Sampling programs are effective methods to evaluate the potential water quality impacts from proposed marinas.
The main objective of a preconstruction sampling program is to characterize the water surrounding the area in the
vicinity of the proposed marina. Another objective of a preconstruction sampling program is to provide necessary
information for modeling investigations (e.g., Tetra Tech, 1988).

M b. Use a water quality modeling methodology to predict postconstruction water quality conditions.

Water quality monitoring 6an be expensive, and therefore a field monitoring approach may not be practical. The
use of a numerical model may be the most economical alternative. However, all models require some field data for
proper calibration. A better and more cost-effective approach would be a combination of both water quality
monitoring and numerical modeling (Tetra Tech, 1988).

Modeling techniques are used to predict flushing time and pollutant concentrations in the absence of site-specific
data. A distinct advantage of numerical models over monitoring studie's is the ability to easily perforni sensitivity
analyses to establish a set of design criteria. Limits of water quality acceptability, flushing rates, and sedimentation
rates must be known before quantifying the limit of geometric parameters to comply with these standards. Numerical
models can be used to evaluate different alternative designs to determine the configuration that would provide for
maximum flushing of pollutants. Models can also be used to perform sensitivity analysis on the selected optimum
design.

In 1982, preconstruction numerical modeling studies were conducted to investigate whether a proposed marina in
South Carolina would meet the State water quality standards after construction. Modeling results indicated that the
proposed Wexford Marina would meet water quality standards (Cubit Engineering, 1982). The marina was approved
and constructed. Follow-up monitoring studies were conducted to evaluate preconstruction model predictions
(USEPA, 1986). The monitoring results indicated that shellfish harvesting standards were being met, thereby
validating the preconstruction modeling study.

EPA Region 4 recently completed an in-depth report on marina water quality models (USEPA, 1992c). The primary
focus of the study was to provide guidance for selection and application of computer models for analyzing the
potential water quality impacts (both DO and pathogen indicators) of a marina. EPA reviewed a number of available
methods and classified them into three categories: simple methods, mid-range models, and complex models. Simple
methods are screening techniques that provide only information on the average conditions in the marina. Screening
methods do no 't provide spatial or time-varying water quality predictions, and therefore it is recommended that these
methods be used with open marina designs and/or marinas sited in areas characterized by good flushing rates and

5-18 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 A Siting and Design

good water quality conditions IUSEPA, I 111cl. In addition, simple models are not suitable where marina flushing
is controlled by the prevailing wind, requiring the application of more advanced mqdels, such as WASP4.

In poorly flushed areas and in marinas with a complex design, a more advanced method will identify those areas
where water quality standards may be violated. The complex methods are also capable of predicting spatial and
time-variant water quality conditions and provide the complete water quality. picture inside a proposed marina. In
general, advanced models are more effective and more appropriate than simple screening methods in assessing
environmental impacts associated with marina siting and design (USEPA, 1992c).

Costs associated with applying a numerical model or conducting a water quality monitoring program range from 0. 1
to 2.0 percent of the total marina development project cost. Table 5-2 provides cost information -by marina, size,
State, and year built. These factors should all be considered when comparing a particular cost associated with a
specific item. For example, costs associated with the water quality monitoring program for Barbers Point Harbor
and Marina complex were estimated at $56,000. On the other hand, the cost of the water quality monitoring program
for the Beacons Reach marina, North Carolina, was $3,000. It was only when a full environmental assessment was
conducted (e.g., North Point and Barbers Point marina complex) thit costs were higher. In addition, several models
have been recommended as, appropriate tools to assess potential water quality impacts from coastal marinas (USEPA,
1992c, 1992d). The cost issociated with applying the simple model is on the order of $1,000, whereas the cost
associated with the advanced model is in the range of $25,000 to $100,000. Siting and design practices to reduce
environmental impacts were frequently part of a larger design/enviromnental study. Costs for a total environmental
assessment of a proposed marina ranged from I percent to 5 percent of the total project cost.

M c. Perform preconstruction inVection and assessment.

A preconstruction inspection and assessment may be affordable in place of detailed water quality monitoring or
modeling for marinas with 10 to 49 slips. The River and Harbor Act of 189.9 section 10 and Clean Water Act
section 404 permit application process requires applicants to present to the USACE information necessary for a water
quality assessment. An expert knowledgeable in water quality and hydrodynamics may assess potential impacts using
available information and site inspection.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-19

/1. Siting and Design Chapter 5

Table 5-2. Cost Summary of Seleded Marina Siting Practices (USEPA, 1992b)

Marina/Project Cost
Name and Location Years Scope of Work (x $1000)

North Point Marina 1983- Full environmental assessment 100
Illinois (1,493 slips) 1989 Construction cost 39,000

Point Roberts Marina 1976- Environmental studies (physical and numerical
Washington 1978 modeling, lifforal drift, and biological studies) 300
(1,000 slips) Postconstruction water quality monitoring program
(including dye release and drogue) 10
Construction cost 6,000

Barbers Point Harbor 1981- Physical model 650
and Marina Complex 1985 Numerical model (both 2Dand 3D) 100
(Retrof it) Botanical survey is
Hawaii Baseline water quality monitoring program 56
Total construction 140,000

Marina Water Quality 1990 Numerical model applications to 3 Southeast marinas 30
Modeling Study Data collection
22

Rive St. Johns Canal 1988 Littoral studies and data collection 20
Florida Numerical model study 30
North Carolina 1989 Water quality monitoring program' 3
Coastal Marina Dye study' 3
Water Quality Numerical modeling studies 0.5
Assessment

Willbrook Island 1990 Water quality modeling study 10
Marina (200 slips)
South Carolina

Coastal Water Quality 1989 Monitoring program' 3
Assessment (NCDEM) Numerical modeling application b 0.5
North Carolina Dye study (flushing)' 3
Wexford Marina 1982 Numerical model application -0
South Carolina and Numerical model application ---
1986

Cost estimate is per marina site.
b Simple screening model.
c This program was conducted by NCDEM personnel.
d Not available.

5-20 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 Siting and Design

N E*"
C. Habitat Assessment Management Measure

Site and design marinas to protect against adverse effects on shellfish resources,
wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or other important riparian and aquatic
habitat areas as designated by local, State, or Federal governments.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding3 marinas where site changes
may impact on wetlands, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), or other important habitats. The
habitats of nonindigenous nuisance species, such as some clogging vegetation or zebra mussels, are not considered
important habitats. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will
have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Coastal marinas are often located in estuaries, one of the most diverse of all habitats. Estuaries contain many plant
and animal communities that are of economic, recreational, ecological, and aesthetic value. These communities are
frequently sensitive to habitat alteration that can result from marina siting and design. Biological siting and design
provisions for marinas are based on the premise that marinas should not destroy important aquatic habitat, should
not diminish the harvestability of organisms in adjacent habitats, and should accommodate the same biological uses
(e.g., reproduction, migration) for which the source waters have been classified (Cardwell et al., 1980). Important
types of habitat for an area, such as wetlands, shellfish beds, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), are usually
designated by local, State, and Federal agencies. In most situations the locations of all important habitats are not
known. Geographic information systems are used to map biological resources in Delaware and show promise as a
method of conveying important habitat and other siting information to marina developers and environmental
protection agencies (DNREC, 1990).

3. Management Measure Selection

The selection of this measure was based on its widespread use in siting and design and the fact that proper siting
and design can reduce short-term impacts (habitat destruction during construction) and long-term impacts (water
quality, sedimentation, circulation, wake energy) on the surrounding environment (USEPA, 1992b). Currently, 50
percent of the coastal States minimize adverse impacts caused by siting and design by requiring a habitat assessment
prior to siting a marina, and an additional 40 percent require a habitat assessment under special conditions (Appendix
5A).

3See Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-21

11. Siting and Design Chapter 5

4. Practices

0 a. Conduct surveys and characterize the project site.

The first step in achieving compatibility between coastal development and coastal resources is to properly
characterize the proposed project site. The site's physical properties and water quality characteristics must be
assessed. To minimize potential impacts, available habitat and seasonal use of the site by benthos,
macroinvertebrates, and ichthyofauna should be evaluated. Once these data are assembled, it becomes possible to
identify environmental risks associated with development of the site. Through site-design modifications, preservation
of critical or unique habitat, and biological/chemical/physical monitoring, it is possible to minimize the direct and
indirect impacts associated with a specific waterfront development (USEPA, 1985a). To properly evaluate
development applications for projects at the periphery of critical or endangered habitat areas, it may be necessary
to conduct on-site visits and surveys to determine the distribution of critical habitat such as spawning substrate and
usage by spawning fish.

Based on data compiled primarily by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) prior to
construction, it was concluded that a large proposed marina (Port Liberte) could have a serious environmental impact
on resident and transient fish and macroinvertebrates. Loss of unique habitat, water quality degradation, and
disturbance of contaminated sediments were some of the more severe anticipated impacts. Following a
comprehensive NJDEP review process, the developer modified the site plan and phased construction activities,
thereby satisfying the concerns of the various environmental regulatory agencies and minimizing potential direct and
indirect impacts (Souza et al., 1990). Follow-up monitoring established that the management practices were effective
in avoiding impacts to important fishery habitat.

M b. Redevelop coastal waterfront sites that have been previously disturbed; expand existing marinas
or consider alternative sites to minimize potential environmental impacts.

Proper marina site selection is a practice that can minimize adverse impacts on nearby habitats. For example, the
selected site for North Point Marina in Illinois was not a suitable environment for either floral or faunal habitat
because of high erosion rates, high ground-water conditions, and the high potential for flooding (Braam and Jansen,
1991). Despite the surrounding environment, this site was thought to be suitable for marina development because
the site had been previously disturbed. Within existing urban harbors where the shorelines have been modified
previously by bulkheading and filling, there will be many opportunities to site recreational boating facilities with
minimal adverse environmental consequences (Goodwin, 1988).

Alternative site analysis may be used to demonstrate that a chosen site is the most economic and environmentally
suitable. Alternative site/design analysis has been found effective at reducing potential impacts from many proposed
marinas. The proposed Rive St. Johns Canal, Willbrook Island, and John Wayne marinas used this practice and
demonstrated the effectiveness of analyzing alternative sites and designs to minimize environmental impacts. For
example, eight design alternatives were considered for the John Wayne marina. The selected alternative reduced
tideland alteration, biological destruction, and stream diversion. This was accomplished by moving the marina basin
nearly 1,000 feet north of the original site and reducing the basin capacity (Holland, 1986). Five alternatives were
considered for the Rive St. Johns Canal. The selected site avoided impacts to wetland habitats and has better
flushing characteristics. The Willbrook study considered five alternatives, and the site selected successfully
minimized impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands.

5-22 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 l/. Siting and Design

0 c. Employ rapid bidassessment techniques to assess impacts to biological resources.

Rapid bioassessment techniques, when fully developed, will provide cost-effective biological assessments of potential
marina development sites. Rapid bioassessment uses biological criteria and is based on comparing the community
assemblages of the potential development site to an undisturbed reference condition. Biological criteria or biocriteria
describe the reference condition of aquatic communities inhabiting unimpaired waterbodies (USEPA, 1992a). These
methods consist of community-level assessments designed to evaluate the communities based on a variety of
functional and structural attributes or metrics. Rapid bioassessment protocols for freshwater streams and rivers were
published in 1989 for macroinvertebrates and fish to provide States with guidelines for conducting cost-effective
biological assessments (USEPA, 1989). Development of similar protocols for application in estuaries and near
coastal areas is under way (USEPA, 1992a).

Scores from rapid bioassessments; may be used to detenrnine the biological integrity of a site. Sites that are
comparable to pristine conditions, with complete assemblages of species, should not be developed as marinas because
of the unavoidable impacts associated with such development. The level of effort required to characterize a site will
depend on the specific protocol (level of detail required and organisms used) employed. The time needed to perform
a rapid bioassessment in freshwater streams varied from 1.5-3 hours to 5-10 hours for benthos and 3 to 17 hours for
fish (USEPA, 1989).

Md. Assess historic habitat function (e.g., spawning area, nursery area, migration pathway) to minimize
indirect impacts.

Washington State issued siting and tidal height provisions (WDF, 1971, 1974) to ensure that bulkheads do not destroy
spawning of surf smelt habitat and increase the vulnerability of juvenile salmon. In addition, marina breakwaters
may disrupt the migration pattern of migratory fish, such as salmon. The design of marinas should consider the
migration, survival, and the harvestability of food fish and shellfish.

M e. Minimize disturbance to indigenous vegetation in the riparian area.

A riparian area is defined as:

Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas
characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent
waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two land forms. They
will not in all cases have all of the characteristics necessary for them to be classified as wetlands.'

Riparian areas are generally more productive habitat, in both diversity and biomass, than adjacent uplands because
of their unique hydrologic condition. Many important processes occur in the riparian zone, including the following:

� Because of their linear form along waterways, riparian areas process large fluxes of energy and materials
from upstream systems as well as from ground-water seepage and upland runoff.

� They can serve as effective filters, sinks, and transformers of nutrients, eroded soils, and other pollutants.

� They often appear to be nutrient transformers that have a net import of inorganic nutrient forms and a net
export of organic forms.

Chapter 7 of this docum@nt, which also requires protection of riparian areas when they have significant nonpoint
pollution control value, contains a more detailed discussion of riparian functions.

4This definition is adapted from the definition offered previously by Mitsch and Gosselink (1986) and Lowrance et al. (1988).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-23

/1. Siting and Design Chapter 5

f. Encourage the redevelopment or expansion of existing marina facilities that have minimal
environmental impacts instead of new marina development in habitat areas that local, State, or
Federal agencies have designated important.

One method to avoid new marina development in areas containing important habitat is the purchase of development
rights of existing marinas or important habitat. In the case of preserving an existing marina (thus avoiding the
impacts associated with developing new marinas), the government pays the difference (if there is one) between the
just value and the water-dependent value and owns the rights to develop the property for other uses. 7111is approach
provides instant liquidity for the marina owner, who keeps the profits derived from all marina assets even though
the government may have paid 80 to 90 percent of the value of the land. This would in theory offset the inability
to sell the marina for non-water-dependent activities and decrease marina development in areas containing important
habitat. The purchase of development rights and conservation easements for land containing important habitat or
NPS control values is discussed in Chapter 4. In the Broward County (Florida) Comprehensive Plan, expansion of
existing marina facilities is preferred over development of new facilities (Bell, 1990).

M g. Develop a marina siting policy to discourage development in areas containing important habitat as
designated by local, State, or Federal agencies.

Establishing a marina siting policy is an efficient and effective way to control habitat degradation and water pollution
impacts associated with marinas. Creating such a policy involves:

� Establishing goals for coastal resource use and protection;

� Cataloging coastal resources; and

� Analyzing existing conditions and problems, as well as future needs.

A siting policy benefits the environment, the public, regulatory agencies, and the marina industry. Examples of such
benefits include:

� Impacts to and destruction of environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, fish nursery areas, and
shellfish beds) are avoided by directing development to sites more appropriate for marina development;

� Coastal resources (such as submerged aquatic vegetation and beaches) are protected;

� Cumulative impacts from numerous pollution sources are more easily assessed;

� Coastal development and economic growth are balanced with environmental protection, and the continued
viability of wate@-dependent uses is ensured;

� The needs of the marina industry and rights of public access are accounted for;

� The permitting process is streamlined;

� Regulatory efforts are coordinated; and

� Interjurisdictional consistency is improved.

Many States already address coastal resource and development needs- through coastal zone management plans, growth
management plans, criticali area programs, and other means. The following examples illustrate the high level of
acceptance such planning has achieved and the variety of program types upon which a marina siting policy could
be built:

5-24 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 11. Siting and Design

Twelve States have established critical area programs that protect public health and safety, the quality of
natural features, scenic value, recreational opportunities, and the historical and cultural significance of
coastal areas (Myers, 1991).

North Carolina has a water use classification system to assist in the implementation of land use policies.
Coastal areas are designated for preservation, conservation, or development (Clark, 1990).

Massachusetts has a Harbor Management Program, wherein municipalities devise specific harbor
management plans consistent with State goals (Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1988).

The Narragansett Bay Project, part of EPA's National Estuary Program, recognizes land use planning as
the key to accomplishing many goals, including controlling NPS pollution, protecting and restoring habitat,
and preserving public access and recreational opportunities (Myers, 1991).

The Cape Cod Commission found that unplanned growth over the last several decades has limited public
access, displaced marinas and boatyards in favor of non-water-dependent uses, encroached on fishermen's
access, degraded water quality, destroyed habitat, and created use conflicts (Cape Cod Commission, 1991).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 5-25

A Siting and Design Chapter 5

D. Shoreline Stabilization Management Measure

Where shoreline erosion Is a nonpoint source pollution problem, shorelines should
be stabilized. Vegetative methods are strongly preferred unless structural methods
are more cost effective, considering the severity of wave and wind erosion, offshore
bathymetry, and the potential adverse Impact on other shorelines and offshore
areas.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas where site changes
may result in shoreline erosion. Under the Coastal: Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are
subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this
measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described
more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance,
published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The establishment of vegetation as a primary means of shore protection has shown the greatest success in low-wave-
energy areas where underlying soil types provide the stability required for plants and where conditions are amenable
to the sustaining of plant gTowth. Under suitable conditions, an important advantage of vegetation is its relatively
low initial cost. The effectiveness of vegetation for shore stabilization varies with the amount of wave reduction
provided by the physiography and offshore bathymetry of the site or with the degree of wave attenuation provided
by structural devices. Identification of the cause of the erosion problem is essential for selecting the appropriate
technique to remedy the problem. Methods for determining the potential effectiveness of stabilizing a site with
indigenous vegetation are presented in Chapter 7.

Some structural methods to stabilize shorelines and navigation channels are bulkheads, jetties, and breakwaters. They
are designed to dissipate incoming wave energy. While structures can provide shoreline protection, unintended
consequences may include accelerated scouring in front of the structure, as wellas increased erosion of unprotected
downstream shorelines.

Among structural techniques, gabions, riprap, and sloping revetments dissipate incoming wave energy more
effectively and result in less scouring. Bulkheads are appropriate in some circumstances, but where alternatives are
appropriate they should be used first. Costs and design considerations of these and other structural methods for
controlling shoreline erosion are presented in Chapter 6.

Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

5-26 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy I

Chapter 5 /L Siting and Design

3, Management Measure Selection

Selection of this measure was based on the demonstrated effectiveness of vegetation and structural methods to
mitigate shoreline erosion and the resulting turbidity and shoaling (see Chapters 6 and 7). Also, it is in the best
interest of marina operators to minimize shoreline erosion because erosion may increase sedimentation and the
frequency of dredging in the marina basin and channel(s).

4. Practices
As discussed more fully @t the beginning of this chapier and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs ne@d not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
appi ying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Detailed information on practices and the cost and effectiveness of structural and vegetative practices can be found
in Chapters 6 and 7, respectively.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-27

IL Siting and Design Chapter 5

E. Storm Water Runoff Management Measure

Implement effective runoff control strategies which Include the use of pollution
prevention activities and the proper design of hull maintenance areas.

Reduce the average annual loadings of total suspended solids (TSS) in runoff from
hull maintepance areas by 80 percent. For the purposes of this measure, an
80 percent teductlon of TSS Is to be determined on an average annual basis.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding 6 marinas, and to existing
marinas for at least the hull maintenance areas.' If boat bottom scraping, sanding, and/or painting is done in areas
other than those designated as hull maintenance areas, the management measure-applies to those areas as well. This
measure is not applicable to runoff that enters the marina property from upland sources. Under the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal
nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

The principal pollutants in runoff from marina parking areas and hull maintenance areas are suspended solids and
organics (predominately oil and grease). Toxic metals from boat hull scraping and sanding are part of, or tend to
become associated with, the suspended solids (METRO, 1992a). Practices for the control of these pollutants can be
grouped into three types: (1) filtration/infiltration, (2) retention/detention, and (3) physical separation of pollutants.
A further discussion of storm water runoff controls can be found in Chapter 4.

The proper design and operation of the marina hull maintenance area is a significant way to prevent the entry of
toxic pollutants from marina property into surface waters. Recommended design features include the designation
of discrete impervious areas (e.g., cement areas) for hull maintenance activities; the use of roofed areas that prevent
rain from contacting pollutants; and the creation of diversions and drainage of off-site runoff away from the hull
maintenance area for separate treatment. Source controls that collect pollutants and thus keep them out of runoff
include the use of sanders with vacuum attachments, the use of large vacuums for collecting debris from the ground,
and the use of tarps under boats that are being sanded or painted.

The perviousness of non-hull maintenance areas should be maximized to reduce the quantity of runoff. Maximizing
perviousness can be accomplished by placing filter strips around parking areas. Swales are strongly recommended
for the conveyance of storm water instead of drains and pipes because of their infiltration and filtering characteristics.

Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.
Hull maintenance areas are areas whose primary function is to provide a place for boats during the scraping, sanding, and painting of
their bottoms.

5-28 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 U. Siting and Design

Technologies capable of treating runoff that has been collected le.g., wastewater treatment systems and holding lanksl
may be used in situations where other practices are not appropriate or pretreatment is necessary. The primary
disadvantages of using such systems are relatively high costs and high maintenance requirements. Some marinas
are required to pretreat storm water runoff before discharge to the local sewer system (Nielsen, 1991). Washington
State strongly recommends that marinas pretreat hull-cleaning wastewater and then discharge it to the local sewer
system (METRO, 1992b).
The annual TSS loadings can be calculated by adding together the TSS loadings that can be expected to be generat@d
during an average 1-year period from precipitation events less than or equal to the 2-year/24-hour storm. The 80
percent standard can be achieved, by reducing over the course of the year, 80 percent of these loadings. EPA
recognizes that 80 percent cannot be achieved for each storm event and understands that TSS removal efficiency will
fluctuate above and below 80 percent for individual storms.

3. Management Measure Selection

The 80 percent removal of TSS was selected because chemical wastewater treatment systems, sand filters, wet ponds,
and constructed wetlands can all achieve this degree of pollutant removal if they are designed properly and the site
is suitable. Source controls can also reduce final TSS concentr4tions in runoff. Table 5-3 presents summary
information on the effectiveness, cost, and suitability of the practices listed below. The discussion under each
practice presents factors to be considered when selecting a specific practice(s) for a particular marina site.

The 80 percent removal of TSS is applicable to the hull maintenance area only. Although pollutants in runoff from
the remaining marina property are to be considered in implementing effective runoff pollution prevention and control
strategies for all marinas, existing marinas may be unable to economically treat storm water runoff by
retention/detention or filtration/infiltration technologies because of treatment system land requirements and the likely
need to collect and transfer runoff from marina shoreline areas (at lower elevations) to upland areas for treatment.
Also, marina property may be developed to such an extent that space is not available to build the detention/ retention
structures. In other situations, the soil type and groundwater levels may not allow sufficient infiltration for trenches,
swales, filter strips, etc. The measure applies to all new and existing marina hull maintenance areas because it allows
for runoff control of a smaller, more controlled area and also because the runoff from these hull maintenance areas
contain higher levels of toxic pollutants (CDEP, 1991; and METRO, 1992a).

In addition, many of the available practices are currently being employed by States to control runoff from marinas
and other urban nonpoint sources (Appendix 5A).

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate, The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

M a. Design boat hull maintenance areas to minimize contaminated runoff.

Boat hull maintenance areas can be designed so that all maintenance activities that are significant potential sources
of pollution can be accomplished over dry land and under roofs (where practical), allowing the collection and proper
disposal of debris, residues, solvents, spills, and storm water runoff. Boat hull maintenance areas can be specified
with signs, and hull maintenance should not be allowed to occur outside these areas. The use of impervious surfaces
(e.g., cement) in hull maintenance areas will greatly enhance the collection of sandings, paint chips, etc. by
vacuuming or sweeping.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 5-29

/I. Siting and Design Chapter 5

Table 5-3. Stormwater Management Practice Summary Information

Removal Use with Pretreatment of
Practice - Pollutants Efficiencies Other Retrofit Runoff
Characteristics Controlled N Practices Cost Suitability References Recommended

Sand Filter TSS 60-90 Yes $1 - 11 per fl? Medium City of Austin, Yes
TP 0-80 of runoff 1990;
TN 20-40 Schueler 1991-,
Fecal Col 40 Tull 1990
Metals 40-80

Wet Pond TSS 50-90 Yes $349-823 per Medium Schueler, 1987, Yes, but not
TP 20-90 acre treated; 1991; necessary
TN 10-90 3-5 of capital USEPA, 1986
COD 10-90 cost per year
Pb 10-95
Zn 20-95
Cu 38-90

Constructed TSS 50-90 Yes see Medium Yes
Wetlands TP 0.80 Chapter 7
SP 30-65
TN 0-40
NO, 5-95
COD 20-80
Pb 30-95
Zn 30-80.

Infiltration TSS W99 Yes Of capital Medium Schueler, 1987, Yes
BasirvTrench TP 50-100 costs: 1991
TN 50-100 Basins
BOD 70-90 3-13
Bacteria 75-98 Trenches
Metals 50-100 5-15

Porous TSS 60-90 No Incremental Low Schueler, 1987;
Pavement TP 60-90 cost: SWRPC' 1991;
TN 60-90 $40,051- Cahill Associates,
COD 60-90 78,288 1991
Pb 60-90 per acre
Zn 60-90

Vegetated TSS 40-90 Combine Seed: High Schueler et al., No
Filter Strip TP 30-80 with T2-00-1 000 1992
TN 20-60 practices per acre;
COD G-80 for Seed & mulch:
Metals 20-80 MM WOO-3500
per acre;
Sod:
$4500-48,000
per acre

Grassed Swale TSS 20-40 Combine ISeed: High SWRPC, 1991; No
TIP 20-40 with [email protected] per Schueler, 1987,
TN 10-30 practices linear ft; 1991;
Pb 10-20 for Sod: Honer, 1988;
Zn 10-20 MM Wso per Wanielistra and
Cu 50-60 linear ft Yousef, 1986
Cd so

5-30 EPA -840 B-92 002 Januely 1993

Chapter 5 1/. Siting and Design

Table 5-3. (Continued)

Removal Use with Pretreatment of
Practice - Pollutants Efficiencies Other Retrofit Runoff
Characteristics Controlled N Practices Cost Suitability References Recommended

Swirl TSS Yes High WPCF, 1989; No
Concentrator BOD Pisano, 1989;
USEPA, 1982

Catch Basins TSS 60-97 Yes $1100- High WPCF, 1989; No
COD 10-56 3000 Richards, 1981;
SWRPA, 1991

Catch Basin with TSS 70-90 High $10,000 Shaver, 1991 No
Sand Filter TN 30-40 per
COD 40-70 drainage
Pb 70-90 acre
Zn 50-80

Adsorbents in Oil High Yes $85-93 Silverman, 1989; No
Drain Inlets for 10 Industrial Pro-
pillows ducts and Lab
Safety, 1991

Holding Tank All 100 for Yes WPCF, 1989 No
first flush

Boat All Minimizes area Yes Low High IEP, 1992 No
Maintenance of pollutant
Area Design dispersal

Oil-grit TSS 10-25 No High Steel and No
Separators McGhee, 1979;
Romano, 1990;
Schueler, 1987;
WPCF, 1989

b. Implement Source control practices.

Source control practices prevent pollutants from coming into contact with runoff. Sanders with vacuum attachments
are effective at collecting hull paint sandings (Schlomann, 1992). Encouraging the use of such sanders can be
accomplished by including the price of their rental in boat haul-out and storage fees, in effect making their use by
marina patrons free. Vacuuming impervious areas can be effective in preventing pollutants from entering runoff.
A schedule (e.g., twice per week during the boating season) should be set and adhered to. Commercial vacuums
are available for approximately $765 to $1065 (Dickerson, 1992), and appro)@imately one machine is needed at a
marina of 250 slips or smaller. Tarpaulins may be placed on the ground prior to placement of a boat in a cradle
or stand and subsequent sanding/painting. The tarpaulins will collect paint chips, sanding, and paint drippings and
should be disposed of in*,a manner consistent with State policy.

M c. Sand Filter

Sand filters (also known as filtration basins) consist of layers of sand of vkrying grain size (grading from coarse sand
to fine sands or peat), with an underlying gravel bed for infiltration or perforated underdrains for discharge of treated
water. Figure 5-2 shows a conceptual design of a sand filter system. Pollutant removal is primarily achieved by
"straining" pollutants through the filtering media and by settling on top of the sand bed and/or a pretreatment pool.

EPA-840-B-92-002 JanuaT 1993 5-31

IL Siting and Design Chapter 5

Geotextile Fabric
Cleanout Pipe

18' FINE SA

L- - j

R- Perforated pipe: Geomembrane

Figure 5-2. Conceptual design of a sand filter system (Austin, Texas, 1991).

Detention time is typically 4 to 6 hours (City of Austin, 1990), although increased detention time will increase
effectiveness (Schueler et al., 1992). Sand filters may be used for drainage areas from 3 to 80 acres (City of Austin,
1990). Sand filters may be used on sites with impermeable soils since the ninoff filters through filter media, not
native soils. The main factors that influence removal rates are the storage volume, filter media, and detention time.
Three different designs may be appropriate for marina sites: off-line sedimentation/filtration basins, on-line sand/sod
filtration basins, and on-line sand basins. Performance monitoring of these designs produced average removal rates
of 85 percent for sediment, 35 percent for nitrogen, 40 percent for dissolved phosphorous, 40 percent for fecal
coliform, and 50 percent to 70 percent for trace metals (Schueler et al., 1992).

Sand filters become clogged with particulates over time. In general, clogging. Ncurs near the runoff input to the sand
filter. Frequent manual maintenance is required of sand filters, primarily raking, surface sediment removal, and
removal of trash, debris, and leaf litter. Sand filters appear to have excellent longevity because of their off-line
design and the high porosity of sand as a filtering medium (Schueler et al., 1992). Construction costs have been
estimated at $1.30 to $10.50 per cubic foot of runoff treated (Tull, 1990). Significant economies of scale exist as
sand filter size increases - (Schueler et al., 1992). Maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately 5 percent of
construction cost per year (Austin DPW, 1991, in Schueler et al., 1992).

d. Wet Pond

Wet ponds are basins designed to maintain a permanent pool of water and temporary storage capacity for storm water
runoff (see Figure 5-3). The permanent pool enhances pollutant removal by promoting the settling of particulates,
chemical coagulation and precipitation, and biological uptake of pollutants and is normally 1/2 to I inch in depth
per impervious acre. Wet ponds are typically not used for drainage areas less than 10 acres (Schueler, 1987). Pond
liners are required if the native soils are permeable or if the bedrock is fractured. Design parameters of concern
include geometry, wet pond depth, area ratio, volume ratio, and flood pool drawdown time. Ponds may be designed
to include shallow wetlands, thereby enhancing pollutant removal. Pollutant removal ranges are presented in Table
5-3. Removal rates of greater than 80 percent for total suspended solids were achieved in many studies (Schueler
et al., 1992). Pollutant removal is primarily a function of the ratio of pond volume to watershed size (USEPA,
1986).

5-32 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 1/. Siting and Design

pond buffer 33 too minimurn

lorebay

riser in embankment

nod
7 reverse pipe

iff0guldir Pool sham

I -S to 2.0 motors deep
access

aquatic bench
I no trees an embankment

native tandSCaoing around poo

Safety bench

Figure 5-3. Schematic design of an enhanced wet pond system (Schueler, 1991).

A low level of routine maintenance, including tasks such as mowing of side slopes, inspections, and clearing of
debris from outlets, is required. Wet ponds can be expected to lose approximately I percent of their runoff storage
capacity per year as a result of sediment accumulation. To maintain the pollutant removal capacity of the pond,
periodic removal of sediment is necessary. A recommended sediment cleanout cycle is every 10 to 20 years (British
Columbia Research Corp., 1991). With proper maintenance and replacement of inlet and outlet structures every 25
to 50 years, wet ponds should last in excess of 50 years (Schueler, 1987). A review of capital costs for wet ponds
revealed costs of $349 to $823 per acre treated and annual maintenance costs of 3 percent to 5 percent of the capital
cost (Schueler, 1987).

Me. Constructed Wetland

A complete discussion of created wetlands can be found in Chapter 7. Summary information on pollutant removal
efficiencies. cost, etc. is presented in Table 5-3.

M f, Infiltration BasiryTrench

Infiltration practices suitable for storm water treatment include basins and trenches. Figures 5-4 and 5-5 show
examples of infiltration basins and trenches. Like porous pavement, infiltration practices reduce runoff by increasing
ground-water recharge. Prior to infiltration, runoff is stored temporarily at the surface, in the case of infiltrati6n
basins, or in subsurface stone-filled trenches.

Infiltration devices should drain within 72 hours of a storm event and should be dry at other times. The maximum
contributing drainage area should not exceed 5 acres for an individual infiltration trench and should range from 2
to 15 acres for an infiltration basin (Schueler et al., 1992).

Pretreatment to remove coarse sediments and PAHs is necessary to prevent clogging and diminished infiltration
capacity over time. The application of infiltration devices is severely restricted by soils, water table, slope, and

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-33

fl. Siting and Design Chapter 5

Wellcap Observation Well

Emergency Overflow Berm

-Aunott miters ro
...... oot i a ras trip'...

Protective Layer of Filter Fabric

Filter Fabric Lines Sides to
- 3-8 Feet Prevent Soil Contamination
:4 Deep Filled
-with 1. 5 -2.5
-inch Diamete
Diamete
Clepn Ston

Sand Filter (6-12 Feet Deep)
...... ....
or Fabric Equivalent
... . .. ..... .
Runoff Exfiltrates
Through Undisturbed Subsoils
with a Minimum tc of 0.5 inches/Hour

Figure 5-4. Schematic design of a conventional infiltration trench (Schueler, 1987).

contributing area conditions. The sediment load from marina hull maintenance areas may limit the applicability of
infiltration devices in these areas. Infiltration devices are not practical,in soils with field-verified infiltration rates
of less than 1/2 inch per hour (Schueler et al., 1992). Soil borings should be taken well below the proposed bottom
of the trench to identify any restricting layers and the depth of the water table. Removal of soluble pollutants in

Top View

Embankment

Flat Basin Floor with
Dense Grass Turf Inlet
Riprap
Settling
Basin and
Level Spreader
Riprap
Outfall
Protection Back-up Underdrain
Emergency Spillway-

46@

Side View

Exfiltration Storage

Valve
Inlet
=b

Back-up Underdrain Pipe in Case of Standing Water Problems

Figure 5-5. Schematic design of an infiltration basin (Schueler, 1987).

5-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 /L Siting and Design

infiltration devices relies heavily on soil adsorption, and removal efficiencies are lowered in sandy soils with limited
binding capacity. Schueler (1987) reported a sediment removal efficiency of 95 percent, 60 percent to 75 percent
removal of nutrients, and 95 percent to 99 percent removal of metals using a 2-year design storm. Other
effectiveness data are presented in Table 5-3.

Infiltration basins and trenches have had high failure rates in the past (ScbOeler et al., 1992). A geotechnical
investigation and design of a sound and redundant pretreatment system should be required before construction
approval. Routine maintenance requirements include inspecting the basin after every major storm for the first few
months after construction and annually thereafter to determine whether scouring or excessive sedimentation is
reducing infiltration. Infiltration basins must be mowed twice annually to prevent woody growth. Tilling may be
required in late summer to maintain infiltration capacities in marginal soils (Schueler, 1987). Field studies indicate
that regular maintenance, is not done on most infiltration trenches/basins, and 60 percent to 70 percent were found
to require maintenance. Based on longevity studies, replacement or rehabilitation may be required every 10 years
(Schueler et al., 1992). Proper maintenance of pretreatment structures may result in increased longevity. Reported
costs for infiltration devices (Table 5-3) varied considerably based on runoff storage volume. Annual maintenance
costs varied from 3 percent to 5 percent of capital cost for infiltration basins and from 5 percent to 10 percent for
infiltration trenches.

Mg. Chemical and Filtration Treatment Systems

Chemical treatment of wastewater is the addition of certain chemicals that causes small solid particles to adhere
together to form larger particles that settle out or can be filtered. - Filtration systems remove suspended s 'olids by
forcing the liquid through a medium, such as folded paper in a cartridge filter (METRO, 1992b). A recent study
showed that such treatmeni systems can remove in excess of 90 percent of the suspended solids and 80 percent of
most toxic metals associated with hull pressure-washing wastewater (METRO, 1992a). The degree of treatment
necessary may be dependent on whether the effluent can be discharged to a sewage treatment system. The cost of
a homemade system for a small boatyard to treat 100 gallons a day was estimated at $1,560. The cost of larger
commercial systems capable of treating up to 10,000 gallons a day was estimated at $3000 to $50,000 plus site
preparation. The solid waste generated by these treatment systems may, be considered hazardous waste and may be
subject to disposal restrictions.

M h. Vegetated Filter Strip

A complete discussion of vegetated filter strips can be found in Chapter 7. Summary information on pollutant
removal efficiencies, cost, etc. is presented in Table 5-3.

Mi. Grassed Swale

Grassed swales are low-gradient conveyance channels that may be used in marinas in place of buried storm drains.
To effectively remove pollutants, the swales should have relatively low slope and adequate length and should be
planted with erosion-resistant vegetation. Swales are not practical on very flat grades or steep slopes or in wet or
poorly drained soils (SWRPC, 1991). Grassed swales can be applied in areas where maximum flow rates are not
expected to exceed 1.5 feet per second (Homer et al., 1988). The main factors influencing removal efficiency are
vegetation type, soil infiltration rate, flow depth, and flow travel time. Properly designed and functioning grassed
swales provide pollutant removal through filtering by vegetation of particulate pollutants, biological uptake of
nutrients, and infiltration of runoff. Schueler (1987) suggests the use of check dams in swales to slow the water
velocity and provide a greater opportunity for settling and infiltration. Swales are designed to deal with concentrated
flow under most conditions, resulting in low pollutant removal rates (SWRPC, 199 1). Removal rates are most likely
higher under low-flow conditions when sheet flow occurs. This may help to explain that the reported percent
removal for TSS varied from 0 to greater than 90 percent (W-C, 1991). Wanielista and Yousef (1986) stated that
swales are a useful component in a storm water management system and removal efficiencies can be improved by
designing swales to infiltrate and retain runoff. Swales should be used only as part of a storm water management
system and may be used with the other practices listed under this management measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-35

Ii. Siting and Design Chapter 5

Maintenance requirements for grassed swales include mowing and periodic sediment cleanout. Surveys by Homer
et al. (1988) and in the Washington area indicate that the vast majority of swales operate as designed with relatively
minor maintenance. The primary maintenance problem was the gradual build-up of soil and grass adjacent to roads,
which prevents the entry of runoff into swales. The cost of a grassed swale will vary depending on the geometry
of the swale (height and width) and the method of establishing the vegetation (see Table 5-3). Construction costs
for grassed swales are typically less than those for curb-and-gutter systems. Regular maintenance costs for
conventional swales are minimal. Cleanout of sediments trapped behind check dams and spot vegetation repair may
be required (Schueler et al., 1992).

Mj. Porous Pavement

Porous pavement has a layer of porous top course covering an additional layer of gravel. A crushed stone-filled
ground-water recharge bed is typically installed beneath these top layers. The runoff infiltrates through the porous
asphalt layer and into the underground recharge bed. The runoff then exfiltrates out of the recharge bed into the
underlying soils or into a perforated pipe system (see Figure 5-6). When operating properly, porous pavement can
replicate predevelopment hydrology, increase ground-water recharge, and provide excellent pollutant removal (up
to 80 percent of sediment, trace metals, and organic matter). The use of porous pavement is highly constrained and
requires deep and permeable soils, restricted traffic, and suitable adjacent land uses. Pretreatment of runoff is
necessary to remove coarse particulates and prevent clogging and diminished infiltration capacity.

The major advantages of porous pavement are (1) it may be used foi parking areas and therefore does not use
additional site space and (2) when operating properly, it provides high long-term removal of solids and other
pollutants. However, significant problems exist in the use of porous pavement. Porous pavement sites have a high
failure rate (75 percent) (Schueler et al., 1992). High sediment loads and oil result in clogging and eventual failure
of the system. Therefore, porous pavement is not recommended for treatment of runoff from hull cleaning/
maintenance areas. Porous pavement is appropriate for low-intensity parking areas where restrictions on use (no
heavy trucks) and maintenance (no deicing chemicals, sand, or improper resurfacing) can be enforced. Quarterly
vacuum sweeping and/or jet hosing is needed to maintain porosity. Field data, however, indicate that this routine
maintenance practice is not frequently followed (Schueler et al., 1992).

The cost of porous pavement should be measured as the incremental cost, or the cost beyond that required for
conventional asphalt pavement (up to 50 percent more). To determine the full value of porous pavement, however,
the savings from reducing land consumption and eliminating storm systems such as curbs, inlets, and pipes should
be considered (Cahill Associates, 1991). Also, the additional cost of directing pervious area runoff around porous
pavement should be considered. Maintenance of porous pavement consists of quarterly vacuum sweeping and may
be 1 percent to 2 percent of the original construction costs (Schueler et al., 1992). Other maintenance costs include
rehabilitation of clogged systems. In a Maryland study, 75 percent of the porous pavement systems surveyed had
partially or totally clogged within 5 years. Failure was attributed to inadequate construction techniques, low
permeable soils and/or restricting layers, heavy vehicular traffic, and resurfacing with nonporous pavement materials
(Schueler et al., 1992).

Wk. Oil-Grit Separators

Oil-grit separators (see Figure 5-7) may be used to treat water from small areas where other measures are infeasible
and are applicable where activities contribute large loads of grease, oil, mud, sand, and trash to runoff (Steel and
McGhee, 1979). Oil-grit separators are mainly suitable for oil droplets 150 microns in diameter or larger. Little
is known regarding the oil droplet size in storm water; however, droplets less than 150 microns in diameter may be
more representative of storm water (Romano, 1990). Basic design criteria include providing 200-400 cubic feet of
oil storage per acre of area directed to the structure. The depth of the oil storage should be approximately 3-4 feet,
and the depth of grit storage should be approximately 1.5-2.5 feet minimum under the oil storage. Application is
.imited to highly impervious catchments that are 2 acres or smaller.

5-36 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy I

Chapter 5 /L Siting and Design

Asphalt is Vacuum Swept. Site Posted to Prevent
Sam Keeo$ Off-site POSTED' Resurfacing and Use of
R t
unaft and Sediment Followed by Jot Hosing 12 Atir lahl
to Keep Par.. Free as, 'arid to
Temporary Storage tnct -0;
Out. Provides -14-4 1 Resas Truck Park, .no Q
49;:fXr.
Porous Asphalt
Overflow
Pipe 4- a.

Firter ratin Yew Store" Volume Exceeded Observation
well
Lines S
0@
of Re tore Flaservolir Maine in 48-72
S IR
'ARM%1L 0;io MU Gravel
to Pit
Sediment I Course or
inch
M mill 1101 IN :and Layer
Undisturbed Sod with an to Greater Than 0.27 inches/Mour.
Preferably 0 05 =our or More

Side View

Porous Pavement Course
(2.5-4.0 inches Thickj
Filter Course
(0.5 inch Diameter Gravel.
1.0 inch Thicid
2,
Mil M_
Stone Reservoir
q3A9-;: (1.5-3.0 inch
-0 4Q.6&-X? "t Diameter Stone)
d
-!6.? Depth Variable DOPWWft
on the Storage Volume
Needed. StOMP
old SON* Between
S ones
i6

Filter Course lGreled. 2 inch Deeol
Filter Fabric Layer
ndisturbed Sod

Figure 5-6. Schematic design of a porous pavement system (Schueler, 1987).

Actual pollutant removal occurs only when the chambers are cleaned out. Re-suspension limits long-term removal
efficiency if the structure is not cleaned out. Periodic inspections and maintenance of the structure should be done
at least twice a year (Schueler, 1987). With proper maintenance, the oil/grit separator should have at least a 50-year
life span.

MI. Holding Tanks

Simply put, holding tanks act as underground detention basins that capture and hold storm water until it can receive
treatment. There are generally two classes of tanks: first flush tanksand settling tanks (WPCF, 1989). First flush
tanks are used when the time of concentration of the impervious area is 15 minutes or less. The contents of the tank
are transported via pumpout or gravity to another location for treatment. Excess runoff is discharged via the
upstream overflow outlet when the tank is filled. Settling tanks are used when a pronounced first flush is not
expected. A settling tank is similar to a primary settling tank in that only treated flow is discharged. The load to'
the clarifier overflow is usually restricted to about 0.2 fO/sec/ac of impervious area. If the inflow exceeds this,
upstrearn overflows are activated. Settling tanks require periodic cleaning.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 5-37

11. Siting and Design Chapter 5

Side View

Access
Manholes
Stormdrain I
Reinforced
Inlet Concrete
Construction
Inver Elbow
't u
Pip* Reg latiisi
Trash Rack Protects Water
7Wo 6 Inch Orifices Levels Overflow
L
Pipe

Permanent Pool
400 Cubic Feet
of Storage Per
Contributing
Acre, 4 Feet
Deep

First Chamber Second Chamber Third Chamber
(Sediment Trapping) (Oil Separation)

Figure 5-7. Schematic design of a water quality inlet/oil grit separator (Schueler, 1987).

W m. Swirl Concentrator

A swirl concentrator is a small, compact solids separation device with no moving parts. During wet weather the
unit's outflow is throttled, causing the unit to fill and to self-induce a swirling vortex. Secondary flow currents
rapidly separate first flush settleable grit and floatable matter (WPCF, 1989). The pollutant matter is concentrated
for treatment, while the cleaner, treated flow discharges to receiving waters. Swirl concentrators are intended to
operate under high-flow regimes and may be used in conjunction with settling tanks. EPA published a design manual
for swirl and helical bend pollution control devices (USEPA, 1982). However, monitoring data reveal that swirls
built in accordance with this manual should be operated at lesser flows than the design indicates to achieve the
desired efficiency (Pisano, 1989). Total suspended solids and BOD concentration removal efficiencies in excess of
60 percent have been reported, particularly under first flush conditions (WPCF, 1989). In another report removal
effectiveness of total suspended solids from current U.S. swirls varied from a low of 5.2 percent to a high of 36.7
percent excluding first flush, 32.6 percent to 80.6 percent for first flush only, and 16.4 percent to 33.1 percent for
entire storm events (Pisano, 1989). Removal efficiencies are dependent on the initial concentrations of pollutants,
flow rate, size of structure, when the sumps in the catchments were cleaned, and other parameters (WPCF, 1989;
and Pisano, 1989).

M n. Catch Basins

Catch basins with flow restrictors may be used to prevent large pulses of storm water from entering surface waters
at one time. They provide some settling capacity because the bottom of the structure is typically lowered 2 to 4 feet
below the outlet pipe. Above- and below-ground storage is used to hold runoff until the receiving pipe can handle
the flow. Temporary surface ponding may be used to induce infiltration and reduce direct discharge. Overland flow
can be induced from sensitive areas to either sink discharge points or other storage locations. Catch basins with flow
w
'a

0 *rllow
Pvp e

restrictors are not very effective at pollutant removal by themselves (WPCF, 1989) and should be used in conjunction
with other practices. Removal efficiencies for larger particles and debris are high and make catch basins aitractive
as pretreatment systems for other practices. The traps of catch basins require periodic cleaning and maintenance.

5-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 /1. Siting and Design

Cleaning catch basins can result in large pulses of pollutants in the first subsequent storm if the method of cleaning
results in the disturbance and breaking up of residual matter and some material is left in the catch basin (Richards
et al., 198 1). With proper maintenance, a catch basin should have at least a 50-year life span (Schueler et al., 1992).

o. Catch Basin with Sand Filter

A catch basin with sand filter consists of a sedimentation chamber and a chamber filled with sand. The
sedimentation chamber removes coarse particles, helps to prevent clogging of the filter medium, and provides sheet
flow into the filtration chamber. The sand chamber filters smaller-sized pollutants. Catch basins with sand filters
are effective in highly impervious areas, where other practices have limited usefulness. The effectiveness of the
sediment chamber for removal of the different particles depends on the particles' settling velocity and the chamber's
length and depth. The effectiveness of the filtration medium depends on its depth.

Catch basins with sand filters should be inspected at least annually, and periodically the top layer of sand with
deposition of sediment should be removed and replaced. In addition, the accumulated sediment in the sediment
chamber should be removed periodically (Shaver, 1991). With proper maintenance and replacement of the sand, a
catch basin with sand filter should have at least a 50-year life span (Schueler et al., 1992).

Mp. Adsorbents in Drain Inlets

While there is some tendency for oil and grease to sorb to trapped particles, oil and grease will not ordinarily be
captured by catch basins, holding tanks, or swirl concentrators. Adsorbent material placed in these structures in a
manner that will allow sufficient contact between the adsorbent and the storm water will remove much of the oil and
grease load of runoff (Silverman and Stenstrom, 1989). In addition, the performance of oil-grit separators could be
enhanced through the use of adsorbents. An adsorbent/catch basin system that treats the majority of the grease and
oil in storm water runoff could be designed, and annual replacement of the adsorbent would be sufficient to maintain
the system in most cases (Silverman et al., 1989). Manufacturers report that their products are able to sorb 10 to
25 times their weight in oil (Industrial Products, 1991; Lab Safety, 1991). The cost of 10 pillows, 24 inches by 14
inches by 5 inches (total weight 24 pounds), is approximately $85 to $93 (Lab Safety, 1991).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 19,93 5-39

Siting and Design Chapter 5
N

F. Fueling Station Design Management Measure

Design fueling stations to allow for ease in cleanup of spills.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas where fueling stations
are to be added or moved. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject
to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and
will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Spillage is a source of petroleum hydrocarbons in marinas (USEPA, 1985a). Most petroleum-based fuels are lighter
than water and thus float on the water's surface. This property allows for their capture if petroleum containment
equipment is used in a timely manner.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this measure is based on the preference for pollution prevention in the design of marinas rather than
reliance on control of material that is released without forethought as to how it will be cleaned up. The possibility
of spills during fueling operations always exists. Therefore, arrangements should be made to contain pollutants
released from fueling operations to minimize the spread of pollutants through and out of the marina.

4. Practices

N a. Locate and design fueling stations so that spills can be contained in a limited area.

The location and design of the fueling station should allow for booms to be deployed to surround a fuel spill.
Pollutant reduction effectiveness and the cost of the design of fueling areas are difficult to quantify. When designing
a new marina, the additional costs of ensuring that the design incorporates effectiv6 cleanup considerations should
be minimal.

aRefer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

5-40 EPA-840-9-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 H. Siting and Design

N b. Design a Spill Contingency Plan.

A Spill Contingency Plan must be developed for fuel storage and dispensation areas. The plan must meet local and
State requirements and must include spill emergency procedures, including health and safety, notification, and spill
containment and control procedures. Marina personnel must be properly trained in spill containment and control
procedures.

M c. Design fueling stations with spill containment equipment

Appropriate containment and control materials must be stored in a clearly marked, easily accessible cabinet or locker.
The cabinet or locker must contain absorbent pads and booms, fire extinguishers, a copy of the Spill Contingency
Plan, and other equipment deemed suitable. Easily used effective oil spill containment equipment is readily available
from commercial suppliers. Booms that can be strung around the spill, absorb up to 25 times their weight in
petroleum products, and remain floating after saturation are available at a cost of approximately $160 for four booms
8 inches in diameter and 10 feet long with a weight of 40 pounds (Lab Safety, 1991). Oil-absorbent sheets, rolls,
and pillows are also available at comparable prices.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-41

11. Siting and Design Chapter 5

G. Sewage Facility Management Measure . . I ...

Install pumpout, dump,station, and restroom facilities where needed at new and
expanding marinas to reduce the release of sewage to surface waters. Design these
facilities to allow ease of access and post signage to promote use by the boating
public.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas in areas where
adequate marine sewage collection facilities do not exist. Marinas that do not provide services for vessels that have
marine sanitation devices (MSDs) do not need to have pumpouts, although dump stations for portable toilets and
restrooms should be available. This measure does not address direct discharges from vessels covered under CWA
section 312. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of i990, States are subject to a number of
requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Three types of onshore collection systems are available: fixed point systems, portable/mobile systems, and dedicated
slipside systems. Information on the installation and operation of sewage pumpout stations is available from the State
of Maryland (MDDNR, 1991).

EPA Region I determined that, in general, a range of one pumpout facility per 300-600 boats with holding tanks
(type III MSDs) should !be sufficient to meet the demand for pumpout services in most harbor areas (USEPA,
199 1 b). EPA Region 4 suggested one facility for every 200 to 250 boats with holding tanks and provided a formula
for estimating the number of boats with holding tanks (USEPA, 1985a). The State of Michigan has instituted a no-
discharge policy and mandates one pumpout facility for every 100 boats with holding tanks.

According to the 1989 American Red Cross Boating Survey, there were'approximately 19 million recreational boats
in the United States (USCG, 1990). About 95 percent of these boats were less than 26 feet in length. A very large
number of these boats used a portable toilet, rather than a larger holding tank. Given the large percentage of smaller
boats, facilities for the dumping of portable toilet waste should be provided at marinas that service significant
numbers of boats under 26 feet in length.

Two of the most important factors in successfiilly preventing sewage discharge are (1) providing "adequate and
reasonably available" pu0pout facilities and (2) conducting a comprehensive boater education program (USEPA,
1991b). The Public Education Management Measure presents additional information on this subject. One reason
that pumpout use in Puget Sound is higher than that in other areas could be the extensive boater education program
established in that area.

Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

5-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 /1. Siting and Design

Chemicals from holding ranks may relard the normal functioning of septic systems, Information on septic systems
can be found in Chapter 4. Neither the chen-dcals nor the concentration of marine wastes has proven to be a problem
for properly operating public sewage treatment plants.

3. Management Measure Selection

Measure selection is based on the need to reduce discharges of sanitary waste and the fact that most coastal States
and many localities already require the installation of pumpout facilities and restrooms at all or selected marinas
(Appendix 5A). Other States encourage the installation and use of pumpouts through grant programs and boater
education.

In a Long Island Sound study, only about 5 percent of the boats were expected to use pumpouts. Given the low
documented usage by boaters at marinas with pumpouts, the time, inconvenience, and cost associated with pumpouts
were determined to be more of a deterrent to use than was lack of availability of facilities (Tanski, 1989). A Puget
Sound study found that 35 percent of the boats responding to a survey had holding tanks (type III MSDs). Eighty
percent of these boats had y-valves that allowed illegal discharge. About half of these boats used pumpouts. The
boaters surveyed felt that the most effective methods to ensure proper disposal of boat waste would be the
improvement of waste-disposal facilities and boater education (Cheyne and Carter, 1989). Another Puget Sound
study found that the problem of marine sewage waste could best be addressed through containment of wastes onboard
the vessel and subsequent onshore disposal through the provision of adequate numbers of clean, accessible,
economical, and easily used pumpout stations (Seabloom et al., 1989). Designation and advertisement of no-
discharge zones can also increase boater use of purnpout facilities (MDDNR, 1991).

4. Practices

M a. Fixed-Point Systems

Fixed-point collection systems include one or more centrally located sewage pumpout staoons (see Figure 5-8).
These stations are generally located at the end of a pier, often on a fueling pier so that fueling and pumpout
operations can be combined. A boat requiring pumpout services docks at the pumpout station. A flexible hose is
connected to the wastewater fitting in the hull of the boat, and pumps or a vacuum system move the wastewater to
an onshore holding tank, a public sewer system, a private treatment facility, or another approved disposal facility.
In cases where the boats in the marina use only small portable (removable) toilets, a satisfactory disposal facility
could be a dump station.

M b. Portable Systems

Portable/mobile systems are similar to fixed-point systems and in some situations may be used in their place at a
fueling dock. The portable unit includes a pump and a small storage tank. The unit is connected to the deck fitting
on the vessel, and wastewater is pumped from the vessel's holding tank to the pumping unit's storage tank. When
the storage tank is full, its contents are discharged into a municipal sewage system or a holding tank for removal
by a septic tank pumpout service. In many instances, portable pumpout facilities are believed to be the most
logistically feasible, convenient, accessible (and, therefore, used), and economically affordable way to ensure proper
disposal of boat sewage 'Natchez, 1991). Portable systems can be difficult to move about a marina and this factor
should be considered when assessing the correct type of system for a marina. Another portable/mobile pumpout unit
that is an emerging technology and is popular in the Great Salt Pond in Block Island, New York, is the radio-

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-@43

U. Siting and Design Chapter 5

high water

Portable Pumpout unit comes
along ids houseboat and
V yessel for punbout
flexible connecuo

low water

to municipal sewer system

force main

Portablelmobile system,
contents emptied onshore
festroxim building

/_111 / gangway-
flexible connection
low water 010"

Purnpout units

I
Figure 5-8. Examples of pumpout devices.

dispatched pumpolut boat. The pumpout boat goes to a vessel in response to a radio-transmitted request, pumps the
holding tank, and moves on to the next requesting vessel. This approach eliminates the inconvenience of lines,
docking, and maneuvering vessels in high-traffic areas.

Costs associated with pumpouts vary according to the size of the marina and the type of purnpout system. Table
5-4 presents 1985 cost information for three marina sizes and two types of pumpout systems (USEPA, 1985a). More
recent systems are less expensive, with a homemade portable system costing less than $250 in parts and commercial
portable units available for between $2,000 and $4,000 (Natchez; 1991).

W c. Dedicated Slipside Systems

Dedicated slipside systems provide continuous wastewater collection at a slip. Slipside pumpout should be provided
to live-aboard vessels. The remainder of the marina can still be served by either marina-wide or mobile pumpout
systems.

5-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 1/. Siting and Design

Table 5-4. Annual Per Slip Pumpout Costs for Three Collection Systems'
(USEPA, 1985a)

Marina-Wide Portable/Mobile Slipside

Small Marina (200 slips)
Capital Costs 15 b 150 102b
O&M Costs 110 200 50
Total Cost/SlipNear 125 215 152

Medium Marina (500 slips)
Capital Costs 17 10 101
O&M Costs 90 160 40
Total Cost/SlipNeai 107 176 141

Large Marina (2000 slips)
Capital Costs 16 10 113
O&M Costs 80 140 36
Total Cost/SlipNear 96 150 149

1985 data; all figures in dollars.
Based on 12% interest, 15 years amortization.
12% interest, 15 years on piping; 12% interest, 15 years on portable units.

Md. Adequate Signage

Marina operators should post ample signs prohibiting the discharge of sanitary waste from boats into the waters of
the State, including the marina basin, and also explaining the availability of pumpout services and public restroom
facilities. Signs should also fully explain the procedures and rules governing the use of the pumpout facilities. Xn
example of an easily understandable sign that has been used to advertise the availability of pumpout facilities is
presented in Figure 5-9 (Keko, Inc., 1992).

PUMP OUT

STATION
@@' L=jL-d

Figure 5-9. Example signage advertising pumpout
availability (Keko, Inc., 1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-45

11L Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

III. MARINA AND BOAT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

During the course of normal marina operations, various activities and locations in the marina can generate polluting
substances. Such activities include waste disposal, boat fueling, and boat maintenance and cleaning; such locations
include storage areas ior materials required for these activities and hull maintenance areas (METRO, 1992a;
Tobiasson and Kollmeyer, 1991). Of special concern are substances that can be toxic to aquatic biota, pose a threat
to human health, or degrade water quality.' Paint sandings and chippings; oil and grease, fuel, detergents, and
sewage are examples (METRO, 1992a; Tobiasson and Kollmeyer, 1991).

It is important that marina operators and patrons take steps to control or minimize the entry of these substances into
marina waters. For the most part, this can be accomplished with simple preventative measures such as performing
these activities on protected sites, locating servicing equipment where the risk of spillage is reduced (see Siting and
Design section of this chapter), providing adequate and well-marked disposal facilities, and educating the boating
public about the importance of pollution prevention. The benefit of effective pollution prevention to the marina
operator can be measured as the relative low cost of pollution prevention compared to potentially high environmental
clean-up costs (Tobiasson and Kollmeyer, 1991).

For those planning to build a marina, attention to the environmental concerns of marina operation during the marina
design phase will significantly reduce the potential for generating pollution from these activities. For existing
marinas, minor changes in operations, staff training, and boater education should help protect marina waters from
these sources of pollution. The management measures that follow address the control of pollution from manna
operation and maintenance activities.

'See Section IT for further discussion.

5-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 11L Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

A. Solid Waste Management Measure

Properly dispose of solid wastes produced by the operation, cleaning, maintenance,
and repair of boats to limit entry of solid wastes to surface waters.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to new and expanding' marinas. Under the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop
coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

Marina operators are responsible for determining what types of wastes will be generated at the marina and ensuring
proper disposal. Marina operators are thus responsible for the contents of their dumpsters and the management of
solid waste on their property. Hazardous waste should never be placed in dumpsters. Liquid waste should not be
mixed with solid waste but rather disposed of properly by other methods (see Liquid Waste Management Measure).

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because marinas have shown the ability to minimize the entry of solid waste into surface
waters through implementation of some or all of the practices. Marinas generate a variety of solid waste through
the activities that occur on marina property and at their piers. If adequate disposal facilities are not available there
is a potential for disposal of solid waste in surface waters or on shore areas where the material can wash into surface
waters. Marina patrons and employees are more likely to properly dispose of solid waste if given adequate
opportunity and disposal facilities. Under Federal law, marinas and port facilities must supply adequate and
convenient waste disposal facilities for their customers (NOAA, 1999).

4. Practices

'Refer to Section LH (General Applicability) for additional information on expansions of existing marinas.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 5-47

/A Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

a. Perform boat maintenancelcleaning above the waterline in such a way that no debris falls into the
water. 10
This subject is also addre@sed under the Boat Cleaning Management Measure later in this chapter.

Mb. Provide and clearly mark designated work areas for boat repair and maintenance. Donotpermit
work outside designated areas.

M c. Clean hull maintenance areas regularly to remove trash, sandings, paint chips, etc.

Vacuuming is the preferred method of collecting these wastes.

M d. Perform abrasive blasting within spray booths or plastic tafp e@closures to prevent residue from
being carried into surface waters. If tarps are used, blasting should not be done on windy days.

M e. Provide proper disposal facilities to marina patrons. Covered dumpsters or other covered
receptacles are preferred.

While awaiting transfer to a landfill, dumpsters in which items su6h as used oil filters are stored should be covered
to prevent rain from leaching material from the dumpster onto the ground.

M f. Provide facilities for the eventual recycling of appropriate materials.

Recycling of nonhazardous solid waste such as scrap metal, aluminum, glass, wood pallets, paper, and cardboard is
recommended wherever feasible. Used lead-acid batteries should be stored on an impervious surface, under cover,
and sent to or picked up by an approved recycler. Receipts should be retained for inspection.

5-48 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 11L Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

.. .. . ...
B. Fish Waste Management Measure

Promote sound fish waste management through a combination of fish-cleaning
restrictions, public education, and proper disposal of fish waste.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where fish waste is determined to be a
source of water pollution. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to
a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and
will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Fish waste can result in water quality problems at marinas with large numbers of fish landings or at marinas that
have limited fish landings but poor flushing. The amount of fish waste disposed of into a small area such as a
marina can exceed that existing naturally in the water at any one time. Fish waste decomposes, which requires
oxygen. In sufficient quantity, disposal of fish waste can thus be a cause of dissolved oxygen depression as well
as odor problems (DNREC, 1990; McDougal et al., i986).

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because marinas have shown the ability to prevent fish-waste-induced water quality or
aesthetic problems through implementation of the identified practices. Marinas that cater to patrons who fish a large
amount can produce a large amount of fish waste at the marina from fish cleaning. If adequate disposal facilities
are not available, there is a potential for disposal of fish waste in areas without enough flushing to prevent
decomposition and the resulting dissolved oxygen depression and odor problems. Marina patrons and employees
are more likely to properly dispose of fish waste if told of potential consequences and provided adequate and
convenient disposal facilities. States require, and many marinas have already implemented, this management measure
(Appendix 5A).

4. Practices

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-49

1/1. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

M a. Establish fish-cleaning areas.

Particular areas can be set aside or designated for the cleaning of fish, and receptacles can be provided for the waste.
Boaters and fishermen should be advised to use only these areas for fish cleaning, and the waste collected in the
receptacles should be disposed of properly.

b. Issue rules governing the conduct and location of fish-cleaning operations.

Marinas can issue rules regarding the cleaning of fish at the marina, depending on the type of services offered by
'the marina and its clientele. Marinas not equipped to handle fish wastes may prohibit the cleaning of fish at the
'marina; those hosting fishing competitions or having a large fi'shing clientele should establish fish-cleaning areas with
specific rules for their use and should establish penalties for violation of the rules.

M c. Educate boaters regarding the importance of proper fish-cleaning practices.

Boaters should be educated about the problems created by discarding their fish waste into marina waters, proper
disposal practices, and the ecological advantages of cleaning their fish at sea and discarding the wastes into the water
where the fish were caught. Signs posted on the docks (especially where fish cleaning has typically been done) and
talks with boaters during the course of other marina operations can help to educate boaters about marina rules
governing fish waste and its proper disposal.

M d. Implement fish composting where appropriate.

A law passed in 1989 in New York forbids discarding fish waste, with exceptions, into fresh water or within 100
feet of shore (White et al., 1989). Contaminants in some fish leave few alternatives for disposing of fish waste, so
Cornell University and the New York Sea Grant Extension Program conducted a fish composting project to deal with
the over 2 million pounds of fish waste generated by the salmonid fishery each year. They found that even with this
quantity of waste, if composting was properly conducted the problems of odor, rodents, and maggots were minimal
and the process was effective (White et al., 1989). Another method of fish waste composting described by the
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute is suitable for amounts of compost ranging from a bucketful to the
quantities produced by a fish-processing plant (Frederick et al., 1989).

5-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 /A Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

C. Liquid Material Management Measure

Provide and maintain appropriate storage, transfer, containment, and disposal
facilities for liquid material, such as oil, harmful solvents, antifreeze, and paints, and
encourage recycling of these materials.
L

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where liquid materials used in the
maintenance, repair, or operation of boats are stored. *Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity
with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States
is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval
Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

This management measure minimizes entry of potentially harmful liquid materials into marina and surface waters
through proper storage and disposal. Marina operators are responsible for the proper storage of liquid materials for
sale and for final disposal of liquid wastes, such as waste fuel, used oil, spent solvents, and spent antifreeze. Marina
operators should decide how liquid waste material is to be placed in the appropriate containers and disposed of and
should inform their patrons.

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because marinas have shown the ability to prevent entry of liquid waste into marina and
surface waters. Marinas generate a variety of liquid waste through the activities that occur on marina property and
at their piers. If adequate disposal facilities are not available, there is a potential for disposal of liquid waste in
surface waters or on shore areas where the material can wash into surface waters. Marina patrons and employees
are more likely to properly dispose of liquid waste if given adequate opportunity and disposal facilities. The
practices on which the measure is based are available. Many coastal States already have mandatory or voluntary
programs that satisfy this management measure (Appendix 5A).

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chap@eer 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-51

/11. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

Na. Build curbs, berms, or other barriers around areas used for the storage of liquid material to contain
spills. Store materials in areas impervious to the type of material stored.

To contain spills, curbs or berms should be installed around areas where liquid material is mored. The berms or
curbs should be capable of containing 10 percent of the liquid material stored or I 10 percent of the largest container,
whichever is greater (WADOE, 1991). There should not be drains in the floor. Implementation of this practice will
prevent spilled material from directly entering surface waters. The cost of 6-inch cement curbs placed around a
cement pad is $10 to $14 per linear foot (Means, 1990). The cost of a temporary spill dike capable of absorbing
50 liters of material (5 inches in diameter and 30 feet long) is approximately $110 (Lab Safety, 1991).

Ob. Separate containers for the disposal of waste oil, waste gasoline; used antifreeze; and waste
diesel, kerosene, and mineral spirits should be available and clearly labeled.

Waste oil includes waste engine oil, transmission fluid, hydraulic fluid, and gear oil. A filter should be drained
before disposal by placing the filter in a funnel over the appropriate waste collection container. The containers
should be stored on an impermeable surface and covered in a manner that will prevent rainwater from entering the
containers. Containers should be clearly marked to prevent mixing of the materials with other liquids-and to assist
in their identification and proper disposaj. Waste should be removed from the marina site by someone permitted
to handle such waste, and receipts should be retained for inspection.

Care should be taken to avoid combining different types of antifreeze. Standard antifreeze (ethylene glycol, usually
identifiable by its blue or greenish color) should be recycled. If recycling is not available, propylene-glycol-based
anti-freeze should be used because it is less toxic when introduced to the environment. Propylene glycol is often
a pinkish hue (Gannon, 1990). Many States, including Maryland, Washington, and Oregon, have developed programs
to encourage the proper disposal of used antifreeze.
Fifty-five-gallon closed-head polyethylene or steel drums approved for shipping 'hazardous and nonhazardous
materials are available commercially at a cost of approximately $50 each. Open-head steel drums (approximately
$60 each) with self-closing steel drum covers (approximately $90 each) may also be used (Lab Safety, 1991). A
package of five labels that may be affixed to drums (10 inches by 10 inches) costs approximately $10.

M c. Direct marina patrons as to the proper disposal of all liquid materials through the use of signs,
mailings, and other means.

If individuals within a marina collect, contain, and dispose of their own liquid waste, signs and education programs
(see Public Education Management Measure) should direct them to proper recycling and disposal options.

5-52 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

D. Petroleum Control Management Measure

Reduce the amount of fuel and off from boat bilges and fuel tank air vents entering
marina and surface waters.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to boats that have inboard fuel tanks. Under the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they
develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing
so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department
of Commerce.

2. Description

Fuel and oil are commonly released into surface waters during fueling operations through the fuel tank air vent,
during bilge pumping, and from spills directly into surface waters and into boats during fueling. Oil and grease from
the operation and maintenance of inboard engines are a source of petroleum in bilges.

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because (1) the practices have shown the ability to minimize the introduction of petroleum
from fueling and bilge pumping and thus prevent a visible sheen on the water's surface and (2) New York State
requires the installation of fuel/air separators on new boats. Boaters and fuel station attendants often inadvertently
spill fuel when "topping off' fuel tanks. They know the tank is full when fuel comes out of the mandatory air vent.
This is preventable by the use of attachments on the air vent that suppress overflowing. Boat.bilges have automatic
and manual pumps that empty directly to marina or surface waters. When activated, these pumps often cause direct
discharge of oil and grease from operation and maintenance of inboard engines. Oil-absorbing bilge pads contain
oil and grease and prevent their discharge.

4. Practices

0 a. Use automatic shut-off nozzles and promote the use of luellair separators on air vents or tank
stems of inboard fuel tanks to reduce the amount of fuel spilled into surface waters during fueling
of boats.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-153

1/1. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

During the fueling of inboard tanks fuel can be spilled into surface waters due to overfilling the fuel tank. An
automatic shut-off nozzle is partially effective in reducing the potential for overfilling, but often during fueling
operations fuel overflows from the air vent on the fuel tank of the boat. Attachments for vents on fuelitanks, which
act as fuel/air separators, are available commercially. These devices release air and vapor but contain overflowing
fuel. The State of New York passed a law in 1990 that requires that all boats sold in New York after January 1,
1994, have air vents on their fuel tanks that are designed to prevent fuel overflows or spills. The commercial cost
of these devices is approximately $85 per unit. Marinas can make these units available in their retail stores and post
notices describing their spill prevention benefits and availability.

b. Promote the use of oil-absorbing materials in the bilge areas of all boats with inboard engines.
Examine these materials at least once a year and replace as necessary. Recycle them if possible,
or dispose of them in accordance with petroleum disposal regulations.

Marina operators can advertise the availability of such oil-absorbing material or can include the cost of installation
of such material in yearly dock fees. Marina operators can also insert a clause in their leasing agreements that
boaters will use oil-absorbing material in their bilges. Pillows/pads that absorb oils and petroleum-based products
and not water are available. These pillows/pads absorb up to 12 times their weight in oil and cost approximately
$40 for a package of 10 (Lab Safety, 1991).

5-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 5 Ill. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

. . . ..........
E. Boat Cleaning Management Measure
I
For boats that are in the water, perform cleaning operations to minimize, to the
extent practicable, the release to surface waters of (a) harmful cleaners and solvents
and (b) paint from in-water hull cleaning.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where boat topsides are cleaned and
marinas where hull scrubbing in the water has been shown to result in water or sediment quality problems. Under
the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they
develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing
so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department
of Commerce.

2. Description

This measure minintizes the use and release of potentially harmful cleaners and bottom paints to marina and surface
waters. Marina employ0es and boat owners use a variety of boat cleaners, such as teak cleaners, fiberglass polishers,
and detergents. Boats are cleaned over the water or onshore adjacent to the water. This results in a high probability
of some of the cleaning material entering the water. Boat bottom paint is released into marina waters when boat
bottoms are cleaned in the water.

3. Management, Measure Selection

This measure was selected because marinas have shown the ability to prevent entry of boat cleaners and harmful
solvents as well as the release of bottom paint into marina and surface waters. The practices on which the measure
is based are available, minimize entry of harmful material into marina waters, and still allow boat owners to clean
their boats.

4. Practices

a. Wash the boat hull above the waterline by hand. Where feasible, remove the boat from the water
and perform cleaning where debris can be captured and properly disposed of
40

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993 5-55

HL Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

Mb. Detergents and cleaning compounds used for washing boats should be phosphate-free and
biodegradable, and amounts used should be kept to a minimum.

M c. Discourage the use of detergents containing ammonia, sodium hypochlodle, chlorinated solvents,
petroleum distillates, or lye.

M d. Do not allow in-the-water hull scraping oranyprocess that occurs underwater to remove paint from
the boat hull.

The material removed Erom boat hulls treated with antifoulant paint contains high levels of toxic metals (see Table
5-1).

5-56 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 111. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

............ . ... . .
. . . . . . . . ....... . .. .. .. . . .. .
F. Public Education Management Measure

Public education/outreach/training programs should be instituted for boaters, as well
as marina owners and operators, to prevent improper disposal of polluting material.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to all environmental control authorities in areas where
marinas are located. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will
have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The best method of preventing pollution from marinas and boating, activities is to educate the public about the causes
and effects of pollution and methods to prevent it. One of the primary reasons for the success of existing programs
is the widespread support for these efforts. Measuring the efficiency of the separate practices of public education
and outreach programs can be extremely difficult. Programs need to be examined in terms of long-term impacts.

Creating a public education program should involve user groups and the community in all phases of program
development and implementation. The program should be suited to a specific area and should use creative
promotional material to spread its message. General information on how to educate and involve the public can be
found in Managing Nonpoint Pollution: An Action Plan Handbookfor Puget Sound Watersheds (PSWQA, 1989) and
Dealing with A nnex.V - Reference Guide for Ports (NOAA, 1988).

3. Management Measure Selection

Measure selection is based on low cost (Table 5-5), proven effectiveness, availability, and widespread use by many
States (Appendix 5A).

4. Practices

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-57

Ill. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

Table 5-5. Approximate Costs for Educationai and Promotional Material
(NOAA, 1988)
Item Quantity Cost-
Brochures 10,000 2,100

Posters 5,000 500

Decals 6,000 900
Coloring Bc@ks 3,000 1,000

Stickers 20,000 450

Signs (wood) 20 800

Litter bags 8,000 1,400

Litter bags (beach cleanup) 2,000 free

Slide shows 5 250

Photo displays 9 1,000

Sweatshirts 288 2,200

Hats 432 1,100

Notices 40 25

Videotaped programs (copies) 4 200
Radio PSAs (copies, 7 announcements) 25: 250
TV Public Service Announcements (copies) 6 200

Advertisements, newspaper 2 350

Advertisements, TV 2 weeks 200

Total 12,925

NOTE: Additional costs (about $2500) were involved in the development of the TV and radio public
service announcements and brochures and in the acquisition of the rights to some art and photographic
materials.

M a. Signage

Interpretive and instructional signs placed at marinas and boat-launching sites are a key method of disseminating
information to the boating public. The Chesapeake Bay Commission recommended that Bay States develop and
implement programs to educate the boating public to stimulate increased use of purnpout facilities (CBC, 1989).
The commission found that "boater education on this issue can be substantially expanded at modest expense."

Appropriate signage to direct boaters to the nearest pumpout facility to alert boaters to its presence would very likely
stimulate increased used of pumpout facilities. Signs can be provided to marinas and posted in areas where
recreational boats are concentrated. Ten-inch-square aluminum signs are available commercially for approximately
$12 each (Lab Safety, 1991).

5-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 5 Ill. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

U b. RecyclinglTrash Reduction Programs
A New Jersey marina issue'd reusable tote bags with the marina's name printed on the side. The bags were u sed
repeatedly to transport groceries and to store recyclable materials for proper disposal (Bleier, 1991). Newport,
Oregon, instituted a recycling program that was not immediately successful but has since achieved increased boater
compliance (Bleier, 1991). The Louisiana and New Hampshire Sea Grant Programs both instituted successful public
education programs designed to reduce the amount of marine debris discarded into surface waters (Doyle and
Barnaby, 1990). The $17,000 cost of the New Hampshire demonstration program included project organization,
distribution of a season's supply of trash bags, advertising material, and project monitoring. More than 90 percent
of the 91 participating boats indicated that they had made a commitment to reducing marine pollution.

M c. Pamphlets or Flyers, Newsletters, Inserts in Billings

The Washington State P@rks and Recreation Commission designed a multifaceted public education program and is
working with local governments and boating groups to implement the program and evaluate its effectiveness. The
program encourages the use of MSDs and pumpout facilities, discourages impacts to shellfish areas, and provides
information to boaters and marina operators about environmentally sound operation and maintenance activities. The
Commission has prepared written materials, given talks to boating groups, participated in events such as boat shdws,
and developed signs for placement at marinas and boat launches. Printed material includes a map of pumpout
facilities, a booklet on boat pollution, a pamphlet on plastic debris, and articles on the effects of boating activities.
Written material can be made available at marinas, supply stores, or other places frequently visited by boaters.
Approximate costs of some educational and promotional materials used in a Newport, Oregon, program are presented
in Table 5-5 (NOAA, 1988). Written material describing the importance of boater cooperation in solving the
problems associated with marine discharges could be included with annual boat registration forms, and cooperative
programs involving State environmental agencies and boaters' organizations could be established.

= d. MeetingslPresentations

Presentations at local marinas or other locations are a good way @o discuss issues with boaters and marina owners
and operators. The New Moon Project in Puget Sound is a public education program that is attempting to increase
use of portable sewage pumpouts. This effort has included workshops and seminars for boaters, marina operators,
and harbor masters. The presentations have produced interest from marina operators who want to participate and
boaters who want additional material (NYBA, 1990). Presentations can also present the positive aspects of marinas
and successful case studies of pollution prevention and control.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-59

/it Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

G. Mainten ance of Sewage Facilities Management Measure

Ensure that sewage pumpout facilities are maintained in operational condition'and
encourage their use.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to marinas where marine sewage disposal facilities
exist. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of
requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in conformity with this measure and will have some
flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the
U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this measure is to reduce the release of untreated sewage into marina and surface waters.

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because it is effective in preventing failure of purnpouts and discourages improper
disposal of sanitary wastes. Also, many pumpouts are not properly maintained, limiting their use. The Maryland
Department of Natural Resources (MDDNR, 1991) provides operation and maintenance information on pumpouts
to marina owners and operators in an effort to increase availability and use of pumpouts. Many other States inspect
pumpout facilities to ensure that they are in operational condition (Appendix 5A).

4. Practices

M a. Arrange maintenance contracts with contractors competent in the repair and servicing of pumpout
facilities.

Ob. Develop regular inspection schedules.

Wc. Maintain a dedicated fund for the repair and maintenance of marina pumpout stations.
(Government-owned facilities only)

5-60 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 Ill. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

d. Add language to slip leasing agreements mandating the use of pumpout facilities and specifying
penalties for failure to comply.

9. Place dye tablets in holding tanks to discourage illegal disposat

Boating activities that result in excessive fecal coliform bacteria levels can be addressed through the placement of
a dye tablet in the holding tanks of all boats entering the adversely impacted waterbody. This practice was employed
in Avalon Harbor, California, after moored boats were determined to be the source of problem levels of fecal
coliform bacteria. Upon entering the harbor, a harbor patrol officer boards each vessel and places dye tablets in all
sanitary devices. The officer then flushes the devices to ensure that the holding tanks do not leak. During the first
3 years of implementation, this practice detected 135 violations of the no-discharge policy and was extremely
successful at reducing pollution levels (Smith et al., 199 1). One tablet in approximately 60 gallons of water will give
a visible dye concentration of one pan per million. The cost of the tablets is approximately $30 per 200 tablets
(Forestry Suppliers, 1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-61

I/L Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance Chapter 5

I le
H. Boat Operation Management Measure (applies to boating only)

Restrict boating activities where necessary to decrease turbidity and physical
destruction of shallow-water habitat.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States in non-marina surface waters where evidence indicates
that boating activities are impacting shallow-water habitats. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source
programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management
measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development
and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Boat operation can resuspend bottom sediment, resulting in the reintroduction of toxic substances into the water
column. It can increase turbidity, which affects the photosynthetic activity of algae and submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV). SAV provides habitat for fish, shellfish, and waterfowl and plays an important role in maintaining water
quality through assimilating nutrients. It also reduces wave energy, protecting shorelines and bottom habitats from
erosion. Replacing SAV once it has been uprooted or eliminated from an area is difficult, and the science of
replacing it artificially is not well-developed. It is therefore important to protect existing SAV. Boat operation may
also cut off or uproot SAV, damage corals and oyster reefs, and cause other habitat destruction. The definition of
shallow-water habitat should be detem-iined by State policy and should be dependent upon the ecological importance
and sensitivity to direct and indirect disruption of the habitats found in the State.

3. Management Measure Selection

This measure was selected because some areas are not suitable for boat traffic due to their shallow water depth and
the ecological importance and sensitivity to disruption of the types of habitats in the area. Excluding boats from such
areas will minimize direct habitat destruction. Establishing no-wake zones will minimize the indirect impacts of
increased turbidity (e.g., decreased light availability).

4. Practices

5-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 5 1/1. Marina and Boat Operation and Maintenance

0 a. Exclude motorized vessels from areas that contain important shallow-water habitat.

Many areas of shallow SAV exhibit troughs (areas of no vegetation) due to the action of boat propellers. This can
result in increased erosion of the SAV due to the loss of bottom cover cohesion. SAV should be protected from boat
or propeller damage because of its high habitat value.

M b. Establish and enforce no-wake zones to decrease turbidity.

No-wake zones should be used in place of speed zones in shallow surface waters for reducing the turbidity caused
by boat traffic. Motorboats traveling at relatively slow speeds of 6 to 8 knots in shallow waters can be expected to
produce waves at or near the maximum size that can be produced by the boats. The height of a wave is directly
proportional to the depth of water in which the wave will disturb the bottom (e.g., a taller wave will disturb the
bottom of water deeper than a shorter wave). Bottom sediments composed of fine material will be resuspended and
result in turbidity. In areas of high boat traffic, boat-induced turbidity can reduce the photosynthetic activity of SAV.
Chapter 6 contains additional information on how to implement this practice.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-63

W. Glossary Chapter 5

IV. GLOSSARY

Bathymetric: Pertaining to the depth of a waterbody.

Bed load transport: Sediment transport along the bottom of a waterbody due to currents.

Benthic: Associated with the sea bottom.

Biocriteria: Biological measures of the health of an environment, such as the incidence of cancer in benthic fish
species.

BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand; the quantity of dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms in the biochemical
oxidation* of organic matter and oxidizable inorganic matter by aerobic biological action.

Circulation cell: See gyre.

Conservative pollutant: A pollutant that remains chemically unchanged in the water.

Critical habitat: A habitat determined to be important to the survival of a threatened or endangered species, to
general environmental quality, or for other reasons as designated by the State or Federal government.

DO: Dissolved oxygen; the concentration of free molecular oxygen in the water column.

Drogue-release study: A study of currents and circulation patterns using objects, or drogues, placed in the water at
the surface or at specified depths.

Dye-release study: A study of dispersion using nontoxic dyes.

Exchange boundary: The boundary between one waterbody, e.g., a marina, and its parent waterbody; usually the
marina entrance(s).

Fecal coliform: Bacteria present in mammalian feces, used as an indicator of the presence of human feces, bacteria,
viruses, and pathogens in the water column.

Fixed breakwater: A breakwater constructed of solid, stationary materials.

Floating breakwater. A breakwater constructed to possess a limited range of movement.

Flushing time: Time required for a waterbody, e.g., a marina, to exchange its water with water from the parent
waterbody.

Gyre: A mass of water circulating as a unit and separated from other circulating water masses by a boundary of
relatively stationary water.

Hydrographic: Pertaining to ground or surface water.

khthyofauna: Fish.

Macrophytes: Plants visible to the naked eye.

Mathematical modeling: Predicting the performance of a design based on mathematical equations.

5-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 IV. Glossary

Micron: Micrometer; one-one millionth 0,000001, of a meter.

NCDEM DO model: A mathematical model for calculating dissolved oxygen concentrations developed by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM).

No-discharge zone: An area where the discharge of polluting materials is not permitted.

NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. A permitting system for point source polluters regulated
under section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

Numerical modeling: See mathematical modeling.

Nutrient transformers: Biological organisms, usually plants, that remove nutrients from water and incorporate them
into tissue matter.

Organics: Carbon-containing substances such as oil, gasoline, and plant matter.

PAH. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon; multiringed carbon molecules resulting from the burning of fossil fuels,
wood, etc.

Physical modeling: Using a small-scale physical structure to simulate and predict the performance of a full-scale
structural design.

Rapid bioassessment: An assessment of the environmental degradation of a waterbody based on a comparison
between a typical species assemblage in a pristine waterbody and that found in the waterbody of interest.

Removal efficiency: The capacity of a pollution control device to remove pollutants from wastewater or runoff.

Residence time: The length of time water remains in a waterbody. Generally the same as flushing time.

Riparian: For the purposes of this report, riparian refers to areas adjoining coastal waterbodies, including rivers,
streams, bays, estuaries, coves, etc.

Sensitivity analysis: Modifying a numerical model's parameters to investigate the relationship between alternative
[marina] designs and water quality.

Shoaling: Deposition of sediment causing a waterbody or location within a waterbody to become more shallow.

Significant: A quantity, amount, or degree of importance determined by a State or local government.

SOD: Sediment oxygen demand; biochemical oxygen demand of microorganisms living in sediments.

Suspended solids: Solid materials that remain suspended in the water column.

Tidal prism: The difference in the volume of water in a waterbody between low and high tides.

Tidal range: The difference in height between mean low tide and mean high tide.

Velocity shear: Friction created by two masses of water moving in different directions or at different speeds in the
same direction.

WASP4 model: A generalized modeling system for contaminant fate and transport in surface waters; can be applied
to BOD, DO, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic chemicals.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-65

V. References Chapter 5

V. REFERENCES

Askren, D.R. 1979. Numerical Simulation of Sedimentation and Circulation in Rectangular Marina Basins. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. NOAA Technical
Report NOS 77.

Barada, W., and W.M. Partington. 1972. Report of Investigation of the Environmental Effects of Private Water
Front Canals. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund, State of Florida.

Bell, F.W. 1990. Economic Impact of Bluebelting Incentives on the Marina Industry in Florida. Florida Sea Grant
College Program, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.

Bleier, A. 1991. Waste Management/Marine Sanitation. In Proceedings of the 1991 National Applied Marina
Research Conference, ed. N. Ross. International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI.

Braam, G.A., and W.A. Jansen. 1991. North Point Marina-A Case Study. In World Marina '91: Proceedings
of the First International Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Long Beach, CA, 4-8 September 1991.

British Columbia Research Corporation. 1991. Urban Runoff Quality and Treatment: A Comprehensive Review.
GVRD.

British Waterways Board. 1983. Waterway Ecology and the Design of Recreational Craft. Inland Waterways
Amenity Advisory Council, London, England.

Cahill Associates. 1991. Limiting NPS Pollution from New Development in the New Jersey Coastal Zone. New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Camfield, R.E., R.E.L. Ray, and J.W. Eckert. 1980. The Possible Impact of Vessel Wakes on Bank Erosion.
Prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, Office of Research and Devel opment,
Washington, DC.

Cape Cod Commission. 1991. Regional Policy Plan. Barnstable County, Massachusetts.

Cardwell, R.D., M.I. Car, and E.W. Sanborn. 1978. Water Quality and Biotic Characteristics of Birch Bay Village
Marina in 1977 (October 1, 1976 to December 31, 1977). Washington. Department of Fisheries Protection. Report
No. 69.

Cardwell, R.D., and R.R. Koons. 1981. Biological Consideration for the Siting and Design of Marinas and
Affiliated Structures in Puget Sound, Washington Department of Fisheries Technical Report No. 60.

Cardwell, R.D., R.E. Nece, and E.P. Richey. 1980. Fish, Flushing, and Water Quality: Their Roles in Marina
I
Design. In Coastal Zone ,80: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, ASCE,
Hollywood, FL.

CARWQCB. 1989. Staff report: State Mussel Watch Program. California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Los Angeles Region. March 27, 1989.

CBC. 1989. Issues and Actions. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, MD.

CDEP. 199 1. Best Management Practices for Marinas, Draft Report. Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, Long Island Sound Program, Hartford, CT.

5-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 5 V. References

Cheyne, M., and N. Carter. 1989. The 1988 Puget Sound Recreational Boaters Survey. Washington Public Ports
Association and Parks and Recreation Comn-dssion, State of Washington.

Christensen, B.A. 1986. Marina Design and Environmental Concern. In Ports 86: Proceedings of a Specialty
Conference on Innovations in Port Engineering and Development in the 1990's, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Oakland, CA, 19-21 May 1986.

Chmura, G.L., and N.W. Ross. 1978. The Environmental Impacts of Marinas and Their Boats: A Literature Review
with Management Considerations. Marine Advisory Service, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI.

'*City of Austin. 1990. The First Flush of Runoff and its Effects on Control Structure Design.

Clark, W.F. 1990. North Carolina's Estuaries: A Pilot Studyfor Managing Multiple Use in the State's Public Trust
Waters. Albemarle-Pamlico Study report 90-10. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program.

I
Cubit Engineering. 1982. Wexford Marina Water Quality Analysis. Prepared for Willard Byrd and Associates.

Dickerson, G. 1992. Sales representative for Capital Vacuum, Raleigh, NC. Personal communication with Julie
Duffin, Research Triangle Institute, 13 May 1992.

Doyle, B., and R., Barnaby. 1990. Reducing Marine Debris: A Model Program for Marinas. University of New
Hampshire Sea Grant College Program. International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI.

DNREC. 1990. State of Delaware Marina Guidebook. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Dunham, J.W., and A.A. Finn. 1974. Small-craft Harbors: Design, Construction, and Operation. U.S. Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. December. Special Report No. 2.

Fisher, J.S., R.R. Perdue, M.F. Overton, M.D. Sobsey, and B.L. Sill, 1987. Comparison of Water Quality at Two
Recreational Marinas During a Peak- Use Period. University of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program, Raleigh,
NC.

Forestry Suppliers. 1992. Environmental 1992 Catalog. Forestry Suppliers, Inc., Jackson, MS.

Frederick, L., R. Harris., L. Peterson, and S. Kehrmeyer. 1989. The Compost Solution to Dockside Fish Wastes.
University of Wisconsin @ea Grant Institute. WISCU-G-89-002 C3.

Gaines, A.G., and A.R. Solow. 1990. The Distribution of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Surface Waters of the
Edgartown Harbor Coastal Complex and Management Implications. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA.

Gannon, T. 1990. Ethylene or Propylene? Practical Sailor, 16(19):1,5.

Goodwin, F.R. 1989. Urban Ports and Harbor Management: Responding to Change Along U.S. Waterfront.

Grovhoug, J.G., P.F. Seligman, G. Vafa, and R.L. Fransham. 1986. Baseline Measurements of Butyltin in U.S.
Harbors and Estuaries. In Proceedings Oceans 86, Volume 4 Organotin Symposium, pp. 1283-1288. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.

Hall, L.W., Jr., M.J. Lenkevich, W.S. Hall, A.E. Pinkney, and S.T. Bushong. 1987. Evaluation of Butyltin
Compounds in Maryland Waters of Chesapeake Bay. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(2):78-83.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-67

V. References Chapter 5

Holland, R.C. 1986. Designing Marinas to Mitigate Impacts. In Ports 86: Proceedings of a Specialty Conference
on Innovations in Port Engineering and Development in the 1990's, American Society of Civil Engineers, Oakland,
CA, 19-21 May 1986.

Homer, R.R., F.B. Gutermuth, L.L. Conquest, and A.W. Johnson. 1988. Urban Stormwater and Puget Trough
Wetlands. In First Annual Meeting for Puget Sound Research, 18-19 March 1988, Seattle,WA. PugetSoundWater
Quality Authority.

Industrial Products Co. 1991. Safety Equipment and Supplies. Industrial Products Co., Langhorne, PA.

Jansen, W.A. 1991. Personal communication, 24 October 1991.

Johnston, S.A., Jr. 1981. Estuarine Dredge and Fill Activities: A Review of Impacts. Journal of Environmental
Management, 5(5):427-440.

Karp, C.A., and C.A. Penniman. 1991. Boater Waste Disposal "Briefing Paper" and Proceedingsfrom Narragansett
Bay Project Management Committee. The Narragansett Project, Rhode Island.

Keko, Inc. 1992. Letter dated April 13, 1992, to Geoffrey Grubbs, Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, U.S. Environn6tal Protection Agency, from W. Kenton, President, Keko, Inc.

Klein, R.D. 1992. The Effects of Boating Activity and Related Facilities Upon Small, Tidal Waterways in Maryland
Community and Environmental Defense Services, Maryland Line, MD.

Lab Safety. 1991. 1992 Safety Essentials Catalog. Spring edition. Lab Safety Supply, Inc., Janesville, WI.

Layton, J.A. 1980. Hydraulic Circulation Performance of a Curvilinear Marina. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Coastal Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Sydney, Australia, 23-28
March 1980.

Layton, J.A. 1991a. Case History of the Point Roberts Marina. In World Marina '91: Proceedings of the First
International Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, Long Beach, CA, 4-8 September 1991.

Layton, J.A. 1991b. Personal communication, 24 October 1991.

Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman, and K.E. Harkness. 1989. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Water on the East
Coast of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD.

Lowrance, R.R., S. McIntyre, and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and Deposition, in a Field/Forest System Estimated
Using Cesium-137 Activity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2):195-199.

Maguire, R.J. 1986. Review of the Occurrence, Persistence and Degradation of Tributyltin in Fresh Water
Ecosystems in Canada. In Proceedings Oceans 86, Volume 4 Organotin Symposium, pp. 1252-1255. Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.

Marcus, J.M., and T.P. Stokes. 1985. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Oyster Tissue and Around Three
Coastal Marinas. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 35:833-844.

Marcus, J.M., G.R. Swearingen, A.D. Williams, and D.D. Heizer. 1988. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and
Heavy Metals Concentrations in Sediments at Coastal South Carolina Marinas. Archives of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology, 17:103-113.

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. 1988. Harbor Planning Guidelines. Harbor Planning Program.

5-68 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 5 V. References

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. 1991. Local Comprehensive Plans: Draft Guidance Document.

McDougal, W.G., R.S. Mustain, L.S. Slotta, and J.M. Milbrat. 1986. Marina Flushing and Sedimentation. In
Proceedings of a Specialty Conference on Innovations in Port Engineering and Development in the 1990's,
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 323-332.

McMahon, P.J.T. 1989. The Impact of Marinas on Water Quality. Water Science Technology, 21(2):39-43.

MDDNR. 1991. A Guidebook for Marina Owners and Operators on the Installation and Operation of Sewage
Pumpout Stations. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Boating Administration, Annapolis, MD.

METRO. 1992a. Maritime Industrial Waste Project. Reduction of Toxicant Pollution from the Maritime Industry
in Puget Sound. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Water Pollution Control Department, Industrial Waste Section,
Seattle, WA.

METRO. 1992b. Boatyard Wastewater Treatment Guidelines. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Water Pollution
Control Department, Industrial Waste Section. Seattle, WA.

Milliken, A.S., and V. Lee. 1990. Pollution Impacts from Recreational Boating: A Bibliography and Summary
Review. Rhode Island Sea Grant Publications, University of Rhode Island Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI.
I

Mills, W.B., D.B. Porcella, M.J. Ungs, S.A. Gherini, K.V. Summers, M. Lingfung, G.L. Rupp, G.L. Bowie, and D.A.
Haith. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. EPA/600/6-85/002a,b.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

Moffatt and Nichol. 1986. Modification to the North Point Marina Breakwater Structures Based on the Physical
Model Study.

Murawski, W.S. 1969. A Study of Submerged Dredge Holes in New Jersey Estuaries with Respect to Their Fitness
as Finfish Habitat. Prepared for New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of
Fish and Game, Bureau of Fisheries, Nacote Creek Research Station. August. Miscellaneous Report No. 2M.

Myers, J. 1989. Evaluation of Best Management Practices Applied to Control of Stormwater-borne Pollution in
Mamaroneck Harbor, New York. Analysis and Recommendations. Prepared for the Long Island Sound Study, U.S.
EPA Region 2.

Myers, J. 1991. Working With Local Governments to Enhance the Effectiveness of a Bay-wide Critical Area
Program. Presented at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop, 29-
31 January, New Orleans, LA.

Natchez, D.S. 1990. Marina Structures as Sources of Environmental Habitats. International Marina Institute,
Wickford, RI.

Natchez, D.S. 1991. Are Marinas Really Polluting? International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI.

NCDEM. 1990. North Carolina Coastal Marinas: Water Quality Assessment. North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. Report No. 90-01.

NCDEM. 199 1. Coastal Marinas: Field Survey of Contaminants and Literature Review. North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. Report No. 91-03.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-69

V. References Chapter 5

Nece, R.E. 1981. Platform Effects on Tidal Flushing of Marinas. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, 110(2):251-268.

Nielsen, T.A. 1991. Case Study: A San Diego Boatyard's Approach to Environmental Compliance. In Proceedings
of the 1991 National Applied Marina Research Conference, ed. N. Ross. International Marina Institute, Wickford,
RI.

Nixon, S.W., C.A. Oviatt, and S.L. Northby. 1973. Ecology of Small Boat Marinas. Marine Technical Report
Series No. 5, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

NOAA. 1976. Coastal Facility Guidelines. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management. Washington, DC.

NOAA. 1988. Dealing with Annex V-Reference Guide for Ports. U.S. Department oi Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-23.

I
NRC. 1987. National Research Council. Sedimentation Control to Reduce Maintenance Dredging of Navigational
Facilities In Estuaries. National Research Council, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical
Systems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NYBA. 1990. Northwest Yacht Brokers Association. Progress Report: The New Moon Project. Seatile,
Washington.

Paulson, B.K., and S.L. Da Costa. 1991. A Case Study of Propeller-induced Currents and Sediments Transport in
a Small Harbor. In Proceedings of World Marina '91, pp. 514-523. American Society of Civil Engineers, New
York, NY.

Penttila, D., and M. Aguero. 1978. Fish Usage of Birch Bay Village Marina, Whatcom County, Washington, in
1978. Washington Department of Fisheries Progress Report No. 39.

Pisano, W.C., 1989. Swirl Concentrators Revisited. In Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. ed. L.A. Roesner,
B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen, pp. 390-402. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Polis, D.D. 1974. The Environmental Effects of Dredged Holes. Present State of Knowledge. Report to Water
Resources Administration. May.

PSWQA. 1989. Managing Nonpoint Pollution: An Action Plan Handbook for Puget Sound Watersheds. Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.

PSWQA. 1990. 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, WA, pp. 160-165.

Richards, W.R., J.E. Shwop, and R. Romano. 1981. Evaluation of Urban Stormwater Quality and Non-Structural
Best Management Practices. In Nonpoint Pollution Control: Tools and Techniques for the Future, ed. K.C. Flynn,
pp. 82-99. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.

Romano, F. 1990. Oil and Water Don't Mix: The Application of Oil-Water Separation Technologies in Stormwater
Quality. Office of Water Quality, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, WA.

Ross, N. 1985. Towards a Balanced Perspective ... Boat Sewage. Presented at Thirteenth National Docks and
Marinas Technical Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Sawyer, C.M., and A.F. Golding. 1990. Marina Pollution Abatement. International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI.

5-70 EPA-840-B-92-bX Janualy 1993

Chapter 5 V. References

SCCC. 1984. Guidelines for Preparation of Coastal Marina Report. South Carolina Coastal Council, Charleston,
SC.

SCDHEC. 1987. Heavy metals and extractable organic chemicals from the Coastal Toxics Monitoring Network
1984-1986. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Technical Report No. 007-87.

Schluchter, S.S., and L. Slotta. 1978. Flushing Studies of Marinas. In Coastal Zone '78-P@oceedings Symposium
on Technical, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management, American Society of Civil
Engineering, San Francisco, CA, March 1978.

Seabloom, R.A., G. Plews', F. Cox, and F. Kramer. 1989. The Effect of Sewage Discharges from Pleasure Craft
on Puget Sound Waters and Shellfish Quality. Washington State Department of Health Shellfish Section, Olympia,
WA.

Schlomann, H. 1992. Letter dated June 22, 1992, to Geoffrey Grubbs, Director, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Northwest Marine Trade Association, Seattle, WA.

Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff.- A Practice Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble and M.A. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Shaver, E. 1991. Sand Filter Design for Water Quality Treatment.- Presented at 1991 ASCE Stormwater Conference
in Crested Butte, CO.

Sherk, J.A. 1971. Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on Estuarine Organisms. Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, University of Maryland. Contribution No. 443.

Silverman, G.S., M.K. Stenstrom, and S. Fam. 1986. Best Management Practices for Controlling Oil and Grease
in Urban Stormwater Runoff. Environmental Professional, 8:51-362.

Silverman, G.S., and M.K. Stenstrom. 1989. Source Control of Oil and Grease in an Urban Area. In Design of
Urban Runoff Quality Controls, ed. L.A. Roesner, B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen, pp. 403-420. American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Smith, G.F., and H.H. Webber. 1978. A Biological Sampling Program of Intertidal Habitats of Nor-them Puget
Sound. Appendix K. W.W.U. Intertidal Study. Baseline Study Program North Puget Sound, Washington Department
of Ecology, Olympia.

Smith, H.T., J. Phelps, R. Nathan, and D. Cannon. 1991. Avalon Harbor: Example of a Successful Destination
Harbor. In Proceedings of World Marina '91, pp. 370-39 1. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Smith, J.E. 1977. A Baseline Study of Invertebrates and of the Environmental Impacts of Intertidal Log Rafting on
the Snohomish River Delta. Final report. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Sorensen, R.F. 1986. Bank Protection for Vessel Generated Waves. Report No. WES-IHL-I 17-86, Lehigh
University, Bethlehem, PA.

Soule, D.F., M. Oguri, and B.H. Jones. 1991. The Marine Environment of Marina Del Rey: October 1989 to
September 1990. Marine Studies of San Pedro Bay, California, Part 20F. University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-71

V. References Chapter 5

Souza, S.J., R.L. Conner, B.I. Krinsky, and J.A. Tiedemann. 1990. Compatibility of Coastal Development and
Coastal Resources, Port Liberte: A Case Study.
Stallard, M., V. Hodge, a@d E.D. Goldberg. 1987. TBT in California Coastal Waters: Monitoring and Assessment.:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 9:195-220. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Stephenson, M.D., D.R. Smith, J. Goetzl, G. Ichikawa, and M. Martin. 1986. Growth Abnormalities in Mussels
and Oysters from Areas With High Levels of Tributyltin in San Diego Bay. In Proceedings Oceans 86, Volunie 4
Organotin Symposium, pp. 1246-1251. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, NY.
I

SWRPC. 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Prepared by the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Waukesha, Wisconsin. Technical Report No. 31. June.

Tanski, J. 1989. Boater Use of Pumpout Facilities in Suffolk County, Long Island, New York. In Proceedings of
the 1989 National Marina'Research Conference, International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI, pp. 173-191.

Tetra Tech. 1988. Rive St. Johns Phase 11 Canal System Water Quality Model Study. Prepared for Dotsie Builders,
Inc., Jacksonville, FL. Tetra Tech Report TC-3668-04.

Thomann, R.V., and J.A. Mueller. 1987. Principles of Surface iYater Quality Modeling and Control. Harper &
Row, New York.

Tiedemann, J.A. 1989. Pump It or Dump It? An Analysis of the Sewage Pumpout Situation in the New Jersey
Coastal Zone. International Marina Institute, Wickford, RI.

Tobiasson, B.O., and R.C. KoUrneyer. 1991. Marinas and Small Craft Harbors. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY.

Tsinker, G.P. 1992. Small Craft Marinas. In Handbook of Coastal and Ocean Engineering: Vol. 3, Harbors,
Navigational Channels, Estuaries, Environmental Effects, ed. J.B. Herbich, pp. 1115-1167. Gulf Publishing,
Houston, TX

Tull, L. 1990. Cost of SedimentationlFiltration Basins. City of Austin, TX
USACE. 1984. Shore Protection Manual. 4ih ed. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Coastal Engineering Research Center.

USCG. 1990. American Red Cross National Boating Survey: A Study of Recreational Boats, Boaters, and
Accidents in the United States. U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1974. Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating Activity. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH.

USEPA. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetland of the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/600/3-76-045.

USEPA. 1982. DesignManual: Swirl and Helical Bend Pollution Control Devices. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-600/8-82-013.

USEPA. 1985a. Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta,
GA. April.

USEPA. 1985b. Water Quality Assessment. A Screening Procedurefor Toxic and Conventional Pollutants. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. EPA/600/6-85/002ab.

5-72 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 5 V. References

USEPA. 1986. Wexford Locked Harbor, April 1986 and September 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Environmental Services Division, Marine and Wetlands Unit, Athens, GA.

USEPA. 1988. Bacteria: Water Quality Standards Criteria Summaries: A Compilation of Stateffederal Criteria.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/440/5-88/007.

USEPA. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/444/4-89-001.

USEPA. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges; Final Rule.
Federal Register, November 16, 1990, 55:48066. 1

USEPA. 1991a. Proposed Guidance Specifying Management Measuresfor Sources ofNonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1991b. Draft EPA Region I No-Discharge Area Policy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
1, Boston, MA.

USEPA. 1992a. Development of Estuarine Community Bioassessment Protocols. Issue Paper for Work Group
Meeting January 8 and 9, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1992b. Draft Interim Report: Environmental Assessment for Siting and Design of Marinas. Submitted
to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC, by Tetra Tech, Inc.

USEPA. 1992c. Final Report on Marina Water Quality Models. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA, by Tetra Tech, Inc.

USEPA. 1992d. Coastal Marina Water Quality Assessment Using Tidal Prism Analysis User's Manual. Submitted
to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta, GA, by Tetra Tech, Inc.

USFWS. 1982. Mitigation and Enhancement Techniques for the Upper Mississippi River System and Other Large
River Systems. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Resource Publication 149.

Voudrias, E.A., and C.L. Smith. 1986. Hydrocarbon Pollution from Marinas in Estuarine Sediments. In Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 22, pp. 271-284. Academic Press Inc., London, England.

WADOE. 199 1. Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA. Publication No. 90-73.

Walton, R. 1983. Computer Modeling of Hydrodynamics and Solute Transport in Canals and Marinas: A
Literature Review and Guidelines for Future Development. Prepared for the U.S Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, by Camp Dresser and McKee, Annandale, VA. Miscellaneous paper EL-83-5.

Wanielista, M.P., and Y.A. Yousef. 1986. Best Management Practices Overview. In Urban Runoff Quality-Impact
and Quality Enhancement Technology, proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference, American Society
of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, pp. 314-322.

WDF. 1971. Criteria Governing the Design of Bulkheads in Puget Sound, Hood Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca
for Protection of Fish and Shellfish Resources. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Seattle, WA.

WDF. 1974. Bulkhead Criteria for Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) Spawning Beaches in Puget Sound, Hood
Canal, and Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia. Washington State Department of
Fisheries, Seattle, WA.

,EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-73

V. References Chapter 5

Wendt, P.H., R.F. Van Dolah, M.Y. Bobo, and J.J. Manzi. 1990. The Effects of a Marina on Certain Aspects of
the Biology of Oysters and Other Benthic Macrofauna in a South Carolina Estuary. Unpublished draft manuscript.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC.

White, D.G., J.M. Regenstein, T. Richard, and S. Goldhor. 1989. Composting Salmonid Fish Waste: a Waste
Disposal Alternative. New York Sea Grant Extension Program and Cornell University. NYEXT-G-89-001 C3.
December.

Woodward-Clyde Federal Services. 1991. Urban BMP Cost and Effectiveness: Summary Data for 6217 (G)
Guidance.

WPCF. 1989. Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Abatement. Manual of Practice No. FD-17. Water Pollution
Control Federation, Alexandria, VA.

Young, D.R., G.V. Alexander, and D. McDermott-Ehrlich. 1979. Vessel-related Contamination of Southern
California Harbors by Copper and other Metals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:50-56.

Young, D.R., T.C. Heesen, D.J. McDermott, and P.E. Smokler. 1974. Marine Inputs of Polychlorinated Biphenyls
and Copperfrom Vessel Antifouling Paints. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, El Segundo, CA.

Zabawa, C., and C. Ostrom. 1980. Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland. Tidewater Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD.

5-74 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Appendix 5A

Summary of Coastal States Marina Programs
0

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 5-75

APPENDIX 5A: SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATES MARINA PROGRAMS

Critical Stormwater Pumpouts
habitat runoff regu- mandated? Speed
assessment lations in- Enforced? Authority Boat Public zones or
Marina water required prior cluded in the How many for over- maintenance education no-wake
uality (WO) to mbrina State code units? site of materials programs zones for
q
[STATE study required siting for marinas Criteria expansionse handling for boaters erosion
AL Only where Yes No Yes for Dept. of No Yes, but Only for
marinas basins new or Env. Mgmt. minimal safety
are constructed expanding reviews purposes
out of upland. marinas
AK No; just a Yes; very No No Yes No No, but Yes
USACE permit important for Coast
-and local commercial Guard has
ordinances fish species pollution
prevention
program
CA Yes; the CA Under the CA At the local Water CA Envir. Encouraged Yes; very Local
Envir. Quality Coastal Act; level; not at Resources Quality Act; extensive, jurisdic-
Act, similar to Env. Impact the State Ctrl Board; must Dept. of tions
NEPA, is Report level yes, at least perform EIR, Boating provide
implemented on written one pump- handled at and Water- local
a regional level out facility the local ways control
in marina level
CT Yes for large Yes; Yes for new Yes Encouraged Yes Yes Only for
projects or if developers and safety
circulation may are given expanding purposes
be affected guidance but not small
marinas

T aThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all construction activity in navigable waters.

APPENDIX 5A: SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATES MARINA PROGRAMS, Continued

Yes for new Yes for new Yes > 100 slips Yes BMPs Yes Yes
DE marinas marinas and must have required
expansions pumpout;
<25 not
required;
25-100
allowed to
share

FL Yes Yes Yes for new Yes for new Yes Minimal Yes Yes
development, marinas
not marina-
specif ic

GA No unless Yes for Yes only for Yes Yes Yes No; trade Yes
problem is shellfish dry stack association
found storage does this
rn
HA Yes Yes No No Yes if No Yes Only for
expansion is safety
part of a purposes
new plan

ME No Sometimes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No

aThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all construction activity in navigable waters.

Irl APPENDIX 5A: SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATES MARINA PROGRAMS, Continued

Critical Stormwater Pumpouts
habitat runoff regu- mandated? Speed
assessment lations in- Enforced? Authority Boat Public zones or
arina water required prior cluded in the How many for over-
:3 M maintenance education no-wake
DO quality (WQ) to marina State code units? site of materials programs zones for
STATE study required siting for marinas Criteria expansions* handling for boaters erosion

MD Yes in some Sometimes Yes for new Yes Yes Encouraged Yes Yes
cases; development,
monitoring may not marina-
be required specific
MA Yes in some Sometimes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Only for
cases safety
I purposes
ml No Yes No Yes Yes Encouraged No Yes at
local level

IVIS Yes in some Sometimes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
I cases
NH No No Yes, treated Yes Yes No No Yes
the same as
other
development
NJ Yes Yes Yes, treated Yes for Yes Yes Yes Only for
the same as > 25 slips safety
other purposes
development

!The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all construction activity in navigable waters.

1P APPENDIX 5A: SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATES MARINA PROGRAMS, Continued
CD
(b
ZI

NY No Sometimes Yes, treated No, except Yes Yes Yes Yes; no-
the same as on case-by- wake at
other case permit local level
development condition

NC Yes Yes Yes, treated Yes for Yes for Yes Yes Only for
the same as > 25 slips >20% safety
other increase purposes
development

OR Not required at Encouraged Yes, treated Yes; have Yes Not Yes, by Yes
the state level by U.S. Fish the same as no- mandatory; the Oregon
and Wildlife other discharge very common 'State
Service development zones to see liquid Marine
already waste Board
receptacles
rn RI Yes in degraded Yes Yes Yes; at least Yes Yes Yes Yes
water 1 pumpout
for every
500 -vessels
over 25 feet
10

SC Yes Sometimes Yes Yes for new Yes Yes Yes Yes
C and
expanding
t
U
'The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all construction activity in navigable waters.

APPENDIX 5A: SUMMARY OF COASTAL STATES MARINA PROGRAMS, Continued

&A,

VA Yes Yes Yes, treated Yes for new Yes No Yes Addressed
the same as and at local
other expanding level
development
WA Required by Yes Yes No, but Requires Yes Yes Yes
some local could be approval by
governments; imposed at the WA
as required for the local Department
general NPDES level of Ecology
permitting for
boatyards

dD aThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviews all construction activity in navigable waters.

CHAPTER 6: Management Measures for
Hyd romod ifi cation;
Channelization and Channel
Modification, Dams, and
Streambank and Shoreline
Erosion

1. INTRODUCTION

A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect coastal waters from sources of nonpoint pollution related to
hydromodification activities. "Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition of
pollutants to our coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the
application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating
methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. Ile
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measures generally
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.
The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can
be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these practices, or
appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and economic impacts
of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures are addressed in a separate
document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness bf practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically sound practices. In a cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by a State needs to achieve
the management measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-1

Introduction Chapter 6

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter addresses thref categories of sources of nonpoint pollution from hydromodificatio n' activities that affect
coastal waters:

(1) Channelization and channel modification;
(2) Dams; and
(3) Streambank and shoreline erosion.

Each category of management measures is addressed in a separate section of this guidance. Each section contains
(1) the management measure; (2) an applicability statement that describes, when appropriate, specific activities and
locations for which the measure is suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis
for the management measure's selection; (5) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or
in combination with other practices, to achieve the management measure; (6) information on the effectiveness of the
management measure and/or of practices to achieve the measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or
practices to achieve the measure,

D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA
Documents*

L Chapter 1 of this document contains detailed information on the legislative background for this guidance, the
process used by EPA to develop this guidance, and the technical approach used by EPA in the guidance.

2. Chapter 7 of this document contains management measures to protect wetlands and riparian areas that serve
an NPS pollution abatement function. These measures apply to a broad variety of sources, including sources
related to hydromodification activities.

4. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

5. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains details on how State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on the following:

� The basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to provide for the implementation of management measures"
in conformity" with this management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

� Requirements concerning how States are to implement the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

6-2 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 11. Channelization and Channel Modification

11. CHANNELIZATION AND CHANNEL MODIFICATION
MANAGEMENT MEASURES

One form of hydromodification is channelization or channel modification. These terms (used interchangeably)
describe river and stream channel engineering undertaken for the purpose of flood control, navigation, drainage
improvement, and reduction of channel migration potential (Brookes, 1990). Activities such as straightening,
widening, deepening, or relocating existing stream channels and clearing or snagging operations fall into this
category. These forms of hydromodification typically result in more uniform channel cross sections, steeper stream
gradients, and reduced average pool depths.

Ile terms channelization and channel modification are also used in this chapter to refer to the excavation of borrow
pits, canals, underwater mining, or other practices that change tl@e depth, width, or location of waterways or
embayments in coastal areas. Excavation of marina basins is addressed separately in Chapter 5 of this guidance.

The term flow alteration describes a category of hydromodification activities that result in either an increase or a
decrease in the usual supply of fresh water to a stream, river, or estuary. Flow alterations include diversions,
withdrawals, and impoundments. In rivers and streams, flow alteration can also result from undersized culverts,
transportation embankments, tide gates, sluice gates, and weirs.

Levees along a stream or river channel are also addressed by this section. A levee is defined by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as an embankment or shaped mound for flood control or hurricane protection (USACE,
1981). Pond banks, and other small impoundment structures, often referred to as levees in the literature, are not
considered to be levees as defined in this section. Additionally, a dike is not used in this guidance to refer to the
same structure as a levee, but rather is defined as a channel stabilization structure sited in a river or stream
perpendicular to the banic

For the purpose of this guidance, no distinction will be made between the terms river and stream because no
definition of either could be found to quantitatively distinguish between the two. Likewise, no distinction will be
made for word combinations of these two terms; for example, streambank and riverbank will be- considered to be
synonymous.

The following definitions for common terms associated with channelization activities apply to this chapter (USACE,
1983). Other definitions are provided in the Glossary at the end of the chapter.

Channel: A natural or ponstructed waterway that continuously or periodically passes water.

Channel stabilization: Structures placed below the elevation of the average surface water level (lower bank)
to control bank erosion or to prevent bank or channel failure.

Streambank: The side slopes of a channel between which the streaniflow is'normally confined.

Lower bank: The portion of the streambank below the elevation of the average water level of the stream.

Upper bank: The portion of the streambank above the elevation of the average water level of the stream.

Streambank stabilization: Structures placed on or near a distressed streambank to control bank erosion or to
prevent bank failure.

Based on the above definitions, the difference between channel stabilization and streambank stabilization is that in
streambank stabilization, the upper bank is also protected from erosion or failure. This additional protection guards
against erosive forces caused by high-water events and by land-based causes such as runoff or improper siting of

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 6-3

I/. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

buildings. Levees are placed along streambanks to prevent flooding in adjacent areas during extreme high-water
events.

Effects of Channelization and Channel Modification Activities

General Problematic Effects

Channel modification activities have deprived wetlands and estuarine shorelines of enriching sediments, changed the
ability of natural systems to both absorb hydraulic energy and filter pollutants from surface waters, and caused
interruptions in the different life stages of aquatic organisms (Sherwood et al., 1990). Channel modification activities
can also alter instrearn, water temperature and sediment characteristics, as well as the rates and paths of sediment
erosion, transport, and deposition. A frequent result of channelization and channel modification activities is a
diminished suitability of instream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Hardening of banks along waterways
has eliminated instream and riparian habitat, decreased the quantity of organic matter entering aquatic systems, and
increased the movement of NPS pollutants from the upper reaches of watersheds into coastal waters.

Channel modification projects undertaken in streams or rivers to straighten, enlarge, or relocate the channel usually
require regularly scheduled maintenance activities to preserve and maintain completed projects. These maintenance
activities may also result in a continual disturbance of instream and riparian habitat. In some cases, there can be
substantial displacement of instream habitat due to the magnitude of the changes in surface water quality, morphology
and composition of the channel, stream hydraulics, and hydrology.

Excavation projects can result in reduced flushing, lowered dissolved oxygen levels, saltwater intrusion, loss of
strearnside vegetation, accelerated discharge of pollutants, and changed physical and chemical characteristics of
bottom sediments in surface waters surrounding channelization or channel modification projects. Reduced flushing,
in particular, can increase the deposition of finer-grained sediments and associated organic materials or other
pollutants.

Levees may reduce overbank flooding and the subsequent deposition of sediment needed to nourish riverine and
estuarine wetlands and riparian areas. Levees can cause increased transport of suspended sediment to coastal and
near-coastal waters during high-flow events. Levees located close to streambanks can also prevent the lateral
movement of sediment-laden waters into adjacent wetlands and riparian areas that would otherwise serve as
depositories for sediment, nutrients, and other NPS pollutants. This has been a major factor, for example, in the
rapid loss of coastal wetlands in Louisiana (Hynson et al., 1985). Levees also interrupt natural drainage from upland
slopes and can cause concentrated, erosive flows of surface waters.

The resulting changes to the distribution, amount, and timing of flows caused by flow alterations can affect a wide
variety of living resources. Where tidal flow restrictors cause impoundments, there may be a loss of strearnside
vegetation, disruption of riparian habitat, changes in the historic plant and animal communities, and decline in
sediment quality. Restricted flows can impede the movement of fish or crustaceans. Flow alteration can reduce the
level of tidal flushing and the exchange rate for surface waters within coastal embayments, with resulting impacts
on the quality of surface waters and on the rates and paths of sediment transport and deposition.

Specific Effects

Depending on preproject site conditions and the extent of hydromodification activity, new and existing channelization
and channel modification projects may result in no additional NPS problems, additional NPS problems, or benefits.

The following are major categories of channelization and channel modification effects and examples of associated
problems and benefits.

Changed Sediment Supply. One of the more significant changes in idstream habitat associated with channelization
and channel modification projects is in sediment supply and delivery, Streamside levees have been linked to

6-4 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 It. Channelization and Channel Modification

accelerated rates of erosion and decreased sediment supplies to coastal areas (Hynson et al., 1985). Sherwood and
others (1990) evaluated the long-term impacts of channelization projects on the Columbia River estuary and found
that changes to the river system resulted in a net increase of 68 million cubic meters of sediment in the estuary.
These changes in sediment supply can include problems such as increased sedimentation to some areas (an estuary,
for example) or decreased sediment to other areas (such as strearnside wetlands or estuarine marshes). Other changes
may be beneficial; for example, a diversion that delivers sediment to eroding marshes (Hynson et al., 1985). Another
example of a beneficial channel stabilization project might be one that results in increased flushing and the
elimination of unwanted sediment in the spawning area of a stream.

Reduced Freshwater Availability. Salinity above threshold levels is considered to be a form of NPS pollution in
freshwater supplies. Reduced freshwater availability for municipal, industrial, or agricultural purposes can result from
some channelization and channel modification practices. Similarly, alteration of the salinity regime in portions of
a channel can result in ecological changes in vegetation in the strearnside area. Diversion of fresh water by flood-
and hurricane-protection levees has reduced freshwater inputs to adjacent marshes. This has resulted in increased
marsh salinities and degradation of the marsh ecosystem (Hynson et al., 1985). A benefit of other diversion projects
was a reduction of freshwater inputs to estuarine areas that were becoming too fresh because of overall increases
in fresh water from changes in land use within a watershed. Increases in oyster harvests have been attributed to a
freshwater diversion in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Over the 6-year period from 1970 to 1976, oyster harvests
increased by over 3.5 million pounds (Hynson et al., 1985). Potential problems with diversions include erosion,
settlement, seepage, and liquefaction failure (Hynson et al., 1985).

Accelerated Delivery of Pollutants. Channelization and channel modification projects can lead to an increased
quantity of pollutants and accelerated rate of delivery of pollutants to downstream sites. Alterations that increase
the velocity of surface water or that increase flushing of the streambed can lead to more pollutants being transported
to downstream areas at possibly faster rates. Urbanization has been linked to downstream channelization problems
in Hawaii (Anderson, 1992). It is believed that the deterioration of Kaneohe Bay may be caused by development
within the watershed, which has increased runoff flows to streams entering the Bay. Streams that once meandered
and contained natural vegetation to filter out nutrient and sediment are now channelized and contain surface water
that is rich in nutrients and other pollutants associated with urban areas (Anderson, 1992). Some excavation projects
have resulted in poor surface water circulation along with increased sedimentation and other surface water quality
problems within the excavated basin. In some of these cases, additional, carefully designed channel modifications
can increase flushing rates, which deliver accumulated pollutants from the basin to,points downstream that are able
to assimilate or otherwise beneficially use the accumulated materials.

Loss of Contact with Overbank Areas. Instream hydraulic changes can decrease or interfere with surface water
contact to overbank areas during floods or other high-water events. Channelization and channel modification activities
that lead to a loss of surface water contact in overbank areas also may result in reduced filtering of NPS pollutants
by strearnside area vegetation and soils. Areas of the overbank that are dependent on surface water contact (i.e.,
riparian areas and wetlands) may change in character and function as the frequency and duration of flooding change.
Erickson and others (1979) reported a major influence on wetland drainage in the Wild Rice Creek Watershed in
North and South Dakota. Drainage rates from strearnside areas were 2.6 times higher in the channelized area than
in undisturbed areas during preliminary project activities and 5.3 times higher following construction. Schoof (1980)
reported several other impacts of channelization, including drainage of wetlands, reduction of oxbows and stream
meander, clearing of floodplain hardwood, lowering of ground-water levels, and increased erosion. Channel
modification projects such as setback levees or compound channel design can provide the overbank flooding to areas
needing it while also providing a desired level of flood protection to adjoining lands.

Changes to Ecosystems. Channelization and channel modification activities can lead to loss of instream and riparian
habitat and ecosystem benefits such as pathways for wildlife migration and conditions suitable for reproduction and
growth. Problematic flow modifications, for example, have resulted in reversal of flow regimes of some California
rivers or streams, which has led to the disorientation of anadromous fish that rely on flow to direct them to spawning
areas (James and Stokes Associates, Inc., 1976). Eroded sediment may deposit in new areas, covering benthic
communities or altering instream habitat (Sherwood et,al., 1990). Orlova and Popova (1976) researched the effects

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-5

11. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

on fish population resulting from altering the hydrologic regime with hydraulic structures such as channels. The
effects assessed by Orlova and Popova (1976) include:

� Deterioration of spawning habitat and conditions, resulting in lower recruitment of river species;
� Increases in stocks of summer spawning river species; and
� Changes in types and amounts of food organisms.

Many channel or streambank stabilization structures provide increased instream, habitat for certain aquatic species.
For example, Sandheinrich and Atchison (1986) reported increases in densities of epibenthic insects within revetments
and stone dike areas and more suitable substrate for bottom-dwelling insects in revetment areas.

Instream and Riparian Habitat Altered by Secondary Effects. Secondary instrearn and riparian habitat alteration
effects from channelization and channel modification projects include movementof estuarine turbidity maximum
zones (zone of higher sediment concentrations caused by salinity and tide-induced circulation) with salinity changes,
cultural eutrophication caused by inadequate flushing, and trapping of large quantities of sediment. Wolff and others
(1989) analyzed the impacts of flow augmentation on the stream channel and instrearn habitat following a transbasin
water diversion project in Wyoming. The South Fork of Middle Crow Creek, previously ephemeral, was beneficially
used as a conveyance to create instrearn habitat as a part of impact management measures of the transbasin diversion
project. Discontinuous channels, high summer water temperature, and flow interruptions and fluctuations were
identified as potential lirniting factors for the development of such practices for this particular project. Modeling
results, however, indicated that as the channel develops, the effects of the first two limiting factors will be negligible.
Following 2 years of increased flow in the 5.5-mile section of stream channel (reach) used in this study, the volume
of stream channel had increased 32 percent and more channel areas were expected to develop on approximately 67
percent of the stream reach. The total area of beaver ponds had more than doubled. The brook t rout with which
the beaver ponds were stocked were reported to be surviving and growing.

The examples described above illustrate the range of possible effects that can result from channelization and channel
modification projects. These effects can be either beneficial or problematic to the ecology and surrounding riparian
habitat. The effects caused by changed sediment supplies provide an excellent example of these varying impacts.
In one case, sediment supplies to coastal marshes are insufficient and the marshes are subsiding (problem). In
another case, sediment supplies to an estuary are increasing to the point of causing changes to the natural tidal flow
(problem). A final example showed decreased sediment in a streambed, which has resulted in better conditions for
native spawning fish (benefit). Thus, depending on site-specific conditions and the particular channelization or
channel modification practices used, the project will have positive or negative NPS pollution impacts.

Another confounding factor is the potential for one project to have multiple NPS problems and/or benefits.
Assuming that a channelization or channel modification project was originally designed to overcome a specific
problem (e.g., channel deepening for navigation, streambank stabilizaoon for erosion control, or levee construction
for flood control), the project was intended to be beneficial. Unfortunately, planners of many channelization and
channel modification projects have, in the past, been myopic when considering the range of impacts associated with
the project. The purpose of the management measures in this section is to recommend proper evaluation of potential
projects and reevaluation of existing projects to reduce NPS impacts and maximize potential benefits.

Proper evaluation of channelization and channel modification projects should consider three major points.

(1) E@dsting conditions. New and existing channelization and channel modification projects should be
evaluated for potential effects (both problematic and beneficial) based on existing stream and watershed
conditions. Site-specific stream conditions, such as flow rate, channel dimensions, typical surface water
quality, or slope, should be evaluated in conjunction with streamside conditions, such as soil and
vegetation type, slopes, or land use. Characteristics of the watershed also need to be evaluated. This phase
of the evaluation will identify baseline conditions for potential projects and can be compared to historical
conditions for projects already in place.

6-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 6 11. Channelization and Channel Modification

(2) Potential conditions. Anticipated changes to the base (or existing) conditions in a stream, along the
streambank, and within the watershed should be evaluated. By examining potential changes caused by
new conditions, long-term impacts can be factored into the design or management of a channelization or
channel modification project. Studies like that of Sandheinrich and Atchison (1986) clearly show that
short-term benefits from hydromodification activities can change to long-term problems.

(3) Watershed management. Evaluation of changes in watershed conditions is paramount in the proper
design of a channelization or channel modification project. Since the design of these projects is based on
hydrology, changes in watershed hydrology will certainly impact the proper functioning of a channelization
or channel modification structure. Additionally, many surface water quality changes associated with a
channelization or channel modification project can be attributed to watershed changes, such as different
land use, agricultural practices, or forestry practices.

The two management measures presented in this section of the chapter promote the evaluation of channelization. and
channel modification projects. Channels should be evaluated as a part of the watershed planning and design
processes, including watershed changes from new development in urban areas, agricultural drainage, or forest
clearing. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether resulting NPS changes to surface water quality or
instream and riparian habitat can be expected and whether these changes will be good or bad.

Existing channelization and channel modification projects can be evaluated to determine the NPS impacts and
benefits associated with the projects. Modifications to existing projects, including operation and maintenance or
management, can also be evaluated to determine the possibility of improving some or all of the impacts without
changing the existing benefits or creating additional problems.

In both new and existing channelization and channel modification projects, evaluation of benefits and/or problems
will be site-specific. Mathematical models are one type of tool used to determine these impacts. Some models
provide a simple analysis of a particular situation and are good for screening purposes. Other models evaluate
complex interactions of many variables and can be powerful, site-specific evaluation tools. There are also structural
and tionstructural practices that can be used to prevent either NPS pol.lution effects from or NPS impacts to
channelization and channel modification projects. Interpretation of design changes, model results predicting changes
or impacts, or the effects of structural or nonstructural practices requires sound biological and engineering judgment
and experience.

The first three problems listed above are usually associated with the alteration of physical characteristics of surface
waters. Accordingly, they are addressed by Management Measure ILA in the section below. The last three problems
listed above can be grouped to represent problems resulting from modification of instream, and riparian habitat. They
are addressed by Management Measure ILB in the subsequent section below.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-7

/1. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

A. Management Measure for Physical and Chemical
Characteristics of Surface Waters

(1) Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel
modification on the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters in
coastal areas;

(2) Plan and design channelization and channel modification to reduce undesirable
impacts;, and

(3) Develop an operation and maintenance program for existing modified channels
that Includes Identification and implementation of opportunities to improve
physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters in those channels.

1. Applicability
This management measure is intended to be applied by States to public and private channelization and channel
modification activities in order to prevent the degradation of physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters
from such activities. This management measure applies to any proposed channelization or channel modification
projects, including levees, to evaluate potential changes in surface water characteristics, as well as to existing
modified channels that can be targeted for opportunities to improve the surface water characteristics necessary to
support desired fish and wildlife. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are
subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with management measures
and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of this management measure by States is described more.
fully in Coastal Nonpoilnt Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published
jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to ensure that the planning process for new hydromodification projects
addresses changes to physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters that may occur as a result of the
proposed work. Implementation of this management measure is intended to occur concurrently with the
implementation of Management Measure B (Instrearn and Riparian Habitat Restoration) of this section. For existing
projects, the purpose of this management measure is to ensure that, the operation and maintenance program uses any
opportunities available to Oprove the physical and chemical characteristics of the surface waters. Changes created
by channelization and channel modification activities are problematic if they unexpectedly alter environmental
parameters to levels outside normal or desired ranges. The physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters
that may be influenced by channelization and channel modification include sediment, turbidity, salinity, temperature,
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand, and contaminants.

Implementation of this management measure in the planning processfor new projects will require a two-pronged
approach:

6-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 A Channefization and Channel Modification

(1) Evaluate, with numerical models for some situations, the types of NPS pollution related to instream
changes and watershed development.

(2) Address some types of NPS problems stemming from instrearn changes or watershed development with
a combination of nonstructural and structural practices.

The best available technology that can be applied to examine the physical and chemical effects of hydraulic and
hydrologic changes to streams, rivers, or other surface water systems are models and past experience in situations
similar to those described in the case studies discussed in this chapter. These models, discussed in detail under the
practices of this section, can simulate many of the complex physical, chemical, and biological interactions that occur
when hydraulic changes are imposed on surface water systems. Additionally, models can be used to determine a
combination of practices to mitigate the unavoidable effects that occur even when a project is properly planned.
Models, however, cannot be used independently of expert judgment gained through past experience. When properly
applied models are used in conjunction with expert judgment, the effects of channelization and channel modification
projects (both potential and existing projects) can be evaluated and many undesirable effects prevented or eliminated.

In cases where existing channelization or channel modification projects can be changed to enhance instrearn or
strearnside characteristics, several practices can be included as a part of regular operation and maintenance programs.
New channelization and channel modification projects that cause unavoidable physical or chemical changes in surface
waters can also use one or more practices to mitigate the undesirable changes. The practices include streambank
protection, levee protection, channel stabilization, flow restrictors, check dam systems, grade control 9tructures,
vegetative cover, instrearn sediment control, noneroding roadways, and setback levees or flood walls. By using one
or more of these practices in combination with predictive modeling, the, adverse impacts of channelization and
channel modification projects can be evaluated and possibly corrected.

This management measure addresses three of the effects of channelization and channel modification that affect the
physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters:

(1) Changed sediment supply;
(2) Reduced freshwater availability; and
(3) Accelerated delivery of pollutants@.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this management measure was based on the following factors:

(1) Published casq studies of existing channelization and channel modification projects describe alterations
to the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters (Burch et al., 1984; Erickson et al., 1979;
Parrish et al., 1978; Pennington and Dodge, 1982; Petersen, 1990; Reiser et al., 1985; Roy and Messier,
1989; Sandheinrich and Atchison, 1986; Sherwood et al., 1990). Frequently, the postproject conditions
are intolerable to desirable fish and wildlife.

(2) The literature also describes instrearn benefits for fish and 'wildlife that can result from careful planning
of channelization and channel modification projects (Bowie, 1981; Los Angeles River Watershed, 1973;
Sandheinrich and Atchison, 1986; Shields et al., 1990; Swanson et al., 1987; USACE, 1981; USACE,
1989).

(3) Increased volumes of runoff resulting from some types of watershed development produce hydraulic
changes in downstream areas including bank scouring, channel modifications, and flow alterations
(Anderson, 1992; Schueler, 1987).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-9

//. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

4. Practices

As explained more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of practices. However, as a practical
matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by applying
one or more management: practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth below
have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve
the management measure described above.

a. Use modeislmethodologies as one means to evaluate the effects of proposed channelization and
channel modification projects on the physical and chemical characteristics of surface waters.
Evaluate these effects as part of watershed plans, land use plans, and new development plans.

Mathematical Models for Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Surface Waters,
Including Instream Flows

Over the past 20 to 30 years, theoretical and engineering advances have been made in the quantitative descriptions
and interactions of physical transport processes; sediment transport, erosion, and deposition; and surface water quality
processes. Based on tfiese theoretical approaches and the need for evaluations of proposed surface water resource
engineering projects, a variety of simulation models have been developed and applied to provide technical input for
complex decision-making. In planning-level evaluations of proposed hydromodification projects, it is critical to
understand that the surface water quality and ecological impact of the proposed project will be driven primarily by
the alteration of physical transport processes. In addition, it is critical t6 realize that the most important envirorumental
consequences of many hydromodification projects will occur over a long-term time scale of years to decades.

The key element in the selection and appli Ication of models for the evaluation of the environmental consequences
of hydromodification projects is the use of appropriate models to adequately characterize circulation and physical
transport processes. Appropriate surface water quality and ecosystem models (e.g., salinity, sediment, cultural
eutrophication, oxygen, bacteria, fisheries, etc.) are then selected'for linkage with the transport model to evaluate the
environ.mental impact of the proposed hydromodification project. Because of the increasing availability of relatively
inexpensive computer hardware and software over the past decade, rapid advances have been made in the
development of sophisticated two-dimensional (21)) and three-dimensional (3D) time-variable hydrodynamic models
that can be used for envirorunental assessments of hydromodification projects (see Spaulding, 1990; McAnally, 1987).
Two-dimensional depth or laterally averaged hydrodynamic models are economical and can be routinely developed
and applied for environmental assessments of beneficial and adverse effects on surface water quality by
knowledgeable teams of physical scientists and engineers (Hamilton, 1990). Three-dimensional hydrodynamic models,
usually considered more of an academic research tool, are also begi@ning to be more widely applied for large-scale
envirortmental assessments of aquatic ecosystems (e.g., EPA/USACE-WES Chesapeake Bay 3D hydrodynamic and
surface water quality model).

The necessity for the application of detailed 2D and 3D hydrodynamic models for large-scale hydromodification
projects can be demonstrated using detailed simulation models to hindcast the long-term surface water quality and
ecological impact of projects that have actually been constructed over the past 20 to 40 years. Sufficient data are
available from a number of large-scale hydromodification projects in the United States and overseas that can provide
data sets for the development of hindcasting models to illustrate the capability of the models to simulate the known
adverse long-term ecological consequences of projects that have actually been operational for decades. The results
of such hindcasting evaluations could provide important guidan@e for resource managers, who use good professional
judgment to understand the level of technical complexity and the costs required for an adequate assessment of the
long-term ecological impacts of proposed hydromodification projects. In the Columbia River estuary, for example,
Sherwood and others (1990) used historical bathymetric data with a numerical 2D hydrodynamic model (Hamilton,
1990) to document the long-term impact of hydromodification changes on channel morphology, riverflow transport
processes, salinity intrusion, residence time, and net accumulation of sediment.

6-10 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 11. Channelization and Channel Modification

When models are not suited to evaluate a particular situation, examining existing conditions and using best
professional judgment are another way to evaluate the effects of hydromodification activities. For example, in cases
where water supplies need to be restored to wetlands that have historically experienced a loss of water contact,
models can be used to ensure that the length of time of renewed water exposure is within the tolerance of the
wedand plants for inundation, since excessive inundation of wetland plants can be as destructive as loss of water
contact. Surface water quality monitoring and procedures such as Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (see Management
Measure B in this section for more information) are examples of methods to examine existing conditions.

Table 6-1 lists some of the available models for studying the effects of channelization and channel modification
activities. Listed below are examples of channelization and channel modification activities and associated models
that can be used in the planning process.

� Impoundments. A hydrodynarnic model coupled with a surface water quality model (e.g., WASP4) can
be applied to determine changes in surface water quality due to an increased detention of storm water runoff
caused by the upstream dams. Changes in sediment distribution in the estuary caused by a reduction in the
sediment source (due to the trap efficiency of an upstream -impoundment) are difficult to determine with
modeling.

� Tidal Flow Restrictions. Restrictions of tidal flow may include undersized culverts and bridges, tide gates,
and weirs. One potential modeling technique to determine the flow through the restriction is the USGS
FESWMS-2DH model. Once the flows through the restriction are defined, then WASP4 can be applied to
compute surface water quality impacts.

� Breakwaters,'Jetties, and Wave Barriers. Construction of these coastal structures may alter the surface
water circulation patterns and cause sediment accumulation. Physical hydraulic models can be used to
qualitatively determine where sediment will accumulate, but they cannot reliably determine the quantities
of accumulated sediment. Finite element (CAFE) or finite difference (EFDC) models can be used to
determine changes in circulation/flushing caused by the addition or modification of coastal structures, The
WASP4 model can be applied to determine surface water quality impacts.
J
� Flow Regime Alterations. Removing or increasing freshwater flows to an estuary can alter the hydraulic
characteristics and water chemistry. The WASP4 model can be used to determine surface water quality
impacts.

� Excavation of Uplands for Marina Basins or Lagoon Systems. Depending on the magnitude and
frequency of water-level fluctuations, this activity may result in poorly flushed areas within a marina or
lagoon system. Finite element or finite difference models (e.g., CAFE/DISPER and EFDQ can be used
to determine a design that will result in adequate flushing. The WASP4 model can be applied to determine
surface water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen or salinity) impacts.

Model Selection

Although a wide range of adequate hydrodynamic and surface water quality models are available, the central issue
in the selection of appropriate models for an evaluation of a specific hydromodification project is the appropriate
match of the financial and geographical scale of the proposed project with the cost required to perform a credible
technical evaluation of the projected environmental impact. It is highly unlikely, for example, that a proposal for
a relatively small marina project with planned excavation of an upland area would be expected or required to contain
a state-of-the-art hydrodynamic and surface water quality analysis that requires one or more person-years of effort.
In such projects, a simplified, desktop approach-requiring less time and money-would most likely be sufficient
(McPherson, 1991). In contrast, substantial technical assessment of the long-term environmental impacts would be
expected for channelization proposed as part of construction of a major harbor facility or as part of a system of
navigation and flood control locks and dams. The assessment should incorporate the use of detailed 2D or 3D
hydrodynamic models coupled with sediment transport and surface water quality models.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-11

11. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

Table 6-1. Models Applicable to Hydromodification Activities

Model Description Source and Contact

CAFE Circulation Analysis Finite Element. Developed at MIT in mid-1970s by J.D.
Wang and J.J. Connor.
E. Eric Adams
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Cambridge, MA

DISPER Dispersion analysis model that is coupled to Developed at MIT in mid-1970s by
the CAFE model. G.C. Christodoulou.
E. Eric Adams
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Cambridge, MA
TABS-2 Generalized numerical modeling system for Developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
open-channel flows, sedimentation, and Waterways Experiment Station 1978-1984.
constituent transport. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station
Hydraulics Laboratory
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631

EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code. This is Developed by John, Hamrick at the Virginia
a 3D finite-difference hydrodynamic and Institute of Marine Science 1990-1991.
salinity model. Dr. John Hamrick
9 Sussex Court
Williamsburg, VA 23188

WASP4 Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program. Developed and updated by EPA
Simulates dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens,
Georgia, 1986-1990.
David Disney
U.S. EPA
Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613

FESWMS-2DH Finite element surface water modeling Developed for U.S. Geological Survey,
system for two-dimensional flow in a Reston, VA
horizontal plane. Can simulate steady and Dr. David Froehlich
unsteady surface water flow and is useful for Department of Civil Engineering
simulating two- dimensional flow where University of Kentucky
complicated hydraulic conditions exist (e.g., Lexington, KY
highway crossings of streams and flood
rivers).
TPA Tidal Prism Analysis. U.S. EPA. 1985. Coastal Marinas
Assessment Handbook. U.S. EPA, Region 4,
Atlanta, GA.

CE-QUAL-W2 Consists of directly coupled hydrodynamic Developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and water quality transport models. Can Waterways Experiment Station in 1986.
simulate suspended solids and accumulation U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station
and decomposition of detritus and organic Hydraulics Laboratory
sediment. Two-dimensional in the x-z plane. P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0631

6-12 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 l/. Channefization and Channel Modification

In general, six criteria tan be used to review available models for potential application in a given hydromodification
project:

(1) Time and resources available for model application;
(2) Ease of application;
(3) Availability of documentation;
(4) Applicability of modeled processes and constituents to project objectives and concerns;
(5) Hydrodynamic modeling capabilities; and
(6) Demonstrated applicability to size and type of project.

The Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM), EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia,
provides continual support for several hydrodynamic and surface water quality models. Another source of
information and technical support is the Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg,
Mississippi. Although a number of available models are in the public domain, costs associated with setting up and
operating these models may exceed the project's available resources. For a simple to moderately difficult application,
the approximate level of effort varies from I to 12 person-months (Table 6-2).

Model Limitations

Factors that need to be considered in the application of mathematical models to predict impacts from
hydromodification projects include:

� Variations in the accuracy of these models when they are applied to the short- and long-term response of
natural systems;

* The availability of relevant information to derive the simulations and validate the modeling results;

� The substantial computer time. required for long-term simulations of 3D hydrodynamic and surface water
quality process models; and

� The need for access to sophisticated equipment such as the CRAY-XMP.

Mb. Identify and evaluate appropriate BMPs for use in the design of proposed channefization or channel
modification projects orin the operation and maintenance program of existing projects. Identilyand
evaluate positive and negative impacts of selected BMPs and include costs.

Several available surface water management practices can be implemented to avoid or mitigate the physical and
chemical impacts generated by hydromodification projects. Many of these practices have been engineered and used
for several decades not only to mitigate human-induced impacts but also to rehabilitate hydrologic systems degraded
by natural processes.

Table 6-2. Approximate Levels of Effort for Hydrodynamic and Surface Water Quality Modeling

Surface Water Quality
Dimensionality Parameter Approximate Level of Effort

1 D steady state DO, BOD, nutrient 1-2 person-months

I D, 2D steady state DO, BOD, nutrient, 1-4 person-months
phytoplankton, toxics

1 D, 3D time-variable DO, BOD, nutrient, 1-12 person-months
phytoplankton, toxics

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-13

/1. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

Streambank Protection

In general, the design of streambank protection may involve the use of several techniques and materials.
Nonstructural or programmatic management practices for the prevention of streambank failures include:

� Protection of existing vegetation along streambanks;

� Regulation of irrigation near streambanks and rerouting of overbank drainage; and

� Minimization of loads on top of streambanks (such as prevention of building within a defined distance from
the streambed).

Several structural practices are used in the protection or the rehabilitation of eroded banks. These practices are
usually implemented in combination to provide stability of the stream system, and they can be grouped into direct
and indirect methods. Direct methods place protecting material in contact with the bank to shield it from erosion.
Indirect methods function by deflecting channel flows away from the bank or by reducing the flow velocities to
nonerosive levels (Henderson and Shields, 1984; Henderson, 1986). Indirect bank protection requires less bank
grading and tree and snag removal.

Direct methods for streambank protection include stone riprap revetment, erosion control fabrics and mats,
revegetation, burlap sacks, cellular concrete blocks, and bulkheads. Indirect methods include dikes, wire or board
fences, gabions, and stone longitudinal dikes. The feasibility of these practices depends on the engineering design
of the structure, the availability of the protecting material, the extent of the bank erosion, and specific site conditions
such as the flow velocity, channel depth, inundation characteristics, and geotechnical characteristics of the bank. The
use of vegetation alone or in combination with other structural practices, when appropriate, would further reduce the
engineering and maintenance efforts.

Innovative designs of streambank protection tailored to specific environmental goals and site conditions may result
in beneficial effects. Several innovative channel profiling and revetment design considerations were reviewed by
Henderson and Shields (1984), including composite revetments for deep channels with flow concentrated along the
bank line, windrow revetments for actively eroding and irregular banks, and reinforced revetments (stone toe
protection) to control underwater activities adjacent to high banks. Composite revetments placed along the Missouri
River were built with a combination of stone, gravel, -clay, and flood-tolerant vegetation to protect the streambank
(USACE, 1981). The different materials were selected to match the erosive potential of the streambank zones.
Beneficial environmental impacts that can be achieved by this type of design include higher densities and abundance
of riparian vegetation on the top bank, allowing flood-tolerant species to colonize the clay and gravel of the splash
zone. The design was reported to provide better access to the channel by wildlife, and it had a greater aesthetic value.

An excavated bench (compound channel) streambank protection design, based on streambed stabilization, was used
to control erosion activities on the Yazoo River tributaries in Mississippi. These tributaries were experiencing
extensive bed degradation and channel migration. The design consisted of structural protection to the water elevation
reached during 90 to 95 percent of the annual storm events, a flattened bench excavated just above the structural
protection to provide a suitable growing environment for wood vegetation and shrubs, and a grass-se@ded upper bank,
which could be succeeded by native species. This practice has been reported to be successful in controlling
streambank erosion (Bowie, 1981).

Streambank protection structures may impact the riparian wildlife community if the stabilization effort alters the
quality of the riparian habitat. Comparison of protected riprapped and adjacent unprotected streambanks and
cultivated nearby areas along the Sacramento River showed that bird species diversity and density were significantly
lower on the riprapped banks than on the unaltered sites (Hehnke and Stone, 1978). However, benthic
microorganisms appear to benefit from stone revetment. Burress and others (1982) found that the density and
diversity of macroinvertebrates were higher in the protected bank areas.

6-14 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 l/. Channelization and Channel Modification

Levee Protection

Many valuable techniques can be used, when applied correctly, to protect, operate, and maintain levees (Hynson et
al., 1985). Evaluation of site-specific conditions and the use of best professional judgment are the best methods for
selecting the proper levee protection and operation and maintenance plan. According to Hynson and others (1985),
maintenance activities generally consist of vegetation management, burrowing animal control, upkeep of recreational
areas, and levee repairs.

Methods to control vegetation include mowing, grazing, buming, and using chemicals. Selection of a vegetation
control method should consider the existing and surrounding vegetation, desired instream. and riparian habitat types
and values, timing of controls to avoid critical periods, selection of livestock grazing periods, and timing of
prescribed bums to be consistent with historical fire patterns (Hynson et al., 1985). Additionally, a balance between
the vegetation management practices for instrearn and riparian habitat and engineering considerations should be
maintained to avoid structural compromise (Hynson et al., 1985). Animal control methods are most effective when
used as a part of an integrated pest management program and might include instream. and riparian habitat
manipulation or biological controls (Hynson et al., 1985). Recreational area management includes upkeep of planted
areas, disposal of solid waste, and repairing of facilities (Hynson et al., 1985).

Channel Stabilization and Flow Restrictors

Channel stabilization using hydraulic structures to stabilize stream channels, as well as to control stream sediment
load and transport, is a common practice. In general, these structures function to:

� Retard further downward cutting of the channel bed;
� Retard or reduce the sediment delivery rate;
Raise and widen the channel beds;
Reduce the stream grade and flow velocities;
Reduce movement of large boulders; and
Control the direction of flow and the position of the stream.

Check Dam Systems

The Los Angeles River Watershed (1973) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of check dam systems as sediment control
structures in the Angeles National Forest. In general, the check dam systems were found to be marginally @ost-
effective and were able to provide some beneficial sediment-reduction functions.

Swanson and others (1987) described the use of 71 check darns in the headwaters area of a perennial stream in
northwestern Nevada. Watershed management problems, such as a history of overgrazing, led to riparian habitat
degradation in strearnside areas and severe gullying. The problem was ameliorated with changes in watershed
management practices (livestock exclusion in strearnside areas or limited grazing programs) and structural practices
(check dams). Loose rock check dams, designed for 25-year floods, were selected for their ability to retard water
velocities and trap sediment.

Benefits of this planned channel modification project include both instrearn and strearnside changes. Sediment was
trapped behind the dams (average of 0.9 foot in 2 years), and small wetland areas were established behind most
dams. Additionally, over one-half of the channel length was vegetated in the deepest areas and the entire channel
was at least partially vegetated. Strearnside benefits included increased bird and plant diversity and abundance.

Grade Control Structures - Streambank and Channel Stabilization

Grade control structures (GCS) are hydraulic barriers (weirs) installed across streams to stabilize the channel, control
headcuts and scour holes, and prevent upstream degradation. These structures can be built with a variety of
materials, including sheet piling, stone, gabions,. or concrete. Grade control structures are usually installed in

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-15

/l. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

combination with other practices to protect streambanks and direct the stream flow. Grade control structure design
needs to account for stream morphologic, hydrologic, and hydraulic characteristics to determine the range of stream
discharges for which the structure will function. Additionally, the upstream distance influenced by the structure,
changes to surface water profiles, and the sediment transport capacity of the targeted stream reach need to be
considered.

Shields and others (1990) evaluated the efficiency of GCS installed on Twentymile Creek (northeast Mississippi)
to address channel instability. Effects on bank line vegetation were assessed using a before-and-after approach.
Benefits of the GCS included local channel aggradation for about I mile upstream of each structure, increased
streambank vegetation, locally increased fish species diversity downstream from the GCS, and the creation of low-
flow velocities and greater pool depths downstream from the GCS. The primary problem associated with the project
was the continued general streambed degradation after the structures were installed.

Vegefative Cover

Streambank protection using vegetation is probably the most commonly used practice, particularly in small tributaries.
Vegetative cover, also used in combination with other structural practices, is relatively easy to establish and maintain,
is visually attractive, and is the only streambank stabilization method that can repair itself when damaged (USACE,
1983). Appropriate native plant species should be used. Vegetation growing under the waterline provides two levels
of protection. First, the root system helps to hold the soil together and increases overall bank stability by forming
a binding network. Second, the exposed stalks, sterns, branches, and foliage provide resistance to the streamflow,
causing the flow to lose part of its energy by deforming the plants rather than by removing the soil particles. Above
the waterline, vegetation protects against rainfall impact on the banks and reduces the velocity of the overland flow
during storm events.

In addition to its bank stabilization potential, vegetation can provide pollutant-filtering capacity. Pollutant and
sediment transported by overland flow may be partly removed as a result of a combination of processes including
reduction in flow pattern and transport capacity, settling and deposition of particulates, and eventually nutrient uptake
by plants.

Instream Sediment Load Control

Instream sediment can be controlled by using several structural practices depending on the management objective
and the source of sediment. Streambank protection and channel stabilization practices, including various types of
revetments, grade control structures, and flow restrictors, have been effective in controlling sediment production
caused by streambank erosion. Significant amounts of instrearn sediment deposition can be prevented by controlling
bank erosion processes and streambed degradation. Channel stabilization structures can also be designed to trap
sediment and decrease the sediment delivery to desired areas by altering the transport capacity of the stream and
creating sediment storage areas. In regulated streams, alteration of the natural streamflow, particularly the damping
of peak flows caused by surface water regulation and diversion projects, can increase streambed sediment deposits
by impairing the stream's transport capacity and its natural flushing power. Sediment deposits and reduced flow alter
the channel morphology and stability, the flow area, the channel alignment and sinuosity, and the riffle and pool
sequence. Such alterations have direct impacts on the aquatic habitat and the fish populations in the altered strearns
(Reiser et al., 1985).

Noneroding Roadwitys

Farm, forestry, and other rural road construction; streamside vehicle operation; and stream crossings usually result
in significant soil disturbance and create a high potential for increased erosion processes and sediment transport to
adjacent streams and surface waters. Road construction involves activities such as clearing of existing native
vegetation along the road right-of-way; excavating and filling the roadbed to the desired grade; installation of culverts
and other drainage systems; and installation, compaction, and surfacing of the roadbed.

6-16 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaiy 1993

Chapter 6 il. Channelization and Channel Modification

Although most erosion from roadways occurs during the first few years after construction, significant impacts may
result from maintenance operations using heavy equipment, especially when the road is located adjacent to a
waterbody. In addition, improper construction and lack of maintenance may increase erosion processes and the risk
for road failure. To minimize erosion and prevent sedimentation impacts on nearby waterbodies during construction
and operation periods, strearnside roadway management needs to combine proper design for site- specific conditions
with appropriate maintenance practices. Chapter 3 of this document reviews available practices for rural road
construction and management to minimize impacts on waterbodies in coastal zones. Chapter 4 outlines practices and
design concepts for construction and management of roads designed for heavier traffic loads and can be applied to
planning and installation of roads and highways in coastal areas.

Setback Levees and Flood Walls

Levees and flood walls are longitudinal structures used to reduce flooding and minimize sedimentation problems
associated with fluvial systems. They can be constructed without disturbing the natural channel vegetation, cross
section, or bottom slope. Usually no immediate instream effects from sedimentation are caused by implementing
this type of modification. However, there may be a long-term problem in channel adjustment (USACE, 1989).

Siting of levees and flood walls should be addressed prior to design and implementation of these types of projects.
Proper siting of such structures can avoid several types of problems. First, construction activities should not disturb
the physical integrity of adjacent riparian areas and/or wetlands. Second, by setting back the structures (offsetting
them from the streambank), the relationship between the channel and adjacent riparian areas can be preserved.
Proper siting and alignment of proposed structures can be established based on hydraulic calculations, historical flood
data, and geotechnical analysis of riverbank stability.

5. Costs for Modeling Practices

Costs for modeling of channelization and channel modification activities range from $1,500 to over $5,000,000 (see
Table 6-3). Generally, more expensive modeling requires custom programming, extensive data collection, detailed
calibration and verification, and larger computers. The benefits of more expensive modeling include a more detailed
analysis of the problem and the ability to include more variables in the model. Less expensive models, in general,
have minimal data requirements and require little or no programming, and they can usually be run on smaller
computers. The difference in cost roughly corresponds to the detail that can be expected in the final analysis.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 6-17

l/. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

Table 6-3. Costs of Models for Various Applications

Application Model Cost

Channel Maintenance Physical model of estuary, river, or 500,000 to 5,000,000
stream "from scratch"

Existing physical model of estuary, 50,000 to 500,000
river, or stream

3D hydrodynamic and salinity model 50,000 to 200,000

TABS-2 application for sedimentation 50,000 to 200,000

TPA application to a marina basin
1,500 to 3,000
WASP4 application to a marina basin
15,000 to 50,000

Dams and Impoundments WASP4 application to an estuary or a 50,000 to 150,000
reservoir

CE-QUAL-W2 application to an 50,000 to 100,000
estuary or a reservoir

Estuarine or reservoir sediment unlimited
transport models
Tidal Flow Restrictors FESWMS-2DH application of tidal flow 15,000 to 30,000
restriction

WASP4 application of tidal flow 50,000 to 150,000
restriction

Flow Regime Alterations WASP4 application of flow regime 50,000 to 150,000
alteration
Breakwaters and Wave Barriers CAFE finite element circulation model 15,000 to 50,000

EFDC finite difference 3D model
20,000 to 60,000
WASP4 application to harbor system
15,000 to 50,000

Excavation of Uplands for Marina CAFE/DISPER models 15,000 to 50,000
Basins or Lagoon Systems
EFDC 3D hydrodynamic model 20,000 to 60,000

WASP4 application to marina/lagoon 15,000 to 50,000

6-18 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 /1. Channelization and Channel Modification

... ......... ..
B. Instrearn and Riparian Habitat Restoration
Management Measure

(1) Evaluate the potential effects of proposed channelization and channel
modification on instrearn and riparian habitat In coastal areas;

(2) Plan and design channelization and channel modification to reduce undesirable
I. impacts; and

(3) Develop an operation and maintenance program with specific timetables for
existing modified channels that includes identification of opportunities to restore
instrearn and riparian habitat in those channels.
L

1. Applicability

This management measure pertains to surface waters where channelization and channel modification have altered
or have the potential to alter instrearn and riparian habitat such that historically present fish or wildlife are adversely
affected. This management measure is intended to apply to any proposed channelization or channel modification
project to determine changes in instream and riparian habitat and to existing modified channels to evaluate possible
improvements to instream and riparian habitat. Under the Coastal Zoqe Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,
States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with
management measures and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of this management measure by
States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval
Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to correct or prevent detrimental changes to instrearn and riparian habitat
from the impacts of channelization and channel modification projects. Implementation of this management measure
is intended to occur concurrently with the implementation of Management Measure A (Physical and Chemical
Characteristics of Surface Waters) of this section.

Contact between floodwaters and overbank soil and vegetation can be increased by a combination of setback levees
and use of compound-channel designs. Levees set back away from the streambank (setback levees) can be
constructed to allow for overbank flooding, which provides surface water contact to important strearnside areas
(including wetlands and riparian areas). Additionally, setback levees still function to protect adjacent property from
flood damage. Compound-channel designs consist of an incised, narrow channel to carry surface water during low
(base)-flow periods, a staged overbank area into which the flow can expand during design flow events, and an
extended overbank area, sometimes with meanders, for high-flow events. Planting of the extended overbank with
suitable vegetation completes the design.

Preservation of ecosystem benefits can be achieved by site-specific design to obtain predefined optimum or existing
ranges of physical environmental conditions. Mathematical models can be used to assist in site-specific design.

January 1993 6-19

//. Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

Instrearn and riparian habitat alterations caused by secondary effects can be evaluated by the use of models and other
decision aids in the design process of a channelization and channel modification activity. After using models to
evaluate secondary effects, restoration programs can bee established.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this management measure was based on the following factors:

(1) Published case studies that show that channelization projects cause instrearn and riparian habitat
degradation. For example, wetland drainage due to hydraulic modifications was found to be significant
by several researchers (Barclay, 1980; Erickson et al., 1979; Schoof, 1980; Wilcock and Esse6, 1991).

(2) Published case studies that note instream habitat changes caused by channelization and channel
modifications (Reiser et al., 1985; Sandheinfich and Atchison, 1986).

4. Practices

As explained more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require implementation of practices. However, as a practical
matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above, generally will be implemented by applying
one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth below
have been found by EPA to bd representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to achieve
the management measure described above.

a. Use mode/s/methodologies to evaluate the effects of proposed channefization and channel
modification projects on instrearn and riparian habitat and to determine the effects after such
projects are implemented.

Expert Judgment and Check Lists

Approaches using expert judgment and check lists developed based on experience acquired in previous projects and
case studies may be very helpful in integrating environmental goals into project development. This concept of
incorporating environmental goals into project design was used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Shields and
Schaefer, 1990) in the development of a computer-based system for the environmental design of waterways
(ENDOW). The system is comppsed of three modules: streambank protection module, flood control channel module,
and streamside levee module. The three modules require the definition of the pertinent environmental goals to be
considered in the identification of design features.

Depending on the environmental goals selected for each module, ENDOW will dispiay a fist of conunents or cautions
about anticipated impacts and other precautions to be taken into account in the design.

Biological Method-slModels

To assess the biological impacts of channelization, it is necessary to evaluate both physical and biological attributes
of the stream system. Assessment studies should be performed before and after channel modification, with samples
being collected upstream from, within, and downstream from the modified reach to allow characterization of baseline
conditions. It is also desirable to identify and sample a reference site within the same ecoregion as part of the rapid
bioassessment procedures discussed below.

6-20 EPA-840-B-92-002 Jan4vary 1993

Chapter 6 l/. Channelization and Channel Modification

Habitat Evaluation Procedures

Habitat Evaluation Procedur@s (HEPs) can be used to document the quality and quantity of available habitat,
including aquatic habitat, for selected wildlife species. HEPs provide information for two general types of instrearn
and riparian habitat comparisons:

(1) The relative value of different areas at the same point in time and
(2) The relative value of the same area at future points in time.

By combining the two types of comparisons, the impact of proposed or anticipated land and water use changes on
instream. and riparian habitat can be quantified (USDOI-FWS, 1980).

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols - Habitat Assessment

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) were developed as inexpensive screening tools for determining whether a
stream is supporting a designated aquatic life use (Plaffin et al., 1989). One component of these protocols is an
instrearn habitat assessment procedure that measures physical characteristics of the stream reach (Barbour and
Stribling, 1991). An assessment of instrearn habitat quality based on 12 instrearn habitat parameters is performed
in comparison to conditions at a "reference" site, which represents the "best attainable" instrearn habitat in nearby
streams similar to the one being studied. The RBP habitat assessment procedure has been used in a number of
locations across the United States. The procedure typically can be performed by a field crew of one person in
approximately 20 minutes per sampling site.

Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III - Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al., 1989) were designed to be scientifically valid and cost-effective and
to offer rapid return of results and assessments. Protocol III (RBP 111) focuses on quantitative sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates in riffle/run habitat or on other submerged, fixed structures (e.g., boulders, logs, bridge abutments,
etc.) where such riffles may not be available. The data collected are used to calculate various metrics pertaining to
benthic community structure, community balance, and functional feeding groups. The metrics are assigned scores
and compared to biological conditions as described by either an ecoregional reference database or site-specific
reference sites chosen to represent the "best attainable" biological community in similarly sized streams. In
conjunction with the instream habitat quality assessment, an overall assessment of the biological and instream habitat
quality at the site is derived. RBP III can be used to determine spatial and temporal differences in the modified
stream reach. Application of RBP III requires a crew of two persons; field collections and lab processing require
4 to 7 hours per station and data analysis about 3 to 5 hours, totaling 7 to 12 hours per station. The RBP III has
been extensively applied across the United States.

Rosgen Stream Classification System - Fish Habitat

Rosgen (1985) has developed a stream classification system that categorizes various strewn types by morphologic 'al
characteristics. Based on characteristics such as gradient, sinuosity, widtb/depth ratio, bed particle size, channel
entrenchment/valley confinement, and landform. features and watershed soil types, stream segments can be placed
within major categories. Subcategories can be delineated using additional factors including organic debris, riparian
vegetation, stream size, flow regimen, depositional features, and meander patterns. The method is designed to be
applied using aerial photographs and topographic maps, with field validation necessary for gradients, particle size,
and width/depth ratios. Rosgen and Fittante (1986) have prepared guidelines for fish habitat improvement structure
suitability based on Rosgen's (1985) classification system. The methods have been used in the western States and
have had some application in the eastern States.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-21

IL Channelization and Channel Modification Chapter 6

Simon and Hupp Channel Response Model - Stream Habitat

A conceptual model of channel evolution in response to channelization has been developed by Simon and Hupp
(1986,1987), Hupp and Simon (1986,1991), and Simon (1989a, 1989b). The model identifies six geomorphic stages
of channel response and was developed and extensively applied to predict empirically stream channel changes
following large-scale channelization projects in western Tennessee. Data required for model application include bed
elevation and gradient, channel top-width, and channel length before, during, and after modification. Gauging station
data can be used to evaluate changes through time of the stage-discharge relationship and bed-level trends. Riparian
vegetation is dated to provide ages of various geomorphic surfaces and thereby to deduce the temporal stability of
a reach.

Temperature Predictions

Stream temperature has been widely studied, and heat transfer is one of the better-understood processes in natural
watershed systems. Most available approaches use energy balance formulations based on the physical processes of
heat transfer to describe and predict changes in stream temperature. The six primary processes that transfer energy
in the stream environment are (1) short-wave solar radiation, (2) long-wave solar radiation, (3) convection with the
air, (4) evaporation, (5) conduction to the soil, and (6) advection from incoming water sources (e.g., ground-water
seepage).

Several computer models that predict instrearn water temperature are currently available. These models vary in th6
complexity of detail with which site characteristics, including meteorology, hydrology, stream geometry, and riparian
vegetation, are described. An instream surface water temperature model was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Theurer et al., 1984) to predict mean daily temperature and diurnal fluctuations in surface water
temperatures throughout a stream system. The model can be applied to any size watershed or river system. This
predictive model uses either historical or synthetic hydrological, meteorological, and stream geometry characteristics
to describe the ambient conditions. The purpose of the model is to predict the longitudinal temperature and its
temporal variations. The instrearn surface water temperature model has been used satisfactorily to evaluate the
impacts of riparian vegetation, reservoir releases, and stream withdrawal and returns on surface water temperature.
In the Upper Colorado River Basin, the model was used to study the impact of temperature on endangered species
(Theurer et al., 1982). It also has been used in smaller ungauged watersheds to study the impacts of riparian
vegetation on salmonid habitat.

Index of Biological Integrity - Fish Habitat

Karr et al. (1986) describe an Index of Biological Integrity (1131), which includes 12 matrices in three major
categories of fish assemblage attributes: species composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition.
Data are collected at each site and compared to those collected at regional reference sites with relatively unimpacted
biological conditions. A numerical rating is assigned to each metric based on its degree of agreement with
expectations of biological condition provided by the reference sites. The sum of the metric ratings yields an overall
score for the site. Application of the IBI requires a crew of two persons; field collections require 2 to 15 hours per
station and data analysis about I to 2 hours, totaling 3 to 17 hours per station. The IBI, which was originally
developed for Midwestern streams, can be readily adapted for use in other regions. It has been used in over two
dozen States across the country to assess a wide range of impacts in streams and rivers.

Simon and Hupp Vegetative Recovery Model - Streamside Habitat

A component of Simon and Hupp's (1986, 1987) channel response model is the identification of specific groups of
woody plants associated with each of the six geomorphic channel response stages. Their findings for western
Tennessee streams suggest that the site preference or avoidance patterns of selected tree species allow their use as
indicators of specific bank conditions. This method might require calibration for specific regions of the United States
to account for differences in riparian zone plant communities, but it would allow simple vegetative reconnaissance
of an area to be used for a preliminary estimate of stream recovery stage (Simon and Hupp, 1987).

6-22 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 H. Channelization and Channel Modification

Mb. Identify and evaluate appropriate BMPs for use in the design of proposed channelization or channel
modification projects or in the operation and maintenance program of existing projects. Identilyand
evaluate positive and negative impacts of selected BMPs and include costs.

Operation and maintenance programs should include provisions to use one or more of the approaches described under
Practice "b" of Management Measure A of this section. To prevent future impacts to instrearn or riparian habitat
or to solve current problems caused by channelization or channel modification projects, include one or more of the
following in an operation and maintenance program:

� Streambed protection;
� Levee protection;
� Channel stabilization and flow restrictors;
� Check dams;
� Vegetative cover;
� Instrearn sediment load control;
� Noneroding roadways; and
� Setback levees and flood walls.

Operation and maintenance programs should weigh the benefits of including practices such as these for mitigating
any current or future impairments to instrearn or riparian habitat.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-23

A Dams Chapter 6

Ill. DAMS MANAGEMENT MEASURES

The second category of sources for which management measures and practices are presented in this chapter is dams.
Dams are defined as constructed impoundments that are either (1) 25 feet or more in height and greater than 15 acre-
feet in capacity, or (2) 6 feet or more in height and greater than 50 acre-feet in capacity.'

Based on this definition, there are 7,790 dams located in coastal counties of the United States, of which 6,928 dams
are located in States with approved coastal zone programs (Quick and Richmond, 1992).

The siting and construction of a dam can be undertaken for many purposes, including flood control, power
generation, irrigation, livestock watering, fish farming, navigation, and municipal water supply. Some reservoir
impoundments are also used for recreation and water sports, for fish and wildlife propagation, and for augmentation
of low flows. Danis can adver@sely impact the hydraulic regime, the quality of the surface waters, and habitat in the
stream or river where they are located. A variety of impacts can result from the siting, construction, and operation
of these facilities.

Dams are divided into the following classes: run-of-the-river, mainstem, transitional, and storage. A run-of-the-river
dam is usually a low darn, with small hydraulic head, limited storage area, short detention time, and no positive
control over lake storage. The amount of water released from these darns depends on the amount of water entering
the impoundment from upstream sources. Mainstem darns, which include run-of-the-river dams, are characterized
by a retention time of approximately 25 days and a reservoir depth of approximately 50 to 100 feet. In mainstem
dams, the outflow temperature is approximately equal to the inflow temperature plus the solar input, thus causing
a "warming" effect. Transitional dams are characterized by a retention time of about 25 to 200 days and a maximum
reservoir depth of between 100 and 200 feet. In transitional dams, the outflow temperature is approximately equal
to the inflow temperature so that during the warmer months coldwater fish cannot survive unless the inflows are cold.
The storage darn is typically a high dam with large hydraulic head, long detention time, and positive control over
the volume of water released from the impoundment. Dams constructed for either flood control or hydroelectric
power generation are usually of the storage class. These dams typically have a retention time of over 200 days and
a reservoir depth of over 100 feet. The outflow temperature is sufficient for coldwater fish, even with warm inflows.

The siting of dams can result in the inundation of wetlands, riparian areas, and fastland in upstream areas of the
waterway. Dams either reduce or eliminate the 'downstream flooding needed by some wetlands and riparian areas.
Darns can also impede or block migration routes of fish.

Construction activities from dams can cause increased turbidity and sedimentation in the waterway resulting from
vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and soil rutting. Fuel and chemical spills and the cleaning of construction
equipment (particularly concrete washout) have the potential for creating nonpoint source pollution. The proximity
of dams to streambeds and floodplains increases the need for sensitivity to pollution prevention at the project site
in planning and design, as well as during construction.

The operation of dams can also generate a variety of types of nonpoint source pollution in surface waters. Controlled
releases from dams can change the timing and quantity of freshwater inputs into coastal waters. Dam operations may
lead to reduced downstream flushing, which, in turn, may lead to increased loads of BOD, phosphorus, and nitrogen;
changes in pH; and the potential for increased algal growth. Lower instream flows, and lower peak flows associated
with controlled releases from darns, can result in sediment deposition in the channel several miles downstream of
the dam. The tendency of dam releases to be clear water, or water without sediment, can result in erosion of the
streambed and scouring of the channel below the dam, especially the smaHer-sized sediments. One result is the
siltation of gravel bars and riffle pool complexes, which are valuable spawning and nursery habitat for fish. D
also limit downstream recruitment of suitably-sized substrate required for the anchoring and growth of aquatic plants.

This definition is consistent with the Federal definition at 33 CFR 222.8(h)(1) (1991).

6-24 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 //L Dams

Finally, reservoir releases can alter the water temperature and lower the dissolved oxygen levels in downstream
portions of the waterway.

The extent of changes in downstream temperature and dissolved oxygen from reservoir releases depends on the
retention time of water in the reservoir and the withdrawal depth of releases from the reservoir. Releases from
mainstem projects are typically higher in dissolved oxygen than are releases from storage projects. Storage reservoir
releases are usually colder than inflows, while releases from mainstem reservoirs depend on retention time and depth
of releases. Reservoirs with short hydraulic residence times have reduced impacts on tailwaters (Walburg et al.,
1981).

It is important to note that the operation of dams can have positive, as well as negative, effects on water quality,
aquatic habitat, and fisheries within the pool and downstream (USEPA, 1989). Potential positive effects include:

� Creation of above-the-dam summer pool refuge during low flows, an effect that has been documented for
small dams built in the upper stream reaches of the Willamette River in the northwest United States (Li et
al., 1983);

� Creation of reservoir sport fisheries (USDOI, 1983); and

� Less scouring and erosion of streambanks as a result of reduced velocities in downstream areas.

Once a river is dammed and a reservoir is created, processes such as stratification, seasonal overturn, chemical
cycling, and sedimentation can intensify to create several NPS pollution problems. These processes occur primarily
as a result of the presence of the dam, not the operation of the dam.

Stratification is the layering of a lake into an upper, well-lighted, productive, and warm layer, called the epilimnion;
a mid-depth transitional layer, the metalimnion; and a lower, dark, cold, and unproductive layer, the hypolimnion.
These layers are separated by a thermocline in the metalimnion, a sharp transition in water temperature between
upper warm water and lower cold water (Figure 6-1). This stratification varies seasonally, being most pronounced
in the summer and absent in the winter. Between these extremes are periods of less pronounced stratification and
spring and fall overturns, when the entire waterbody mixes together. Poor mixing conditions, resulting in
stratification, are estimated to occur in 40 percent of power impoundments and 37 percent of non-power
impoundments (USEPA, 1989).

Dissolved oxygen levels are tied to the overturn, mixing, and stratification processes. Dissolved oxygen concentration
in reservoir waters is the result of a delicate balance between both oxygen-producing and oxygen-consuming
processes (Bohac and Ruane, 1990). Dissolved oxygen tends to become depleted in the hypolimnion due to
decomposition of organic substances, algal respiration, and nitrification, The epilimnion, however, tends to be
enriched with oxygen from the atmosphere and as a product of photosynthesis. The net difference between oxygen
consumption and oxygen sources can create anoxic conditions in the lower layer (Figure 6-2).

Anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion may stimulate the formation of reduced species of iron, manganese, sulfur,
and nitrogen. Chemical cycling of these elements occurs when they change from one state to another (e.g., from
solid to dissolved). Many chemicals enter a reservoir attached to sediment particles or quickly become attached to
sediment. As a solid, 'many chemicals typically are not toxic to many organisms, especially those in the water
column. Some cheinicals are easily reduced under anoxic conditions and become soluble. The reduced and soluble
forms of many chemicals and compounds are toxic to most aquatic organisms at relatively low concentrations. For
example, hydrogen sulfide is toxic to aquatic life and corrosive to construction materials at concentrations that are
considerably lower than those detectable by commonly used procedures (Johnson et al., 1991). These reduced
chemical compounds lead to taste and odor problems in drinking water supplies and toxicity problems for fish.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-25

Ill. Dams Chapter 6

EPILIMNION OR MIXED LAYER-WARM (LIGHT) WATER
........... 11 ...... ... .... ........
M:M ..............M
.............I......... 11 ......... .............
METALIMNION:::::::::::::.,.''.*.''-
V.1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . ...... . DISSOL.
Z
OXYGEN
A' HYPOLIMNION
COOL (HEAVY) WATER

TEMPERATURE
PROFILE

AN-
N W,
AWN"Fill

32 41 50 59 68 77

DEGREES FARENHEIT
0 4 12
17-
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mgL)

Figure 6-1. A cross-sectional view of a thermally stratified reservoir in mid-summer. The water temperature profile
(curved solid line) illustrates how rapidly the water temperature decreases in the metallmnion compared to the nearly
uniform temperatures in the epilimnion and hypolimnlon. The solid circles represent the dissolved oxygen (DO) profile.
The rate of organic matter decomposition is sufficient to deplete the DO content of the hypolimnion (USEPA, 1990).

Hydraulic residence time is defined as the average time required to completely renew a waterbody's water volume.
For example, rivers have little or no hydraulic residence time, lakes with small volumes and high flow rates have
short hydraulic residence times, and lakes with large volumes and low flow rates have long hydraulic residence times.
Reservoirs differ from lakes in that, among other characteristics, their flow is regulated artificially. Hydraulic
residence times of reservoirs are generally shorter than those of lakes, giving the water flowing into the reservoir
less time to mix with the resident water.

The longer the hydraulic residence time, the greater the potential for incoming nutrients and sediment to settle in the
reservoir. Conditions that lead to eutrophication in reservoirs promote increased algal growth, which in turn lead
to a greater mass of dead plant cells. In reservoirs with long residence times, a major source of organic sediment
settling to the bottom can be dead plant cells. Sediment will settle to the bottom; but@ where reservoir releas 'es are
taken from the lower layer, they will release colder water downstream that is rich in nutrients, low in dissolved
oxygen, and higher in some dissolved species such as iron, manganese, sulfur, and nitrogen.

6-26 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 Dams

PHOTOSYNTHESIS EXCEEDS RESPIRATION
Plant nutrient uptake, photosynthesis of
ORGANIC MATTER organic matter and dissolved oxygen.
EPILIMNION SEDIMENTATION

MiAWWWAitt 0 am In EPA" 4,011,10 TMERMOCLINE
I @' 0
M L 0 0 00 a a
- 0 : '00 00 0
IMNION .00
0
0 % 0 1 0.

Consumption of dissolved oxygen In
HYPOLIMNION
respiration-decomposition processes, nutrient
I n by organic matter decomposition.
regenerst o
RESPIRATION MAY EXCEED
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
i7l

Accumulation of nutrients and organic
sediments. release of dissolved nutrients from
sediments to water.
%

Figure 6-2. Influence of photosynthesis and respiration-decomposition processes and organic matter sedimentation
on the distribution of nutrients and organic matter in a stratified reservoir (USEPA, 1990).
Management Me@sures A and B address two problems associated with the construction of dams:

(1) Increases in sediment delivery downstream resulting from construction and operation activities and
(2) Spillage of chemicals and other pollutants to the waterway during construction and operation.
I
The impacts of reservoir releases on the quality of surftce waters and instream and riparian habitat in downstream
areas is addressed in Management Measure III.C.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-27

11L Dams Chapter 6

A. Management Measure for Erosion and .... . ......
Sediment Control

(1) Reduce erosion and, to the extent practicable, retain sediment onsite during and
after construction, and

(2) Prior to land disturbance, prepare and implement an approved erosion and
sediment control plan or similar administrative document that contains erosion
and sediment control provisions.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to the construction of new dams, as well as to
construction activities associated with the maintenance of dams. Dams are defined' as constructed impoundments
which are either:

(a) 25 feet or more in height and greater than 15 acre-feet in capacity, or
(b) six feet or more in height and greater than 50 acre-feet in capacity.

This measure also does not apply to projects that fall under NPDES jurisdiction. Under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS
programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management
measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development
and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to prevent sediment from entering surface waters during the construction
or maintenance of dams. Coastal States should incorporate this measure into existing State erosion and sediment
control (ESC) programs or, if such programs are lacking, should develop them. States should incorporate this
measure into ESC programs at the local level also. ' Erosion and sediment control is intended to be part of a
comprehensive land use or watershed management program. (Refer to the Watershed and Site Development
Management Measures in Chapter 4.)

Runoff from construction sites is the largest source of sediment in urban areas (Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Water Quality, and York County Soil and Water Conservation District, 1990). Eroded
sediment from construction sites creates many problems in coastal areas including adverse impacts to water quality,
critical instrearn and riparian habitats, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, recreational activities, and
navigation.

2This definition is consistent with the Federal definition at 33 CFR 222.8(h)(1) (1991).

6-28 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty .1993

Chapter 6 /A Dams

ESC plans are important for controlling the adverse impacts of dam construction. ESC plans ensure that provisions
for control measures are incorporated into the site planning stage of development and provide for prevention of
erosion and sediment problems and accountability if a problem occurs (Maine Department of Environmental
Protection, 1990). Chapter 4 of this guidance presents a full description of construction-related erosion problems
and the value of ESC plans. Readers should refer to Chapter 4 for further information.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because of the importance of minimizing sediment loss to surface waters
during dam construction. It is essential that proper erosion and sediment control practices be used to protect surface
water quality because of the high potential for sediment loss directly to surface waters.

Two broad performance goals constitute this management measure: minimizing drosion and maximizing the retention
of sediment onsite. These performance goals give States and local governments flexibility in specifying practices
appropriate for local conditions.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require the implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be'Implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Practices for the control of erosion and sediment loss are discussed in Chapter 4 of this guidance and should be
considered applicable to this management measure. Erosion controls are used to reduce the amount of sediment that
is lost during dam construction and to prevent sediment from entering surface waters. Erosion control is based on
two main concepts: (1) minimizing the area and time of land disturbance and (2) stabilizing disturbed soils to prevent
erosion. The following practices have been found to be useful in these purposes and should be incorporated into
ESC plans and used during dam construction as appropriate.

Additional discussions of the practices described below can be found in Chapter 4 of this guidance and should be
referred to for more information.

M a. Preserve trees and other vegetation that already exist near the dam construction site.

This practice retains soil and lirriLits runoff. The destruction of existing onsite vegetation can be minimized by
initially surveying the site to plan access routes, locations of equipment storage areas, and the location and alignment
of the dam. Construction workers should be encouraged to limit activities to designated areas. Reducing the
disturbance of vegetation also reduces the need for revegetation after construction is completed, including the
required fertilization, replanting, and grading that are associated with revegetation. Additionally, as much natural
vegetation as possible should be left next to the waterbody where construction is occurring. This vegetation provides
a buffer to reduce the NPS pollution effects of runoff originating from areas associated with the construction
activities.

M b. Control runoff from the construction site and construction-related areas.

The largest surface water pollution problem during construction is turbidity resulting from aggregate processing,
excavation, and concrete work. Preventing the entry of these materials into surface waters is always the preferable
alternative because runoff due to these activities can adversely affect drinking water supplies, irrigation systems, and
river ecology (Peters, 1978). If onsite treatment is necessary, methods are available to control the runoff of sediment

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-29

/A Dams Chapter 6

and wastewater from the ccfnstruction site. Sedimentation in settling ponds, sometimes with the addition of chemical
precipitating agents, is one such method (Peters, 1978). Flocculation, the forced coagulation of fine-grained sediment
through agitation to settle particles out of solution, is another method. Chemical precipitating agents can also be used
in this flocculation process (Peters, 1978). Filtration with sand, anthracite, diatomaceous earth, or finely woven
material, used singly or in combination, may be more useful than other methods for coarser grained materials (Peters,
1978).

0 c. Control soil and surface water runoff during construction.

To prevent the entry of sediment used during construction into surface waters, the following precautionary steps
should be followed: identify areas with steep slopes, unstable soils, inadequate vegetation density, insufficient
drainage, or other conditions that give rise to a high erosion potential; and identify measures to reduce runoff from
such areas if disturbance of these areas cannot be avoided (Hynson et al., 1985). Refer to Chapter 4 for additional
information.

Runoff control measures, mechanical sediment control measures, grassed filter strips, mulching, and/or sediment
basins should be used to control runoff from the construction site. Scheduling construction during drier seasons,
exposing areas for only the time needed for completion of specific activities, and avoiding stream fording also help
to reduce the amount of runoff created during construction. Refer to Chapter 4 for additional information.

M d. Other practices

Many other practices for the control of erosion and sediment loss are discussed in Chapter 4 of this guidance, which
should be referred to for a complete discussion where noted. Below are brief descriptions of some of the other
practices.

� Revegetation. Revegetation of construction sites during and after construction is the most effective way
to permanently control erosion (Hynson et al., 1985). Many erosion control techniques are also intended
to expedite revegetation.

� Mulching. Various mulching techniques are used in erosion control, such as use of straw, wood chip, or
stone mulches; use of mulch nets or blankets; and hydromulching (Hynson et al., 1985). Mulching is used
primarily to reduce the impact of rainfall on bare soil, to retain soil moisture, to reduce runoff, and often
to protect seeded slopes (Hynson et al., 1985).

� Soil Bioengineering. Soil bioengineering techniques can be used to address the erosion resulting from dam
operation. Grading or terracing a problem stream bank or eroding area and using interwoven vegetation
mats, installed alone or in combination with structural measures, will facilitate infiltration stability. Refer
to the section on shore protection in this chapter for additional information.

5. Effectiveness for All Practices

The effectiveness of erosion control practices can vary based on land slope, the size of the disturbed area, rainfall
frequency and intensity, wind conditions, soil type, use of heavy machinery, length of time soils are exposed and
unprotected, and other factors. In general, a system of erosion and sediment control practices can more effectively
reduce offsite sediment transport than a single system. Numerous nonstructural measures such as protecting natural
or newly planted vegetation, minimizing the disturbance of vegetation on steep slopes and other highly erodible areas,
maximizing the distance eroded material must travel before reaching the drainage system, and locating roads away
from sensitive areas may be used to reduce erosion. Chapter 4 has additional information for effectiveness of the
practices listed above.

6-30 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 111. Dams

6. Costs for All Pra6tlces

Chapter 4 of this guidance contains the available cost data for most of the erosion controls listed above. Costs in
Chapter 4 have been broken down into annual capital costs, annual maintenance costs, and total annual costs
(including annualization of capital costs).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 6-31

M Dams Chapter 6

. ..... . .
. . ....... . .... .. ... ...
. ... ..... ..... ...
B. Management Measure for Chemical and 1 18
Pollutant Control

(1) Limit application, generation, and migration of toxic substances;

(2) Ensure the proper storage and disposal of toxic materials; and,

(3) Apply nutrients at rates necessary to establish and maintain vegetation without
causing significant nutrient runoff to surface waters.

1. Applicability

(a) 25 feet or more in height and greater than 15 acre-feet in capacity, or
(b) 6 feet or more in height and greater than 50 acre-feet in capacity.

This management measure addresses fuel and chemical spills associated with dam construction, as well as concrete
washout and related construction activities. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990,
States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this
measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described
more fully in Coastal N6npoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance,
published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to prevent downstream contamination from pollutants associated with
dam construction activities.

Although suspended sediment is the major pollutant generated at a construction site (USEPA, 1973), other pollutants
include:

� Pesticides - insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides;

� Petrochemicals - oil, gasoline, lubricants, asphalt;

� Solid wastes - paper, wood, metal, nibber,,plastic, roofing materials;

This definition is consistent with the Federal definition at 33 CFR 222.8(h)(1) (1991).

6-32 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 I/L Dams

� Construction chemicals - acids, soil additives, concrete-curing compounds;

� Wastewater - aggregate wash water, herbicide wash water, concrete-curing water, core-drilling wastewater,
or clean-up water from concrete mixers;

� Garbage;

� Cement;

� Lime;

� Sanitary wastes; and

� Fertilizers.

A complete discussion of these pollutants can be found in Chapter 4 of this guidance.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because most erosion and sediment control practices are ineffective at
retaining soluble NPS pollutants on a construction site. Many of the NPS pollutants, other than suspended sediment,
generated at a construction site are carried offsite in solution or attached to clay particles in runoff (USEPA, 1973).
Some metals (e.g., manganese, iron, and nickel) attach to sediment and usually can be retained onsite. Other metals
(e.g., copper, cobalt, and chromium) attach to fine clay particles and have greater potential to be carried offsite.
Insoluble pollutants (e.g., oils, petrochemicals, and asphalt) form a surface film on runoff water and can be easily
washed away (USEPA, 1973).

A number of factors that influence the pollution potential of construction chemicals have been identified (USEPA,
1973). These include:

* The nature of the construction activity;
* The physical characteristics of the construction site; and
* The characteristics of the receiving water.

Dam construction sites are particularly sensitive areas and have the potential to severely impact surface waters with
runoff containing construction chemical pollutants. Because dams are located on rivers or streams, pollutants
generated at these construction sites have a much shorter distance to travel before entering surface waters. Therefore,
chemicals and other NPS pollutants generated at a dam construction site should be controlled.

4. Practices

As explained more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require the implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of'practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Practices for the control of erosion and sediment loss are discussed in Chapter 4 of this guidance and should be
considered applicable to this management measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-33

Ill. Dams Chapter 6

a. Develop and implement a spill prevention and control plan. Agencies, contractors, and other
commercial entities associated with the dam construction project that store, handle, or transport
fuel, oil, or hazardous materials should have a spill response plan, especially if large quantities of
ofl or other polluting liquid matefials are used.

Spill procedure information should be posted, and persons trained in spill handling should be onsite or on call at all
times. Materials for cleaning up spills should be kept onsite and easily available. Spills should be cleaned up
immediately and the contaminated material properly disposed of Spill control plan components should include
(Peters, 1978):

� Stopping the source of the spill;
� Containing any liquid;
� Covering the spill with absorbent material such as kitty litter or sawdust, but do not use straw; and
� Disposing of the used absorbent properly.

b. Maintain and wash equipment and machinery in confined areas specifically designed to control
runoff.

Thinners or solvents should not be discharged into sanitary or storm sewer systems, or surface water systems, when
cleaning machinery. Use alternative methods for cleaning larger equipment parts, such as high-pressure, high-
temperature water washes or steam cleaning. Equipment-washing detergents can be used and wash water discharged
into sanitary sewers if solids are removed from the solution first. Small parts should be cleaned with degreasing
solvents that can then be reused or recycled. Do not discharge or otherwise dispose of any solvents into sewers, or
into surface waters.

Washout from concrete trucks should be disposed of into:

� A designated area that will later be backfilled;

� An area where the concrete wash can harden, can be broken up, and can then be placed in a dumpster; or

� A location not subject to surface water runoff and more than 50 feet away from a receiving water.

Never dump washout directly into surface waters or into a drainage leading to surface waters.

c. Establish fuel arid vehicle maintenance staging areas located away from surface waters and all
drainages leading to surface waters, and design these areas to control runoff.

d. Store, cover, and isolate construction materials, refuse, garbage, sewage, debris, oil and other
petroleum products, mineral salts, industrial chemicals, and topsoil to prevent runoff of pollutants
and contamination of ground water.

6-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 K Dams

C. Management Measure for Protection of Surface Water 10
Quality and Instrearn and Riparian Habitat
I
Develop and Implement a program to manage the operation of dams in coastal areas
that includes an assessment of:

(1) Surface water quality and instrearn and riparian habitat and potential for
improvement and

(2) Significant nonpoint source pollution problems that result from excessive
surface water withdrawals.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to dam operations that result in the loss of desirable
surface water quality, and of desirable instrearn and riparian habitat. Darns are define& as constructed
impoundments which are either:

(a) 25 feet or more in height and greater than 15 acre-feet in capacity, or
(b) 6 feet or more in height and greater than 50 acre-feet in capacity.

This measure does not apply to projects that fall under NPDES jurisdiction. This measure also does not apply to
the extent that its implementation under State law is precluded under California v. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, I 10 S. Ct. 2024 (1990) (addressing the supersedence of State instrearn flow requirements by Federal
flow requirements set forth in FERC licenses for hydroelectric power plants under the Federal Power Act).

Under the Coastal Zone Act fteauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements
as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so.
The application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoini Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to protect the quality of surface waters and aquatic habitat in reservoirs
and in the downstream portions of rivers and streams that are influenced by the quality of water contained in the
releases (tailwaters) from reservoir impoundments. Impacts from the operation of dams to surface water quality and
aquatic and riparian habitat should be assessed and the potential for improvement evaluated. Additionally, new
upstream and downstream impacts to surface water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat caused by the
implementation of practices should also be considered in the assessment. The overall program approach is to

4This definition is consistent with the Federal definition at 33 CFR 222.8(h)(1) (1991).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-35

W. Dams Chapter 6

evaluate a set of practices that can be applied individually or in combination to protect and improve surface water
quality and aquatic habitat in reservoirs, as well as in areas downstream of dams. Then, the program should
implement the most cost-effective operations to protect surface water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat and
to improve the water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat where economically feasible.

A variety of approaches have been developed and tested for their effectiveness at improving or maintaining
acceptable levels of dissolved oxygen, temperature, phosphorus, and other constituents in reservoirs and tailwaters.

One general method uses pumps, air diffusers, or air lifts to induce circulation and mixing of the oxygen-poor, but
cold hypolininion with the oxygen-rich, but warm epilimnion. The desired result is a more thermally uniform
reservoir with increased dissolved oxygen (DO) in the hypolininion. Reservoir mixing improves water quality both
in the reservoir and in tailwaters and helps to maintain the temperatures required by warm-water fisheries.

Another approach to imprQving water quality in tailwaters is appropriate if trout fisheries are desired downstream.
In this approach, air or oxygen is mixed with water passing through the turbines of hydropower dams to increase
the concentration of DO. Air or oxygen can be selectively added to impoundment waters entering turbine intakes.
Reservoir waters can also be aerated by venting turbines to the atmosphere or by injecting compressed air into the
turbine chamber. I

A third group of approaches include engineering modifications to the intakes, the spillway, or the tailrace, or the
installation of various types of weirs downstream of the dam to improve temperature or DO levels in tailwaters.
These practices rely on agitation and turbulence to mix the reservoir releases with atmospheric air in order to increase
the concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Selective withdrawal of water from different depths allows dam operators
to maintain desired temperatures for fish and other aquatic species in downstream surface waters.
I
The quality of reservoir releases can also be improved through adjustments in the operational procedures at dams.
These include scheduling releases or the duration of shutoff periods, instituting procedures for the maintenance of
minimum flows, and making seasonal adjustments in the pool levels and in the timing and variation of the rate of
drawdown.

Dam operators such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) further recognize the need for watershed management
as a valuable tool to reduce water quality problems in reservoirs and dam releases. Reducing NPS pollutants coming
from watersheds surrounding reservoirs can have a beneficial effect on concentrations of DO and pollutants within
a reservoir and its tailwaters.

There is also a need for riparian habitat maintenance and restoration in the areas around the impounded reservoir
and downstream from a dam. Reservoir shorelines are important riparian areas, and they need to be managed or
restored to realize their many riparian habitat and water quality benefits. Examples of downstream aquatic habitat
improvements include maintaining minimum instream. flows, providi. ; scouring flows when and where needed,
providing alternative spawning areas or fish passage, protecting streambanks from erosion, and maintaining wetlands
and riparian areas.

The individual application of any particular technique, such as aeration, change in operational procedure, restoration
of an aquatic or riparian habitat, or implementation of a watershed protection best management practice (BMP), will,
by itself, probably not improve water quality to an acceptable level within the reservoir impoundment or in tailwaters
flowing through downstream areas. The individual practices discussed in this portion of the guidance will usually
have to be implemented in some combination in order to raise water quality in the impoundment or in tailwaters to
acceptable levels.

One such combination of practices has addressed low DO levels at the Canyon Dam (Guadalupe River, Texas). A
combination of turbine venting and a downstream weir was used to increase DO levels to acceptable levels. The
concentration of dissolved oxygen in water entering the dam was measured at 0.5 mg/L. After passing through the

6-36 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 111. Dams

turbine (but still upstream of the aeration weir), the DO concentration was raised to 3.3 mg/L. The concentration
of the same water after passing through the aeration weir was 6.7 mg/L (EPRI, 1990).

Another combination of practices, consisting of a vacuum breaker turbine venting system and a stream flow
reregulation weir, has been implemented at Norris Darn (Clinch River, Tennessee). The vacuum breaker aeration
system uses hub baffles and appears to be the most successful design (EPRI, 1990). The baffles induce enough air
to add from 2 mg/L to 4 mg/L to the discharge, while reducing turbine efficiency less than 0.5 percent. The
downstream weir retains part of the discharge from the turbines when they are not in operation to sustain a stream
flow of about 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). Prior to these improvements, the tailwaters of the Norris Dam had
DO levels below 6 mg/L an average of 131 days per year and DO levels below 3 mg/L an average of 55 days per
year. After installation of the turbine venting system and reregulation weir, DO levels were below 6 mgAL only 55
days per year and were above 3 mg/L at all times (TVA, 1988).

Combinations of increased flow, stream aeration, and wasteload reduction (from municipal and industrial sources)
were found to be necessary to treat releases from the Fort Patrick Henry Darn (Holston River, Tennessee). An
unsteady state flow and water quality model was used to simulate concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the 20-mile
downstream reach from Fort Patrick Henry Dam and to explore water quality management alternatives. Several
pollution abatement options were considered to identify the most cost-effective alternative. These options included.
changing wasteloads of the various dischargers, varying the flows from the reservoir, and improving aeration levels
in water leaving the reservoir and in areas downstream. The modeling study identified flow regime modifications
as more effective in improving DO than wasteload modifications. However, a decision to increase flow from the
dam when stream levels are low might result in unacceptable reservoir drawdown in dry years. Although at some
projects the increased DO will persist for many miles, improvements that were predicted by aeration of dam releases
diminished rapidly at this particular site because they decreased the DO deficit and reduced natural reaeration rates.
No wasteload treatments short of total recycle would achieve the 5-mg/L standard under base conditions (Hauser and
Ruane, 1985).

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this management measure was based on:

(1) The availability and demonstrated effectiveness of practices to improve water quality in impoundments
and in tailwaters of dams and

(2) The level of improvement in water quality of impoundments and tailwaters that can be measured from
implementation of engineering practices, operational procedures, watershed protection approaches, or
aquatic or riparian habitat improvements.

Successful implementation of the management measure will generally involve the following categories of practices
undertaken individually or in combination to improve water quality and aquatic and riparian habitat in reservoir
impoundments and in tailwaters:

� Artificial destratification and hypolimnetic aeration of reservoirs with deep withdrawal points that do not
have multilevel outlets to improve dissolved oxygen levels in the impoundment and to decrease levels of
other types of nonpoint source pollutants, such as manganese, iron, hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia,
and phosphorus in reservoir releases (Cooke and Kennedy, 1989; Henderson and Shields, 1984);

� Aeration of reservoir releases, through turbine venting, injection of air into turbine releases, installation of
reregulation weirs, use of selective withdrawal structures, or modification of other turbine start-up or pulsing
procedures (Hauser and Ruane, 1985; Henderson and Shields, 1984);

Providing both minimum flows to enhance the establishment of desirable instream habitat and scouring
flows as necessary to maintain instream habitat (Kondolf et al., 1987; Walburg et al., 1981);

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 19.93 6-37

/I/. Dams Chapter 6

� Establishing adequate fish passage or alternative spawning ground and instream habitat for fish species
(Andrews, 1988); and

� Improving watershed protection by installing and maintaining BM[Ps in the drainage area above the dam to
remove phosphorus, suspended sediment, and organic matter and otherwise improve the quality of surface
waters flowing into the impoundment (Kortmann, 1989).

4. Introduction to Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require the implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

5. Practices for Aeration of Reservoir Waters and Releases

The systems that have been developed and tested for reservoir aeration rely on atmospheric air, compressed air, or
liquid oxygen to increase concentrations of dissolved oxygen in reservoir waters before they pass through the dam.
Depending on the method selected, aeration can accomplish thorough mixing throughout the impoundment.
However, this practice has not been used at large hydropower reservoirs because of the cost associated with aerating
these large-flow reservoirs. Aeration will elevate levels of DO, but also will usually redistribute higher
concentrations of algae found in the shallower depths and nutrients that are normally restricted to the deeper waters.
It is not always desirable to have waters containing higher levels of algae and nutrients released into portions of the
waterway below the dam (Kortmann, 1989). If the principal objective is to improve DO levels only in the reservoir
releases and not throughout the entire impoundment, then aeration can be applied selectively to discrete layers of
water immediately surrounding the intakes or as water passes through release structures such as hydroelectric
turbines.

M a. Pumping and Injection Practices

One method for deployment of circulation pumps is the U-tube design, in which water from deep in the
impoundment is pumped to the surface layer. The inducement of artificial circulation through aeration of. the
impoundment may also provide the opportunity for a "two-story" fishery, reduce internal phosphorus loading, and
eliminate problems with iron and manganese in drinking water (Cooke and Kennedy, 1989).

Air injection systems operate in a manner similar to that of pumping systems to mix water from different strata in
the impoundment, except that air or pure oxygen is injected into the pumping system (Henderson and Shields, 1984).
These kinds of systems are divided into two categories: partial air lift systems and full air lift systems. In the partial
air lift system, compressed air is injected at the bottom of the unit; then, the air and water are separated at depth and
the air is vented to the surface. In the full air lift system, compressed air is injected at the bottom of the unit (as
in the partial air lift system), but the air-water mixture rises to the surface (Figure 6-3). The full air lift design has
a higher efficiency than the partial-air lift and has a lesser tendency to elevate dissolved nitrogen levels (Cooke and
Kennedy, 1989).

Diffused air systems provide effective transfer of oxygen to water by forcing compressed air through small pores
in systems of diffusers to form bubbles (Figure 6-4). One test of a diffuser system in the Delaware River near
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1969-1970 demonstrated the efficiency of this practice. Coarse-bubble diffusers were
deployed at depths ranging from 13 to 38 feet. Depending on the depth of deployment, the oxygen
transfer efficiency varied from I to 12 percent. When compared with other systems discussed below, this efficiency

6-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 1A Dams

_.Pp
Suspension. r su
Anchor cable 7
cable

24 in -PVC column

Rising bubble

0 Water inlet
Bubble trap
Hood
Air injector

Figure 6-3. Air injection system ior reservoir aeration-destratification (Nelson et
al., 1978).

rate is rather low. But the resplts of this particular test determined that river aeration was more economical than
advanced wastewater treatment as a strategy for improving the levels of DO in the river (EPRI, 1990).

Mechanical agitation systems operate by pumping water from the reservoir into a splash basin on shore, where it is
aerated and then returned to the hypolimnion. Although these types of systems are.comparatively inefficient@ they
have been used successfully (Wilbelms and Smith, 1981).

Localized mixing is a practice to improve releases of thermally stratified reservoirs by destratifying the reservoir in
the immediate vicinity of the outlet structure. This practice differs from the practice of artificial destratification,
where mixing is designed to destratify all or most of the reservoir volume (Holland, 1984). Localized mixing is
provided by forcing a jet of high-quality surface water downward into the hypolimnion. Pumps used to create the
jet generally fall into two categories, axial flow propellers and direct drive mixers (Price, 1989). Axial flow pumps
usually have a large-diameter propeller (6 to 15 feet) that produces a high-discharge, low-velocity jet. Direct drive
mixers have small propellers (I to 2 feet) that rotate at high speeds and produce a high-velocity jet. The axial flow
pumps are suitable for shallow reservoirs because they can force large quantities of water down to shaHow depths.
The high-momentum jets produced by direct drive mixers are necessary to penetrate deeper reservoirs (Price, 1989).
Anchor
cable

Water pumps have been used to move surface water containing higher concentrations of DO downward to mix with
deeper waters as the two strata are entering the turbine. Aspirating surface aerators deployed in Lake Texoma

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-39

Ill. Dams Chapter 6

Compressor

0:0 :0: 00. 0 00 a 60. 0
00 0.0 0 00 0
0: 0 :0 : a: 0
lastic pipe 60: 00 0 :0 : :: 0
:0 . 0.6 0 .0 . 0 0
Perforated 0.0 .0. 0. 0.0 a Go 0
plastic pip 0
0
[email protected]
Figure 6-4. Compressed air diffusion system for reservoir aeration-destratification
(Nelson et al., 1978).

(Texas/Oklahoma border) raised the levels of DO in the tailwaters from concentrations of 1.8 mg/L (without aerators)
to 2.0 mg/L (with one 5-hp aeration unit in operation) and to 2.6 mg/L (with dim 5-hp units operating).

A test of large-diameter axial-flow surface water pumps at Bagnell Dam (Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri) increased
DO levels in the reservoir releases from 1.3 mg/L to 3.6 mg/L, before maintenance problems caused a discontinuance
of use of the pumps (EPRI, 1990).

Small-diameter surface pumps, operatedat the J. Percy Priest Dam (Tennessee), increased the DO levels in the
tailwaters to 4.0 mg/L from a background level of 2.7 mg/L (EPRI, 1990).

Oxygen injection systems use pure oxygen to increase levels of dissolved oxygen in reservoirs. One type of design,
termed side stream pumping, carries water from the impoundment onto the shore and through a piping system into
which pure oxygen is injected. After passing through this system, the water is returned to the impoundment.
Another type of system, which pumps gaseous oxygen into the hypolimnion through diffusers, has effectively
improved DO levels in the reservoir behind the Richard B. Russell Dam (Savannah River, on the Georgia-Sou.th
Carolina border). 'Me system is operated I mile upstream of the dam, with occasional supplemental injection of
oxygen at the dam face when DO levels are especially low. The system has successfully maintained DO levels
above 6 mg/L in the releases, with an average oxygen transfer efficiency of 75 percent (EPRI, 1990; Gallagher and
Mauldin, 1987).

The TVA has been testing the use of pure oxygen at the Douglas Dam (French Broad River, Tennessee) since 1988
(TVA, 1988). The absorption efficiencies measured in the downstream tailwaters range from 30 to 50 percent when
the diffusers are arranged in a loose arc around the intakes. When the diffusers are placed tightly around the intakes,
the efficiency range improves to 72 to 76 percent.
In another test at facilities @perated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, diffusers were deployed to inject high-purity
oxygen near the bottom of the 70-foot-deep reservoir at Fort Patrick Henry Dam (Holston River, Tennessee) near
one of the turbine intakes. Levels of DO in the tailwaters increased from near 0 mg/L to 4 mg/L as a result of
operation of this aeration system. Unfortunately, the operation costs of this kind of system were determined to be

6-40 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 Dams

relatively high (Harshbarger, 1987). However, these results were very site-specific and every site needs to be
evaluated for the best mix of solutions.

Mb. Turbine Venting

Turbine venting is the practice of injecting air into water as it passes through a turbine. If vents are provided inside
the turbine chamber, the turbine will aspirate air from the atmosphere and mix it with water passing through the
turbine as part of its normal operation. In early designs, the turbine was vented through existing openings, such as
the draft tube opening or the vacuum breaker valve in the turbine assembly. Air forced by compressors into the draft
tube opening enriched reservoir waters with little detectable DO to concentrations of 3 to 4 mg/L. Overriding the
automatic closure of the vacuum breaker valve (at high turbine discharges) increased DO by only 2 mg/L
(Harshbarger, 1987).

Turbine venting makes use of the low-pressure region just below the turbine wheel to aspirate air into the discharges
(Wilhelms, 1984). Autoventing turbines are constructed with hub baffles, or deflector plates placed on the turbine
hub upstream of the vent holes to enhance the low-pressure zone in the vicinity of the vent and thereby increase the
amount of air aspirated through the venting system (Figure 6-5). Turbine efficiency relates to the amount of energy
output from a turbine per unit of water passing through the turbine. Efficiency decreases as less power is produced
for the same volume of water. In systems where the water is aerated before passing through the turbine, part of the
water volume is displaced by the air, thus leading to decreased efficiency. Hub baffles have also been added to
autoventing turbines at the Norris Dam to further improve the DO levels in the turbine releases (Jones and March,
1991).

Recent developments in autoventing turbine technology show that it may be possible to aspirate air with no resulting
decrease in turbine efficiency. In one test of an autoventing turbine at the Norris Dam (Clinch River, Tennessee),
the turbine efficiency increased by 1.8 percent (March et al., 1991; Waldrop, 1992). Technologies like autoventing
turbines are very site-specific and outcomes will vary considerably. Achievement of desired DO levels at specific
projects may require evaluation of several different technologies.

6. Practices to Improve Oxygen Levels in Tailwaters

In addition to the pumping and injection systems for reservoir aeration discussed in the preceding section, another
set of systems can accomplish the aeration of water as it passes through the dam or through the portion of the
waterway immediately downstream from the dam. The systems in this category rely on agitation and turbulence to
mix the reservoir releases with atmospheric air in order to increase the concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Another
approach involves the increased use of spillways, which release surface water to prevent it from overtopping the dam.
The third approach is to install barriers called weirs in the downstream areas. Weirs designed to allow water to
overtop them can increase DO through surface agitation and increased surface area contact. Some systems create
supersaturation of dissolved gases and may require additional modifications to prevent supersaturation.

Two factors should be considered when evaluating & suitability of hydraulic structures such as spillways and weirs
for their application in raising the DO concentration in waterways:

� Most of the measurements of DO increases associated with hydraulic structures have been collected at low-
head facilities. The effectiveness of these devices may be limited as the level of discharge increases
(Wilhelms, 1988).

� The hydraulic functioning of these types of structures should be carefully considered since undesirable flow
conditions may occur in some instances (Wilhelms, 1988).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-41

A Dams. Chapter 6

WARM, HIGH 00 1

COLD,
cc
HIGH 00 I.D. LOW 00

Concept of Autoventing Hydroturbine

TURBINE
EL 847.3 SHAFT
VACUUM VACUUM
AJR BREAKER BREAKER
SUPPLY VALVE AIR PPE
PIPE

rOY-PAN

WOW HEAD-
13ATE R

WAIM
M*
XV r HUB
TUMNS
RUNNGFI
AIR - WATER
MWUNII 3CRQU.CAW

J
Figure 6-5. Top: Schematic drawing of an autoventing turbine. Bottom: Sketch of the hub baffle
system used in the autoventing turbines at Norris Dam (French Broad River), Tennessee.(IVA-
Engineering Laboratory, 1991.)

M a. Gated Conduits

Gated conduits are hydraufic structures that divert the flow of water under the dam. They are designed to create
turbulent mixing to enhance the rest of the oxygen transfer. Gates are used. to control the cross-sectional area of
flow. Gated conduits have been extensively analyzed for their performance and effectiveness (Wilhelms and Smith,
1981), although the available data are mostly from high-head projects (Wilhelms, 1988). In modeling studies, gated
conduit structures have been found to achieve 90 percent aeration and a minimum DO standard of 5 mg/L (Wilhelms
and Smith, 1981).
=LD ]LOWOO

6-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 Dams

0 b. Spillways

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has studied the performance of spillways and overflow weirs at its facilities to
determine the importance of these structures in improving DO levels. Increases in DO concentration of about 2.5
mg/L have been measured at the overflow weir of the Jonesville Lock and Dam (Ouachita River, Louisiana)
(Wilhelms, 1998). Increases in DO concentrations of 3 mg/L have been measured at the overflow weir of the
Columbia Lock and Dam (Ouachita River, Louisiana). Passage of water through the combinations of spillways and
overflow weirs at these two facilities resulted in DO saturation levels of 85 to 95 percent in downstream waters
(Wilhelms, 1988).

c. Spfflway Modifications

At the Tellico Dam (Little Tennessee River, Tennessee), a siphon/underwater barrier dam was installed to improve
DO and temperature conditions in the releases. The installed siphon draws about 8 cfs of cool water from the
reservoir over the spillway into the Little Tennessee River. During the summer, the water forms a pool behind a
6-ft high underwater barrier dam and creates the temperature and oxygen concentrations needed by striped bass. The
fish attracted to the pool provide a desirable sport fishery for the community (TVA, 1988).

The operation of some types of hydraulic structures has been tied to problems stemming from the supersaturation
of some types of gases. An unexpected fish kill occurred in spring 1978 due to supersaturation of nitrogen gas in
the Lake of the Ozarks (Missouri) within 5 miles of Truman Dam, caused by water plunging over the spillway and
entraining air. The vertical drop between the spillway crest and the tailwaters was only 5 feet. The maximum
saturation was 143 percent. In this case, the spillway was modified by cutting a notch to prevent water from
plunging directly into the stilling basin (ASCE, 1986). At dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers of the western
United States, spillway deflectors have been found to be the most effective means for reducing nitrogen
supersaturation (Bonneville Power Administration, 1991). The deflectors are designed to direct flows horizontally
into the stilling basin to prevent deep plunging and air entrainment (ASCE, 1986).

Spill at hydroelectric dams is routinely required during periods of high runoff when the river discharge exceeds what
can be passed through the powerhouse turbines. The Columbia River of Washington State has a series of I I dams
beginning with the Grand Coulee and ending with Bonneville. The Snake River also has four dams. If all of these
dams were spilling simultaneously, the entire river would become and remain highly saturated with nitrogen gas since
the water would pick up gas at each successive spilling project. The Corps of Engineers has proposed several
practices for solving the gas supersaturation problem. These include (1) passing more headwater storage through
turbines, installing new fish bypass structures, and installing additional power units to reduce the need for spill;
(2) incorporating "flip-lip" deflectors in spillway-stilling basins (Figure 6-6), transferring power generation to high-
dissolved-gas-producing dams, and altering spill patterns at individual dams to minimize nitrogen mass entrainment;
and (3) collecting and transporting juvenile salmonids around affected river reaches. Only a few of these practices
have been implemented (Tanovan, 1987).

d. Reregulation Weir

Reregulation weirs have been constructed from stone, wood, and aggregate. In addition to increasing the levels of
DO in the tailwaters, reregulation weirs result in a more constant rate of flow farther downstream during periods
when turbines are not in operation. A reregulation weir constructed downstream of the Canyon Dam (Guadalupe
River, Texas) increased DO levels in waters leaving the turbine from 3.3 mg/L to 6.7 mg/L (EPRI, 1990).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (Wilhelms, 1988) has compared the effectiveness
with which various hydraulic structures accomplished the reaeration of reservoir releases. The study conclud ed that,
whenever operationally feasible, more discharge should be passed over weirs to improve DO concentrations in
releases. Although additional field tests are planned, current results indicate that overflow weirs aerate releases more
effectively than low-sill spillways (Wilhelms, 1988).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-43

YL Dams Chapter 6

Gate

Deflector

..Tailwater-_-___. - 5@

flow

Stilling basin

Figure 6-6. Cross section of a spillway with a "flip-lip" deflector (Nelson et al., 1978).

Me. Labyrinth Weir

Labyrinth weirs have extended crest length and are usually W-shaped. These weirs spread the flow out to prevent
dangerous undertows in the plunge pool. A labyrinth weir at South Holston Darn (Figure 6-7) was constructed for
the dual purpose of providing rriinimum flows and improving DO in reservoir releases. The weir aerates to up to
60 percent of the oxygen deficit. For instance, projected performance at the end of the summer is an increase in the
DO from 3 mg/L to 7 mg/L (or an increase of 4 mg/L) (Gary Hauser, TVA, personal communication, 1992). Actual
increases in the DO will depend on the temperature and the level of DO in the incoming water.

7. Practices for Adjustments in the OperationM Procedures of Dams for
Improvement of Water Ouality

The quality of reservoir releases can be improved through adjustments in the operational procedures at dams. These
include scheduling of releases or of the duration of shutoff periods, instituting procedures for the maintenance of
minimum flows, making seasonal adjustments in the pool levels or in the timing and variation of the rate of
drawdown, selecting the turbine unit that most increases DO (often increasing the DO levels by I mg/L), and
operating more units simultaneously (often increasing DO levels by about 2 mg/L). The magnitude and duration of
reservoir releases also should be timed and scheduled so that the salinity regime in coastal waters is not substantiaUy
altered from historical pattems.

0 a. Selective Withdrawal

Temperature control in reservoir releases depends on the volume of water storage in the reservoir, the timing of the
release relative to storage time, and the level from which the water is withdrawn. Dim capable of selectively
releasing waters of different temperatures can provide cooler or warmer water temperature downstream at times that
are critical for other instream resources, such as during periods of fish spawning and development of firy (Fontane
et al., 1981; Hansen and Crumrine, 1991). Stratified reservoirs are operated to meet downstream temperature
objectives such as to enhance a cold-water or war@mwater fishery or to maintain preproject stream temperature
conditions. Release temperature may also be important for irrigation (Fontane et al., 1981).

6-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 11L Dams

Figure 6-7. Three-bay labyrinth weir (Hauser et al., 1990),

Multilevel intake devices in storage reservoirs allow selective withdrawal of water based on temperature and DO
levels. These devices minimize the withdrawal of surface water high in blue-green algae, or of deep water enriched
in iron and manganese. Care should be taken in the design of these systems not to position the multilevel intakes
too far apart because this will increase the difficulty with which withdrawals can be controlled, making the discharge
of poor-quality hypolimnetic water more likely (Howington, 1990; Johnson and LaBounty, 1988; Smith et al., 1987).

M b. Turbine Operation

Implementation of changes in the turbine start-up procedures can also enlarge the zone of withdrawal to include more
of the epilininetic waters in the downstream releases. Monitoring of the releases at the Walter F. George lock and
darn (Chattahoochee River, Georgia), showed levels of DO declined sharply at the start-up of hydropower production.
The severity and duration of the DO drop could be reduced by starting up all the generator units within a minute
of each other (Findley and Day, 1987).

A useful tool for evaluating the effects of operational procedures on the quality of tailwaters is computer modeling.
For instance, computer models can describe the vertical withdrawal zone that would be expected under different
scenarios of turbine operation (Smith et al., 1987). Zimmerman and Dortch (1989) modeled release operations for
a series of dams on a Georgia River and found that procedures that were maintaining cool temperatures in summer
were causing undesirable decreases in DO and increases in dissolved iron in autumn. The suggested solution was
a seasonal release plan that is flexible, depending on variations in the in-pool water quality and predicted local
weather conditions. Care should be taken with this sort of approach to accommodate the needs of both the fishery
resource and reservoir recreationalists, particularly in late summer.

Modeling has also been undertaken for a variety of TVA and Corps of Engineers facilities to evaluate the
downstream impacts on DO and temperature that would result from changes in several operational procedures,
including (Hauser et al., 1990a, 1990b; Higgins and Kim, 1982; Nestler et al., 1986b):

Maintenance of minimum flows;
Timing and duration of shutoff periods;

EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993 6-45

N. Dams Chapter 6

� Seasonal adjustments to the pool levels; and
� Timing and variation of the rate of drawdown.

8. Watershed Protection Practices

Most nonpoint source pollution problems in reservoirs and dam tailwaters frequently result from sources in the
contributing watershed (e.g., sediment, nutrients, metals, and toxics). Management of pollution sources from a
watershed has been found to be a cost-effective solution for improving reservoir and dam tailwater water quality
(TVA, 1988). Practices for watershed management include land use planning, erosion control, ground-water
protection, mine reclamation, NPS screening and identification, animal waste control, and failing septic tank control
(TVA, 1988).

Another general watershed management practice involves the evaluation of the total watershed and the use of
point/nonpoint source trading. Simply put, this practice involves the evaluation of the sources of pollution in a
watershed and determination of the most cost-effective combination of practices to reduce pollution among the
various point and nonpoint sources. Podar and others (1985) present an excellent example of point/nonpoint source
trading as applied to the Holston River near Kingsport, Tennessee. Bender and others (1991) used modeling to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various point/nonpoint source trading strategies for the Boone Reservoir in the
upper Tennessee River Valley.

0 a. Land Use Planning

Land use plans that establish guidelines for permissible uses of land within a watershed serve as a guide for reservoir
management programs addressing NPS pollution CINA, 1988). Watershed land use plans identify suitable uses for
land surrounding a reservoir, establish sites for econon-dc development and natural resource management activities,
and facilitate improved land management (TVA, 1988). Land use plans must be flexible documents that account
for the needs of the landowners, State and local land use goals, the characteristics of the land and its ability to
support various uses, and the control of NPS pollution (17VA, 1988). The watershed planning section of Chapter
4 contains additional information on land use planning.

M b. Nonpoint Source Screening and Identification

The analysis and interpretation of stereoscopic color infrared aerial photographs can be used to find and map specific
areas of concern where a high probability of NPS pollution exists from septic tank systems, animal wastes, soil
erosion, and other similar types of NPS pollution CrVA, 1988). TVA has used this technique to survey about 25
percent of the Tennessee Valley to identify sources of nonpoint pollution in a period of less than 5 years at a cost
of a few cents per acre (TVA, 1988).

IN c. Soil Erosion Control

Soil erosion has been determined to be the major source of suspended solids, nutrients, organic wastes, pesticides,
and sediment that combined form the most problematic form of NPS pollution (TVA, 1988). Chapter 4 in this
guidance contains an extensive selection of practices aimed at preventing soil erosion and controlling sediment from
reaching surface waters in runoff.

Md. Ground- Water Protection

Proper protection and management of ground-water resources primarily depends on the effective control of NPS
pollution, particularly in ground-water recharge areas. Polluted ground water has the potential to contribute to
surface-water pollution problems in reservoirs. Ground-water protection can be achieved only through public
awareness of the problems associated with ground-water pollution and the potential of various activities to
contaminate ground water. Identifying the ground-water resources in a watershed and developing a plan for

6-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 ///. Dams

protection of these resources are critical in establishing a good ground-water protection program. TVA (1988) has
found that an extensive public outreach program is instrumental in the development of an effective ground-water
protection program and in eventual protection of the resource.

Me. Mine Reclamation

Abandoned mines have the potential to contribute significant sediment, metals, acidified water, and other pollutants
to reservoirs (TVA, 1988). Old mines need to be located and reclaimed to reduce the NPS pollutants emanating from
them. Revegetation is a cost-effective method of reclaiming denuded strip-mined lands, and agencies such as the
Soil Conservation Service can provide technical insight for revegetation practices.

f. Animal Waste Control

A major contributor to reservoir pollution in some watersheds is wastes from animal confinement facilities. TVA
(1988) estimated that in the Tennessee Valley, farms produced about six times the organic wastes of the population
of the valley. A cooperative program was established to address the animal waste problem in the Tennessee Valley.
The results of demonstration facilities in the Tennessee Valley reduced NPS pollution from animal wastes by 25,000
tons in the Duck River basin. The'program also had the benefit of reducing the additional input of 1,400 tons of
nitrogen and 200 tons of phosphorus to farm fields (TVA, 1988). Refer to Chapter 2 of this guidance for additional
information on animal waste control practices.

Mg. Failing Septic Systems

Failing septic tank or onsite sewage disposal systems (OSDS) are another source of NPS pollution in reservoirs.
A has found septic tank failures to be a problem in some of its reservoirs and has identified them through an
aer
TV ial survey (TVA, 1988). Additional information on OSDS practices can be found in Chapter 4.

9. Practices to Restore or Maintain Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

Studies like the one undertaken by the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI, 1988) on the Glen Canyon Dam
(Colorado River, Colorado) illustrate the potential for disruption to downstream aquatic and riparian habitat resulting
from the operation of dams.

Several options are available for the restoration or maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat in the area of a
reservoir impoundment or in portions of the waterway downstream from a dam. One set of practices is designed
to augment existing flows that result from normal operation of the dam. These include operation of the facility to
produce flushing flows, minimum flows, or turbine pulsing. Another approach to producing minimum flows is to
install small turbines that operate continuously. Installation of reregulation weirs in the waterway downstream from
the dam can also achieve minimum flows. Finally, riparian improvements are discussed for their importance and
effectiveness in restoring or maintaining aquatic and riparian habitat in portions of the waterway affected by the
location and operation of a dam.

0 a. Flow Augmentation

Operational procedures such as flow regulation, flood releases, or fluctuating flow releases all have a detrimental
impact on downstream aquatic and riparian habitat. Confounding the problem of aquatic and riparian habitat
restoration is necessary for a balance of operational procedures to address the needs of downstream aquatic and
riparian habitat with the requirements of dam operation. There are often legal and jurisdictional requirements for
an operational procedure at a particular dam that should be considered (USDOI, 1988).

A flushing flow is a high-magnitude, short-duration release for the purpose of maintaining channel capacity and the
quality of instream habitat by scouring the accumulation of fine-grained sediments from the streambed. For example,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-47

Ill. Dams Chapter 6

at Owens River in the Eastern Sierra Nevadas, California, a study found that wild salmonids prefer to deposit their
eggs in streambed gravel free of fine sediments (Kondolf et al., 1987). Availability of suitable instream habitat is
a key factor limiting spawning success. Flushing flows wash away the sediments without removing the gravel.
Flushing flows also prevent the encroachment of riparian vegetation. According to a study of the Trinity River
Drainage Basin in northwestern California (Nelson et al., 1987), remedial and maintenance flushing flows suppress
riparian vegetation and maintain the stream channel dimensions necessary to provide instream habitat in addition to
preventing large accumulations of sediment in river deltas. Recommendations for the use of flushing flows as part
of an overall instream management program are becoming more common in areas downstream of water development
projects in the western United States. For instance, Wesche and others (1987) used a sediment transport input-output
model to determine the required flushing regimen for removing fine-grained sediments from portions of the Little
Snake River that served as instream habitat for Colorado cutthroat trout. The flushing flows reduced the overall mass
of sediment covering the channel bottom and removed the finer grained material, thereby increasing the size of the
residual sediment forming the bottom streambed deposits.

However, it is important to keep in mind that flushing flows are not recommended in all cases. Flushing flows of
a large magnitude may cause flooding in the old floodplain or depletion of gravel below the dam. Flushing flows
are more efficient and predictable for small, shallow, high-velocity mountain streams unaltered by dams, diversions,
or intensive land use. Routine maintenance generally requires a combination of practices including high flows
coupled with sediment dams or channel dredging, rather than simply relying on flushing or scouring flows (Nelson
et al., 1988).

Minimum flows are needed to keep streambeds wetted to an acceptable depth to support desired fish and wildlife.
Since wetlands and riparian areas are linked hydrologically to adjoining streams, instrearn flows should be sufficient
to maintain wetland or riparian habitat and function. Flushing and scouring flows may also be necessary to clean
some streambeds and to provide the proper substrate for aquatic species,

In the design, construction, and operation of dams, the minimum flow requirements to support aquatic organisms and
other water-dependent wildlife in downstream areas should be addressed. Minimum flow requirements are typically
determined to protect or enhance one or a few harvestable species of fish (USDOI-FWS, 1976). Other fish, aquatic
organisms, and riparian wildlife are usually assumed to be protected by these flows. For instance, when minimum
flows at the Conowingo Dam (Susquehanna River, Maryland-Pennsylvania border) were increased from essentially
zero to 5,000 cfs, up to a 100-fold increase was noted in the abundance of macroinvertebrates (USDOE, 1991).
When minimum flows were increased from 1.0 cfs to 5.5 cfs at the Rob Roy Dam (Douglas Creek, Wyoming), there
was a four- to six-fold increase in the number of brown trout (USDOE, 1991).

Flows at Rush Creek on the Eastern slope of the Sierra Nevadas in California have averaged about 50 percent of
their prediversion levels (Stromberg and Patten, 1990). Since the construction of the Grant Lake Reservoir, the
influence of flow rates and volumes on the growth of riparian trees has been studied. Stromberg and Patten (1990)
found that a strong relationship exists between growth rates of riparian tree species and annual and prior-year flow
volumes. If the level of growth needed to maintain populations is known, the relationship between growth and flow
can be used to determine the instveam flow needs of riparian vegetation. Instrearn models for Rush Creek suggest
that requirements of riparian vegetation may be greater than requirements for fisheries.

Seasonal discharge limits can be established to prevent excessive, damaging rates of flow release. Limits can also
be placed on the rate of change of flow and on the stage of the river (as measured at a point downstream of the darn
facility) to further protect against damage to instream and riparian habitat.

Several options exist for establishing minimum flows in the tailwaters below dams. As indicated in the case studies
described below, the selection of any particular technique as the most cost-effective depends on several factors
including adequate performance to achieve the desired instrearn and riparian habitat characteristic, compatibility with
other requirements for operation of the hydropower facility, availability of materials, and cost.

6-48 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 ///. Dams

Sluicing is the practice of releasing water through the sluice gate rather than through the turbines. For portions of
the waterway immediately below the dam, the steady release of water by sluicing provides minimum flows with the
least amount of water expenditure. At some facilities, this practice may dictate that modifications be made to the
existing sluice outlets to maintain continuous low releases.

Continuous low-level sluice releases at Eufala Lake and Fort Gibson Lake (Oklahoma) improved DO levels in
tailwaters downstream of these two dams such that fish mortalities, which had been experienced in the tailwaters
below these two darns prior to initiating this practice, no longer occurred (USDOE, 1991).

Turbine pulsing is a practice involving the release of water through the turbines at regular intervals to improve
minimum flows. In the absence of turbine pulsing, water is released from large hydropower dams only when the
turbines are operating, which is typically when the demand for power is high.

A study undertaken at the Douglas Dam (French Broad River, Tennessee) suggests some of the site-specific factors
that should be considered when evaluating the advantages of practices such as turbine pulsing, sluicing, or other
alternatives for providing minimum flows and improving DO levels in reservoir releases. Three options (turbine
pulsing, sluicing, and operation of surface water pumps and diffusers) were evaluated for their effectiveness,
advantages, and disadvantages in providing minimum flows and aeration of reservoir releases. Computer modeling
indicated that either turbine pulsing or sluicing could improve DO concentrations in releases by levels ranging from
0.7 to 1.5 mg/L. (Based on studies cited in a previous section of this chapter, this is slightly below the level of
improvement that might be expected from operation of a diffuser system for aeration.) A trade-off can also be
expected at this facility between water saved by frequent short-release pulses and the higher maintenance costs due
to setting turbines on and off frequently (Hauser et al., 1989). Hauser (1989) found that schemes of turbine pulsing
ranging from 15-minute intervals to 60-minute intervals every 2 to 6 hours were found to provide fairly stable flow
regimes after the first 3 to 8 miles downstream at several TVA projects. However, at points farther downstream,
less overall flow would be produced by sluicing than by pulsing. Turbine pulsing may also cause waters to rise
rapidly, which could endanger people wading or swimming in the tailwaters downstream of the dam (TVA, 1990).

A reregulation weir is one alternative that has been used to establish minimum flows for preservation of instream
habitat. This device is installed in the streambed a short distance below a dam and captures hydropower releases.
Flows through the weir can be regulated to produce the desired conditions of water level and flow velocities that are
best for instrearn habitat. As discussed previously in this chapter, reregulation weirs can also be used in some
circumstances to improve levels of dissolved oxygen in reservoir releases.

The installation of such an instream structure requires some degree of planning and design since the performance
of the weir will affect both the downstream water surface elevation and the velocity of the discharge. These
relationships have been investigated for the Buford Dam (Chattahoochee River, Georgia), where computer simulations
of a proposed reregulation weir indicated that a discharge of 500 cfs created the best instream habitat conditions for
juvenile brown trout. Instream habitat for adult brook trout, adult brown trout, and adult rainbow trout was most
desirable at discharges in the vicinity of 1,000 to 2,000 cfs (Nestler et al., 1986a).

A reregulation weir was also found to be the most cost-effective alternative for providing a 90-cfs minimum flow
below the Holston Dam (South Fork Holston River, Tennessee) for maintenance of instrearn trout habitat (Adams
and Hauser, 1990). The weir was investigated as one alternative for establishing minimum flows, along with turbine
pulsing and installation of a small generating unit in the existing tailrace that would operate at all times when the
existing unit was not operating. The three alternatives were assessed for their effects on river hydraulics and on
operation of the hydropower facility.

Small turbines are another alternative that has been evaluated for establishing minimum flows. Small turbines are
capable of providing continuous generation of power using small flows, as opposed to operating large turbine units
with the resultant high flows. In a study of alternatives for providing minimum flows at the Tims Ford Dam (Elk
River, Tennessee), small turbines were found to represent the most attractive alternative from a cost-benefit
perspective. The other alternatives evaluated included continuous operation of a sluice gate at the dam, pulsing of

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-49

1/1. Dams Chapter 6

the existing turbines, and construction of an instrearn rock gabion regulating weir downstream of the dam (TVA,
1985).

Ob Rlpanan Improvements

Riparian improvements are another strategy that can be used to restore or maintain aquatic and riparian habitat
around reservoir impoundments or along the waterways downstream from dams. In fact, Johnson and LaBounty
(1988) found that riparian improvements were more effective than flow augmentation for protection of instrearn
habitat. In the Salmon River (Idaho), a variety of instrearn and riparian habitat improvements have been
recommended to improve the indigenous stocks of chinook salmon. These include reducing sediment loading in the
watershed, improving riparian vegetation, eliminating barriers to fish migration (see sections discussing this practice
below), and providing greater instrearn and riparian habitat diversity (Andrews, 1988).

0 c. Aquatic Plant Management

One study of the Cherokee Reservoir (Holston River, Tennessee) reveals the potential importance of watershed
protection practices for the improvement of water quality in the reservoir (Hauser et al., 1987). An improved two-
dimensional model of reservoir water quality was used to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of several
practices for improving temperature and DO levels in the reservoir.

10. Practices to Maintain Fish Passage

Migrating fish populations may suffer losses when passing through the turbines of hydroelectric dams unless these
facilities have been equipped with special design features to accommodate fish passage. The effect of dams and
other hydraulic structures on migrating fish has been studied since the early 1950s in an effort to develop systems
or identify operating conditions that would minimize mortality rates. Despite extensive research, no single device
or system has received regulatory agency approval for general use (Stone and Webster, 1986).

The safe passage of fish either upstream or downstream through a dam requires a balance between operation of the
facility for its intended uses and implementation of practices that will ensure safe passage of fish. Rochester and
others (1984) provide an excellent discussion of some of the economic and engineering considerations necessary to
address the problems associated with the safe passage of fish.

Available fish-protection systems for hydropower facilities fall into one of four categories based on their mode of
action (Stone and Webster, 1986): behavioral barriers, physical barriers, collection systems, and diversion systems.
These are discussed in separate sections below, along with four additional practices that have been successfully used
to maintain fish passage: spill and water budgets, fish ladders, transference of fish runs, and constructed spawning
beds.

a. Behavioral Barriers

Behavioral barriers use fish responses to external stimuli to keep fish away from the intakes or to attract them to a
bypass. Since fish behavior is notably variable both within and between species, behavioral barriers cannot be
expected to prevent all fish from entering hydropower intakes. Environmental conditions such as high turbidity levels
can obscure some behavioral barriers such as lighting systems and curtains. Competing behaviors such as feeding
or predator avoidance can also be a factor influencing the effectiveness of behavioral barriers at a particular time.

Electric screens, bubble and chain curtains, light, sound, and water jets have been evaluated in laboratory or field
studies, with n-dxed results. The results with system tests of strobe lights, poppers, and hybrid systems are the most
promising, but these systems are still in need of further testing (Mattice, 1990). Experiences with some kinds of
behavioral barrier systems are described more fully in the following paragraphs.

6-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 Ill. Dams

Electrical screens are intended to produce an avoidance response in fish. This type of fish-protection system is
designed to keep fish away from structures or to guide them into bypass areas for removal. Fish seem to respond
to the electrical stimulus best when water velocities are low. Tests of an electrical guidance system at the Chandler
Canal diversion (Yakima River, Washington) showed the efficiency ranged from 70 to 84 percent for velocities of
less than I ft/sec. Efficiencies decreased to less than 50 percent when water velocities were higher than 2 ft/sec
(Pugh et al., 1971). The success of this type of system may also be species-specific and size-specific. An electrical
field strength suitable to deter small fish may result in injury or death to large fish, since total fish body voltage is
directly proportional to fish body length (Stone and Webster, 1986). This type of system requires constant
maintenance of the electrodes and the associated underwater hardware in order to maintain effectiveness. Surface
water quality, in particular, can affect the life and performance of the electrodes.

Air bubble curtains are created by pumping air through a diffuser to create a continuous, dense curtain of bubbles,
which can cause an avoidance response in fish. Many factors affect the response of fish to air bubble curtains,
including temperature, turbidity, light intensity, water velocity, and orientation in the channel. Bubbler systems
should be constructed from materials that are resistant to corrosion and rusting. Installation of bubbler systems needs
to consider adequate positioning of the diffuser away from areas where siltation could clog the air ducts.

Hanging chains are used to provide a physical, visible obstacle that fish will avoid. Hanging chains are both species-
specific and lifestage-specific. Their efficiency is affected by such variables as instream flow velocity, turbidity, and
illumination levels. Debris can limit the performance of hanging chains; in particular, buildup of debris can deflect
the chains into a nonuniform pattern and disrupt hydraulic flow patterns.

Strobe lights repel fish by producing an avoidance response. A strobe light system at Saunders Generating Station
in Ontario was rated 65 to 95 percent effective at repelling or diverting eels (Stone and Webster, 1986). Turbidity
levels in the water can affect strobe light efficiency. The intensity and duration of the flash can also affect the
response of the fish; for instance, an increase in flash duration has been associated with less avoidance. Strobe lights
also have the potential for far-field fish attraction, since they can appear to fish as a constant light source due to light
attenuation over a long distance (Stone and Webster, 1986).

Mercury lights are used to attract the fish as opposed to repelling them. Studies of mercury lights suggest their
effectiveness is species-specific; alewives were attracted to a zone of filtered mercury light, whereas coho salmon
and rainbow trout displayed no attraction to mercury light (Stone and Webster, 1986). Insufficient data are available
to determine whether mercury lights are lifestage-specific. The device shows promise, but more research is being
conducted to determine factors that affect performance and efficiency.

Underwater sound broadcast at different frequencies and amplitudes has been shown to be effective in attracting or
repelling fish, although the results of field tests are not consistent. Fish have been attracted, repelled, or guided by
the sound, and no conclusive response to sound has been observed. Not all fish possess the ability to perceive sound
or localized acoustical sources (Harris and Van Bergeijk, 1962). Fish also frequently seem to become habituated
to the sound source.

Poppers are pneumatic sound generators that create a high-energy acoustic output to repel fish. Poppers have been
shown to be effective in repelling warm-water fish from water intakes. Laboratory and field studies conducted in
California indicate good avoidance for several freshwater species such as alewives, perch, and smelt (Stone and
Webster, 1986), but salmonids do not seem to be effectively repelled by this device (Stone and Webster, 1986). One
important maintenance consideration is that internal "0" rings positioned between the air chambers have been found
to wear out quickly. Other considerations are air entrainnient in water inlets and vibration of structures associated
with the inlets.

Water jet curtains can be used to create hydraulic conditions that will repel fish. Effectiveness is influenced by the
angle at which the water is jetted. Although effectiveness averages 75 percent in repelling fish (Stone and Webster,
1986), not enough is known to determine what variables affect the performance of water jet curtains. Important
concerns would be clogging of the jet nozzles by debris or rust and the acceptable range of flow conditions.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-51

IIL Dams Chapter 6

Hybrid barriers, or combinations of different barriers, can enhance the effectiveness of individual behavioral barriers.
A chain net barrier combined with strobe lights has been shown in laboratory studies to be 90 percent effective at
repelling fish. Combinations of rope-net and chain-rope barriers have also been tested with good results. Barriers
with horizontal components as well as vertical components are more effective than those with vertical components
alone. Barriers having elements with a large diameter are more effective than those with a small diameter, and
thicker barriers are more effective than thinner barriers. Therefore, diameter and spacing of the barriers are factors
influencing performance (Stone and Webster, 1986). With hanging chains, illumination appears to be a necessary
factor to ensure effectiveness. Their effectiveness was increased with the use of strobe lights (Stone and Webster,
1986). Effectiveness also increased when strobe lights were added to air bubble curtains and poppers (Stone and
Webster, 1986).

0 b. Physical Barriers

Physical barriers such as barrier nets and stationary screens can prevent the entry of fish and other aquatic organisms
into the intakes at a generating facility. However, they should not be regarded as having much potential for
application to promote fish bypass at hydroelectric dams for two reasons. First, the size of the mesh and the labor-
intensive maintenance required to remove water-borne trash lower the feasibility of their use. Second, these barriers
do little to assist fish in bypassing dams during migration (Mattice, 1990).

c. Fish Collection Systems

Collection systems involve capture of fish by screening and/or netting followed by transport by truck or barge to a
downstream location (Figure 6-8). Since the late 1970s, the Corps of Engineers has successfully implemented a
program that takes juvenile salmon from the uppermost dams in the Columbia River system (Pacific Northwest) and
transports them by barge or truck to below the last dam. The program improves the travel time of fish through the
river system, reduces most of the exposure to reservoir predators, and eliminates the mortality associated with passing
through a series of turbines (van der Borg and Ferguson, 1989). Survivability rates for the collected fish are in
excess of 95 percent, as opposed to survival rates of about 60 percent had the fish remained in the river system and
passed through the dams (Dodge, 1989). However, the collection efficiency can range from 70 percent to as low
as 30 percent. At the McNary Dam on the Columbia River, spill budgets are implemented (see below) when the
collection rate achieves less than 70 percent efficiency (Dodge, 1989).

M d. Fish Diversion Systems

Diversion systems lead or force fish to bypasses that transport them to the natural waterbody below the dam
(USEPA, 1979). Physical diversion structures deployed at dams include traveling screens, louvers, angled screens,
drum screens, and inclined plane screens. Most of these systems have been effectively deployed at specific
hydropower facilities. However, a sufficient range of performance data is not yet available for categorizing the
efficiency of specific designs in a particular set of site conditions and fish population assemblages (Mattice, 1990).

Angled screens are used to guide fish to a bypass by guiding them through the channel at some angle to the flow.
Coarse-mesh angled screens have been shown to be highly effective with numerous warm- and cold-water species
and adult stages. Fine-mesh angled screens have been shown in laboratory studies to be highly effective in diverting
larval and juvenile fish to a bypass with resultant high survival. Performance of this device can vary by species,
approach velocity, fish length, screen mesh size,screen type, and temperature (Stone and Webster, 1986).

Angled rotary drum screens oriented perpendicular to the flow direction have been used extensively to lead fish to
a bypass. They have not experienced major operational and maintenance problems. Maintenance typically consists
of routine inspection, cleaning, lubrication, and periodic replacement of the screen mesh (Stone and Webster, 1986).

An inclined plane screen is used to divert fish upward in the water column into a bypass. Once concentrated, the
fish are transported to a release point below the dam. An inclined plane pressure screen at the T.W. Sullivan

6-52 EPA-840-B-92-&02 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 --ffl.-Uams

Hydroelectric Project (Willamette Falls,
Oregon) is located in the penstock of one unit.
The design is effective in diverting fish, with
a high survival rate. However, this device has
been linked to injuries in migrating fish, and
Ma.-rn mot Fish truck-
it has not been accepted for routine use (Stone ele@al,om 641
and Webster, 1986).
Fish hopper Hopper small
Louvers consist of an array of evenly spaced,
vertical slats aligned across a channel at an
angle leading to a bypass. They operate by
creating turbulence that fish are able to detect
and avoid (Stone and Webster, 1986).

Submerged traveling screens are used to divert
downstream migrating fish out of turbine
intakes to adjoining gatewell structures, where
Va"es fto,,, 2 to 6 in ideciii an
they are concentrated for release downstream species)
Weir cres!
(Figure 6-9). This device has been tested
Va'.

Snake and Columbia Rivers. Because of their .@4 i@.
extensively at hydropower facilities on the

Finger @ea
complexity, submerged traveling screens must
be continually maintained. The screens must 7:".:4
be serviced seasonally, depending on the
Fish s-p
debris load, and trash racks and bypass Holdrg pool
Fish leader
orifices must be kept free of debris (Stone and
Webster, 1986).

o
Me. Spill and Water Budgets Fish hopper Anesthetic tank
Although used together, spill and water Figure 6-8. Trap and haul system for fish bypass of the Foster Dam,
budgets are independent methods of Oregon (Nelson et al., 1978).
facilitating downstream fish migration.

The water budget is the mechanism for increasing flows through dams during the out-migration of anadrornous fish
species. It is employed to speed smolt migration through reservoirs and dams. Water that would normally be
released from the impoundment during the winter period to generate power is instead released in the May-June period
when it can be sold only as secondary energy. This concept has been put into practice in some regions of the United
States, although quantification of the benefits is lacking (Dodge, 1989).

Spill budgets provide alternative methods for fish passage that are less dangerous than passage through turbines.
Spillways are used to allow fish to leave the reservoir by passing over the darn rather than through the turbines. The
spillways must be designed to ensure that hydraulic conditions do not induce injury to the passing fish from scraping
and abrasion, turbulence, rapid pressure changes, or supersaturation of dissolved gases in water passing through
* 1986).
plunge pools (Stone and Webster,

In the Columbia River basin (Pacific Northwest), the Corps of Engineers provides spill on a limited basis to pass
fish around specific dams -to improve survival rates. At key dams, spill is used in special operations to protect
hatchery releases or provide better passage conditions until bypass systems are fully developed or, in some cases,
improved (van der Borg and Ferguson, 1989). The cost of this alternative depends on the volume of water that is
lost for power production (Mattice, 1990). Analyses of this practice, using a Corps of Engineers model called
FISHPASS, show that the application of spill budgets in the Columbia River basin is consistently the most costly
and least efficient method of improving overall downstream migration efficiency (Dodge, 1989).

EPA-840-B-,92-002 January 1993 6-53

Chapter 6

ice sluice
(to tailrace)
Submerged Forebay
port

Gatewell

rash racks
Gat

Ice sluice exit flow

Tatiracel-101 .7.
-Traveling
screen
Turbine intake

Kaplan
turbine

tow

Figure 6-9. Cross section of a turbine bypass system used at Lower Granite and Little Goose
Dams, Washington (Nelson et al., 1978).

The volume of a typical water budget is generally not adequate to sustain minimum desirable flows for fish passage
durig the entire migration period. The Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority has proposed replacement of
the water budget on the Columbia River system with a minimum flow requirement to prevent problems of inadequate
water volume in discharge during low-flow years (Muckleston, 1990).

M f. Fish Ladders

Fish ladders are one type of structure that can be provided to enable the safe upstream and downstream passage of
mature fish. One such installation in Maine consists of a vertical slot fishway, constructed parallel to the tailrace,
which allows fish to pass from below the dam to the headwaters (ASCE, 1986). The fishway consists of a series
of pools, each 8.5 feet by 10 feet in size, which ascend in 1-foot increments through the 40-foot rise from the
tailwater area to the headwater area. When there is no flow in the spiUway, fish can pass downstream through an
18-inch pipe. Flow is provided in the tailrace during fish migration season. Fish prefer to travel in these fishways
at night under low illumination (Larinier and Boyer-Hemard, 1991).

6-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 Iff Dams

Information on the effectiveness of these types of structures is scarce and inconclusive, according to a study by the
General Accounting Office (GAO, 1990). GAO noted that many studies of bypass facilities have emphasized data
collection to document the number of juvenile fish entering the bypass structures and the condition of the individuals
after passage is completed. Only two studies were identified in which bypass methods were compared with
alternative methods to identify the most successful approaches. The observations collected at Lower Granite Dam
and at Bonneville Darn (Columbia River) indicate a higher survival rate for young fish passing through turbines than
for those passing through a bypass structure.

Mg. Transference of Fish Runs

Transference of fish runs involves inducing anadromous fish species to use different spawning grounds in the vicinity
of the impoundment. To implement this practice, the nature and extent of the spawning grounds that were lost due
to the blockage in the river need to be assessed, and suitable alternative spawning grounds need to be identified.
The feasibility of successfully collecting the fish and transporting them to alternative tributaries also needs to be
carefully determined.

One strategy for mitigating the impacts of diversions on fisheries is the use of ephemeral streams as conveyance
channels for all or a portion of the diverted water. If flow releases are controlled and uninterrupted, a perennial
stream is created, along with new instrearn and riparian habitat. However, the biota that had been adapted to
preexisting conditions in the ephemeral stream will probably be eliminated. One case where an ephemeral stream
was used to convey water and create alternative instream habitat for fish is along South Fort Crow Creek, in
Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. After 2 years of diversion, the amount of stream channel on an 88-km
reach had increased 32 percent. Some measure of the success with which alternative instream habitat has replaced
the original conditions can be seen in the total area of beaver ponds, which doubled within 2 years of completion
of the project (Wolff et al.,, 1989).

Wh. Constructed Spawning Beds

When the adverse effects of a dam on the aquatic habitat of an anadromous fish species are severe, one option may
be to construct suitable replacement spawning beds (Virginia State Water Control Board, 1979). Additional facilities
such as electric barriers, fish ladders, or bypass channels will have to be furnished to channel the fish to these
spawning beds.

11. Costs for All Practices

a. Costs for Minimum Flow Alternatives

In a comparisons of costs of minimum flows alternatives at South Fork Holston River, Adams and Hauser (1990)
describe costs for a variety of practices, including an estimated total direct cost of $539,000 for a reregulating weir
and $1,258,000 for a small hydro unit.

b. Costs for Hypolimnetic Aeration

The diffused air system is generally the most cost-effective method to raise low DO levels (Henderson and Shields,
1984; Cooke and Kennedy, 1989). However, the costs of air diffuser operation may be high for deep reservoirs
because of hydraulic pressures that must be overcome. Any destratification that results from deployment of an air
diffuser system will also mix nutrient-rich waters located deep in the impoundment into layers located closer to the
surface, increasing the potential for stimulation of algal populations. The mixing must be complete to avoid
problems with algal blooms (Cooke and Kennedy, 1989).

Fast and others (1976) and Lorenzen and Fast (1977) discuss costs of hypolimnetic aeration. The following are
capital cost items for aeration systems: air lift devices, the compressor, the air supply lines, and the diffusers. The

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-55

M Dams Chapter 6

costs for these items are dependent on aerator size, which in turn is dependent on the need for oxygen in the
reservoir impoundment (McQueen and Lean, 1986). Cooke and Kennedy (1989) reported side stream pumping costs
(adjusted to 1990 dollars) were $347,023 (capital costs) and $167,240 (yearly operation and maintenance costs).
Partial air lift system costs (adjusted to 1990 dollars) were reported by Cooke and Kennedy (1989) as $627,150
(capital costs) and $105,257 (operation and maintenance costs). Capital costs for full air lift systems ranged (in 1990
dollars) from $250,860 to $585,340, and operation and maintenance costs (in 1990 dollars) were reported as $44,862
(Cooke and Kennedy, 1989). In the opinion of Cooke and Kennedy (1989), the full air lift system is the least costly
to operate and the most efficient. Furthermore, there is the potential for surface water quality problems caused by
the supersaturation of nitrogen gas with the use of the partial air lift system (Fast et al., 1976). Accordingly, the full
air lift system seems to be the overall best choice for aeration, based on cost, efficiency, and environmental impacts.

c. Costs for Diffusers

A cost-effective means of achieving better water quality for reservoir releases is to aerate discrete layers near the
intakes to avoid any unnecessary release of algae and nutrients into tailwaters below the dam. In another test at
facilities operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), diffusers were deployed at the 70-foot depth of Fort
Patrick Henry Dam near one of the turbine intakes. Levels of DO in the tailwaters increased from near zero to 4
mg/L as a result of operation of this aeration system. Unfortunately, the operation costs of this kind of system were
determined to be relatively high. An operation system to increase the DO in the discharge from both hydroturbines
at Fort Patrick Henry Dam to 5 mg/L would have an initial capital cost of $400,000 and an annual operating cost
of $110,000 (Harshbarger, 1987).

The TVA has determined that approximately $44 million would be required to purchase and install aeration
equipment at 16 TVA facilities (TVA, 1990). The aeration of reservoir waters, combined with other practices such
as turbine pulsing, would result in the recovery of over 180 miles of instrearn habitat in areas below TVA dams.
An additional $4 million per year in annual operating costs would also be required.

d. Costs for Aeration Weirs

The estimated costs for an aeration weir constructed downstream of the Canyon Dam (Guadalupe River, Texas) were
$60,000. However, the construction of this device occurred at the same time as other construction at the facility,
resulting in a reduction in overall project costs (EPRI, 1990).

e. Costs for Fish Bypass System

The Philadelphia Electric Company installed a fish lift system on the Conowingo Dam, located on the Susquehanna
River at the head of the Chesapeake Bay. The fish lift system has the capacity of lifting 750,000 shad and 5 million
river herring per year. The system was completed in 1991 at a total cost (adjusted to 1990 dollars) of $11.9 million
(Nichols, 1992).

6-56 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

IV. STREAMBANK AND SHORELINE EROSION MANAGEMENT
MEASURE

Streambank erosion is used in this guidance to refer to the loss of fastland along nontidal streams and rivers.
Shoreline erosion is used in this guidance to refer to the loss of beach or fastland in tidal portions of coastal bays
or estuaries. Erosion of ocean coastlines is not regarded as a substantial contributor of NPS pollution in coastal
waterbodies and will not be considered in this guidance.

The force of water flowing in a river or stream can be regarded as the most important process causing erosion of
a streambank. All of the eroded material is carried downstream and deposited in the channel bottom or in point bars
located along bends in the waterway. The process is very different in coastal bays and estuaries, where waves and
currents can sort the coarser-grained sands and gravels from eroded bank materials and move them in both directions
along the shore, through a process called littoral drift, away from the area undergoing erosion. Thus, the materials
in beaches of coastal bays and estuaries are derived from shore erosion somewhere else along the shore. Solving
the erosion of the source area may merely create new problems with beach erosion over a much wider area of the
shore.

The seepage of ground water and the overland flow of surface water runoff also contribute to the erosion of both
streambanks and shorelines. The role of ground water is most important wherever permeable subsurface layers of
sand or gravel are exposed in banks and high bluffs along streams, rivers, and coastal bays (Palmer, 1973;
Leatherman, 1986; Figure 6-10). In these areas, the seepage of ground water into the waterway can cause erosion
at the point of exit from the bank face, leading to bank failure. The surface flow of upland runoff across the bank
face can also dislodge sediments through sheet flow, or through the creation of rills and gullies on the shoreline
banks and bluffs.

The erosion of shorelines and streambanks is a natural process that can have either beneficial or adverse impacts on
the creation and maintenance of riparian habitat. Sands and gravels eroded from streambanks are deposited in the
channel and are used as instream habitat during the life stages of many benthic organisms and fish. The same
materials eroded from the shores of coastal bays and estuaries maintain the beach as a natural barrier between the
open water and coastal wetlands and forest buffers. Beaches are dynamic, ephemeral land forms that move back
and forth onshore, offshore, and along shore with changing wave conditions (Bascom, 1964). The finer-grained silts
and clays derived from the erosion of shorelines and streambanks are sorted and carried as far as the quiet waters
of wetlands or tidal flats, where benefits are derived from addition of the new material.

There are also adverse impacts from shoreline and streambank erosion. Excessively high sediment loads can smother
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, cover shellfish beds and tidal flats, fill in riffle pools, and contribute to
increased levels of turbidity and nutrients. However, there are few research results that can be used to identify levels
below which streambank and shoreline erosion is beneficial and above which it is an NPS-related problem.

The Chesapeake Bay is one coastal waterbody for which sufficient data exist to characterize the relative importance
of shore erosion as a source of sediment and nutrients (lbison et al., 1990, 1992). Erosion of the shores above mean
sea level contributes 6.9 million cubic yards of sediment per year, or 39 percent of the total annual sediment supply
to the Chesapeake Bay (USACE, 1990). The contribution of nitrogen from shore erosion is estimated at 3.3 million
pounds per year, which is 3.3 percent of the total nonpoint nitrogen load to the Bay. The contribution of phosphorus
from shore erosion is estimated at 4.5 million pounds per year, which is approximately 46 percent of the total
nonpoint phosphorus load to the Bay (USEPA-CBP, 1991).

For many watersheds, it will be necessary to consider four questions about streambank and shoreline erosion
simultaneously in developing an NPS pollution reduction strategy:

(1) Is sediment derived from coastal erosion helping to maintain aquatic habitat elsewhere in the system?

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 6-57

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

(2) Is coastal erosion a significant contributor of nonpoint sediment and nutrients?

(3) Is coastal erosion causing a loss of wetlands and riparian areas, with resultant loss of aquatic habitat and
reduction of capacity to remove NPS pollutants from surface waters?

(4) Are activities along the shoreline and in adjacent surface waters increasing the rate of coastal erosion
above natural (background) levels?

The answers to these questions will determine the emphasis that should be given to each of the three elements in
the Management Measure for Eroding Strearnbanks and Shorelines.

Figure 6-10. The physical processes of bluff erosion in a
coastal bay. 1. Water enters the ground by infiltration of WATER INFILTRATION
rainwater or snowmelt. 2. Nearly vertical cracks called joints
aid the downward movement of water. 3. Water moves
toward the cliff face upon reaching an impermeable layer of Collapsed area
sediment formed by clay. 4. A perched wafer table forms
above the clay layer, the overlying sandy sediments become
saturated with water. 5. As water seeps out of the cliff and
runs down the cliff face, it may erode the sandy sediments
above the clay layer, in a process called sapping. 6. Spalling PERCNED WATER AREA OF SAPPING A SEEPAGE
is another process by which the bluff face breaks off along a 3
more or less planar surface roughly parallel to the face. - _- IMPE CA LE LAYER
(c
Spalling is continuous throughout the year, but it intensifies clay).@@
during the winter months when freezing and thawing occur
along the joints and seepage zones. 7. Wave action at the
AREA OF SPALLING
base removes fallen debris, allowing cliff failure to continue.
(within collapsed area)
(After Leatherman, 1986.)

Deltris at base of c:iff

...........

..... ......

6-58 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

A. Management Measure for Eroding Streambanks
and Shorelines

(1) Where streambank or shoreline erosion is a nonpoint source pollution problem,
streambanks and shorelines should be stabilized. Vegetative methods are
strongly preferred unless structural methods are more cost-effective,
considering the severity of wave and wind erosion, offshore bathymetry, and the
potential adverse impact on other streambanks, shorelines, and offshore areas.

(2) Protect streambank and shoreline features with the potential to reduce NPS
pollution.

(3) Protect streambanks and shorelines from erosion due to uses of either. the
shorelands or adjacent surface waters.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to eroding shorelines in coastal bays, and to eroding
streambanks in coastal rivers and creeks. The measure does not imply that all shoreline and streambank erosion must
be controlled. Some amount of natural erosion is necessary to provide the sediment for beaches in estuaries and
coastal bays, for point bars and channel deposits in rivers, and for substrate in tidal flats and wetlands. The measure,
however, applies to eroding shorelines and streambanks that constitute an NPS problem in surface waters. It is not
intended to hamper the efforts of any States or localities to retreat rather than to harden die shoreline. Under the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they
develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this measure and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of management measures by States is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Depa=ent of
Commerce.

2. Description

Several streambank and shoreline stabilization techniques will be effective in controlling coastal erosion wherever
it is a source of nonpoint pollution. Techniques involving marsh creation and vegetative bank stabilization ("soil
bioengineering") will usually be effective at sites with limited exposure to strong curients or wind-generated waves.
In other cases, the use of engineering approaches, including beach nourishment or coastal structures, may need to
be considered. In addition to controlling those sources of sediment input to surface waters which are causing NPS
pollution, these techniques can halt the destruction of wetlands and riparian areas located along the shorelines of
surface waters. Once these features are protected, they can serve as a filter for surface water runoff from upland
areas, or as a sink for nutrients, contaminants, or sediment already present as NPS pollution in surface waters.

Stabilization practices involving vegetation or coastal engineering should be properly designed and installed. These
techniques should be applied only when there will be no adverse effects to aquatic or riparian river habitat, or to the
stability of adjacent shorelines, from stabilizing a source of shoreline sediments. Finally, it is the intent of this

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-59

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

measure to promote institutional measures that establish minimum set-back requirements or measures that allow a
buffer zone to reduce concentrated flows and promote infiltration of surface water runoff in areas adjacent to the
shoreline.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected for the following reasons:

(1) Erosion of shorelines and streambanks contributes significant amounts of NPS pollution in surface waters
such as in the Chesapeake Bay;

(2) The loss of coastal land and streambanks due to shoreline and streambank erosion results in reduction of
riparian areas and wetlands that have NPS pollution abatement potential; and

(3) A variety of activities related to the use of shorelands or adjacent surface waters can result in erosion of
land along coastal bays or estuaries and losses of land along coastal rivers and streams.

4. Practices

As discussed more fully at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1, the following practices are described for
illustrative purposes only. State programs need not require the implementation of these practices. However, as a
practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measure set forth above generally will be implemented by
applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

Preservation and protection of shorelines and streambanks can be accomplished through many approaches, but
preference in this guidance is for nonstructural practices, such as soil bioengineering and marsh creation.

M a. Use soil bidengineering and other vegetative techniques to restore damaged habitat along
shorelines and streambanks wherever conditions allow.

Soil bioengineering is used here to refer to the installation of living plant material as a main structural component
in controlling problems of land instability where erosion and sedimentation are occurring (USDA-SCS, 1992). Soil
bioengineering largely uses native plants collected in the immediate vicinity of a project site. This ensures that the
plant material will be well adapted to site conditions. While a few selected species may be installed for immediate
protection, the ultimate goal is for the natural invasion of a diverse plant community to stabilize the site *ough
development of a vegetative cover and a reinforcing root matrix (USDA-SCS, 1992).

Soil bioengineering provides an array of practices that are effective for both prevention and mitigation of NPS
problems. This applied technology combines mechanical, biological, and ecological principles to construct protective
systems that prevent slope failure and erosion. Adapted types of woody vegetation (shrubs and trees) are initially
installed as key structural components, in specified configurations, to offer immediate soil protection and
reinforcement. Soil bioengineering systems normally use cut, unrooted plant parts in the form of branches or rooted
plants. As the systems establish themselves, resistance to sliding or shear displacement increases in strearnbanks and
upland slopes (Schiechtl, 1980; Gray and Leiser, 1982; Porter, 1992).

Specific soil bioengineering practices include (USDA-SCS, 1992):

Live Staking. Live staking involves the insertion and tamping of live, rootable vegetative cuttings into
the ground (Figure 6-11). If correctly prepared and placed, the live stake will root and grow. A system
of stakes creates a living root mat that stabilizes the soil by reinforcing and binding soil particles together
and by extracting excess soil moisture. Most willow species are ideal for live staking because they root

6-60 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Cross "etion
Not to scale

Slope surfam
g,
M wg g%-,

-XZ - - -------- ......
K
%%7::; M

*N X
'X.: K2
M K %
:"Mgmgxg@-:
gp
0.
%Z&g
2 too 3 feet
X
M

Kl%n@<K:K@@_:K'_'- Z@
W% x
K..1

2 to 3 feet
(triaAgular spacing)

live cutting
1/2 to 11/2 inches in diameter

Note:
Rooted/leafed condition of the living
plant material is not representative of
the time of installation.

Figure 6-11. Schematic cross section of a live stake installation showing important design elements (USDA-SCS,
1992).

rapidly and begin to dry out a slope soon after installation. This is an appropriate technique for repair of
small earth slips and slumps that frequently are wet.

� Live Fascines. Live fascines are long bundles of branch cuttings bound together into sausage-like structures
(Figure 6-12). When cut from appropriate species and properly installed, they will root and immediately
begin to stabilize slopes. They should be placed in shallow contour trenches on dry slopes and at an angle
on wet slopes to reduce erosion and shallow face sliding. This system, installed by a trained crew, does
not cause much site disturbance.

� Brushlayering. Brushlayering consists of placing live branch cuttings in small benches excavated into the
slope. The width of the benches can range from 2 to 3 feet. The portions of the brush that protrude from
the slope face assist in retarding runoff and reducing surface erosion. Brushlayering is somewhat similar
to live fascine systems because both involve the cutting and placement of live branch cuttings on slopes.
The two techniques differ principally in the orientation of the branches and the depth to which they are
placed in the slope. In brushlayering, the cuttings are oriented more or less perpendicular to the slope

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 6-61

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

Croas secdon
Not to scale Protudes 2 to 3 inches
above bundle Mulching between
fascine rows

Slightly exposed
after instaUtion

Biloist soil backfill

I F

Prepared trench

Slope surface

Uve fascine bundle
-0:
lAve stake
(2- to 3-foot spacing between
dead stout stakes)

Not@:
Roote&1eafed condition of the living
Dead stout stake plant material is not representative of
Twine (2- to 3-foot, spacing along bundle) Lhe time of installation.

Uve branches
(stagger throughout
bundle)

... .... .......

. ... .... ....
Bundle
..... ......
(6 to 8 inches. 0.
in diameter) -7

Figure 6-12. Schematic cross section of a live fascine showing important design elements (USDA-SCS, 1992).

contour. In live fascine systems, the cuttings are oriented more or less parallel to the slope contour. The
perpendicular orientation is more effective from the point of view of earth reinforcement and mass stability
of the slope.

Brush Mattressing. Brush mattressing is commonly used in Europe for strearnbank protection. It involves
digging a slight depression on the bank and creating a mat or mattress from woven wire or single strands
of wire and live, freshly cut branches from sprouting trees or shrubs. Branches up to 2.5 inches in diameter
are normaiLly cut 3 to 10 feet long and laid in criss-cross layers with the butts in alternating directions to
create a uniform mattress with few voids. The mattress is then covered with wire secured with wooden
stakes up to 3 feet long. It is then covered with soil and watered repeatedly to fiU voids with soil and
facilitate sprouting; however, some branches should be left partially exposed on the surface. 'Me structure
may require protection from undercutting by placement of stones or burial of the lower edge. Brush

6-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

I
mattresses are generally resistant to waves and currents and provide protection from the digging out of
plants by animals. Disadvantages include possible burial with sediment in some situations and difficulty
in making later plantings through the mattress.

� Branchpacking. Branchpacking consists of alternating layers of live branch cuttings and compacted backfill
to repair small localized slumps and holes in slopes (Figure 6-13). Live branch cuttings may range'from
1/2 inch to 2 inches in diameter. They should be long enough to touch the undisturbed soil at the back of
the trench and extend slightly outward from the rebuilt slope face. As plant tops begin to grow, the
branchpacking system becomes increasingly effective in retarding runoff and reducing surface erosion.
Trapped sediment refills the localized slumps or holes, while roots spread throughout the backfill and
surrounding earth to form a unified mass.

� Joint Planting. Joint planting (or vegetated riprap) involves tamping live cuttings of rootable plant material
into soil between the joints or open spaces in rocks that have previously been placed on a slope (Figure 6-
14). Alternatively, the cuttings can be tamped into place at the same time that rock is being placed on the
slope face.

� Live CribwaUs. A live cribwall consists of a hollow, box-like interlocking arrangement of untreated log
or timber members (Figure 6-15). The structure is filled with suitable backfill material and layers of live
branch cuttings, which root inside the crib structure and extend into the slope. Once the live cuttings root

Cross section
Not to scalle

Branch cuttings should
Protrude slightly
01-10
backU area

Uve branch cuttings
4- to 64nch lVer of live branch (Lt- to Unch diameter)
cuttings Isid In crisscross Compactad M material
configuration with baW ends
lower d"um growing dpe and
touching undis@ soil
back of hol& Wooden makes
(5- to 84bot long 2 x 4 lumber,
drhmn 3 to 4 feet into undisauted saw

Note. I to 114 feet
Pooted leafed condition of the living
Plant material is not representathme of
the time of Installation.
00

Figure 6-13. Schematic cross section of a branchpacking system showing important design details (USDA-SCS,
1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-63

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

Cross sectloit
Not to wale Live stake
(LJ2- to I V2-inch diameter)

E)dstkng rock Slope surface
or riprap

90T.

Note-
Rooted/leafed condition of the living
plant material is not representative of
the time of installation.

Figure 6-14. Schematic cross section of a joint planting system showing important design elements (USDA-SCS,
1992).

and become established, the subsequent vegetation gradually takes over the structural functions of the wood
members.

These techniques have been used extensively in Europe for streambank and shoreline protection and for slope
stabilization. They have been practiced in the United States only to a limited extent primarily because other
engineering options, such as the use of riprap, have been more commonly accepted practices (Allen and Klimas,
1986). With the costs of labor, materials, and energy rapidly rising in the last two decades, however, less costly
alternatives of stabilization are being pursued as alternatives to engineering structures for controlling erosion of
streambanks and shorelines.

Additionally, bioengineering has the advantage of providing food, cover, and instrearn and riparian habitat for fish
and wildlife and results in a more aesthetically appealing environment than traditional engineering approaches (Allen
and Klimas, 1986).

6-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Cross section Uve branch cuttinp
Not to scale (1/2- to 24nch diameter)

Erosion contrYA
71mber or logs plantings
(nailed togetlier)

Computed 1111 material

.4
4-AV

Ground line

WWA 0 VA. e14 "rZ' A
2 to 3 fee
A

Note:
Rootedfleafed condition of the living
plant material Is not representative of
the time of installation.

Figure 6-15. Schematic cross section of a live cribwall showing important design elements (USDA-SCS, 1992).

Local agencies such as the USDA Soil Conservation Service and Extension Service can be a useful source of
information on appropriate native plant species that can be considered for use in bioengineering projects (USDA-SCS,
1992). For the Great Lakes, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has identified 33 upland plant species that have the
potential to effectively decrease surface erosion of shorelines resulting from wind action and runoff (Hall and
Ludwig, 1975). Michigan Sea Grant has also published two useful guides for shorefront property owners that
provide information on vegetation and its role in reducing Great Lakes shoreline erosion (Tainter, 1982; Michigan
Sea Grant College Program, 1988).

When considering a soil bioengineering approach to shoreline stabilization, several factors in addition to selection
of plant materials are important. Shores subject to wave erosion will usually require structures or beach nourishment
to dampen wave energy. In particular, the principles of soil bioengineering, discussed previously, will be ineffective
at controlling that portion of streambank or shoreline erosion caused by wave energy. However, soiJ bioengineering
will typically be effective on the portion of the eroding strearnbank or shoreline located above the zone of wave
attack. Subsurface seepage and soil slumping may need to be prevented by dewatering the bank material. Steep
banks may need to be reshaped to a more gentle slope to accommodate the plant material (Hall and Ludwig, 1975).

EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993 6-65

IV Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

Marsh creation and restoration is another useful vegetative technique that can be used to address problems with
erosion of coastal shorelines. Marsh plants perform two functions in controlling shore erosion (Knutson, 1988).
First, their exposed stems form a flexible mass that dissipates wave energy. As wave energy is diminished, both
the offshore transport and longshore transport of sediment are reduced. Ideally, dense stands of marsh vegetation
can create a depositional environment, causing accretion of sediments along the intertidal zone rather than continued
erosion of the shore. Second, marsh plants form a dense mat of roots (called rhizomes), which can add stability to
the shoreline sediments.

Techniques of marsh creation for shore erosion control have been described by researchers for various coastal areas
of the United States, including North Carolina (Woodhouse et al., 1972; Knutson, 1977; Knutson and Inskeep, 1982;
Knutson and Woodhouse, 1983), the Chesapeake Bay (Garbisch et al., 1973; Sharp et al., undated), and Florida and
the Gulf Coast (Lewis, 1982). The basic approach is to plant a shoreline area in the vicinity of the tide line with
appropriate marsh grass species. Suitable fill material may be placed in the intertidal zone to create a wetlands
planting terrace of sufficient width (at least 18 to 25 feet) if such a terrace does not already exist at the project site.

For shoreline sites that are highly sheltered from the effects of wind, waves, or boat wakes, the fill material is usually
stabilized with small structures, similar to groins (see practice b below), which extend out into the water from the
land. For shorelines with higher levels of wave energy, the newly planted marsh can be protected with an offshore
installation of stone that is built either in a continuous configuration (Figure 6-16) or in a series of breakwaters
(Figure 6-17).

Knutson and Woodhouse (1983) have developed a method for evaluating the suitability of shoreline sites for
successful creation of marshes. The method uses a Vegetative Stabilization Site Evaluation Form (Figure 6-18) to
evaluate potential for planting success on a case-by-case basis. The user measures each of four characteristics for
the area in question, identifies the categories on the form that best describe the area, 6alculates a cumulative score,
and uses the score to determine the potential success rate for installation of wetland plants in the intertidal zone.
Sites with a cumulative score of 300 or greater have been correlated with 100 percent success rates at actual field
planting sites (Lewis, 1982). Sites with scores between 201 and 300 generally have a success rate of 50 percent,
which often constitutes an acceptable risk for undertaking a shoreline erosion control project emphasizing marsh
creation (Lewis, 1982).

b. Use properly designed and constnicted engineering practices for shore erosion control in areas
where practices involving marsh creation and soil bidengineering are ineffective.

Properly designed and constructed shore and streambank erosion control structures are used in areas where higher
wave energy mikes biostabilization and marsh creation ineffective. There are many sources of information

LDWMARSH HIGHMARSH

MHW SILL
EXMING GRADE
MLW

i A
//0000

FELTER CLOTH

Figure 6-16. Continuous stone sill protecting a planted marsh (Environmental Concern, Inc., 1992).

6-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

I-A
A@" 'WRIM

*low,

.MW
A IMP

... . ..... ..
Figure 6-17. Headland breakwater system at Drummonds Field, Virginia. The breakwaters control
shoreline erosion and provide a community beach. (Hardaway and Gunn, 1991.)

concerning the proper design and construction of shoreline and streambank erosion control structures. Table 6-4
contains several useful sources of design information. In addition to careful consideration of the engineering design,
@@ 4A

the proper planning for a shoreline or streamlank protection project will include a thorough evaluation of the physical
processes causing the erosion. To complete the analysis of physical factors, the following steps are suggested (Hobbs
et al., 1981):

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-67

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

1 SHORE 2. DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES 3.
WEIGHTEO
CHARACTERISTICS (SCORE WEiGHTEO BY PERCENT SUCCESSFUL) SCORE
a. FETCH -AVERAGE LESS 1.1 3.1 GREATER
AVERAGE DISTANCE In THAN (0.11 (1.91 THAN
KILOMETERS IMMS1 OF to to
OPEN WATER MEASURED 1.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
1(it POICIC1.11.1101 to ?M( (0.61 11.9) (5.151 15.61
1.0@( AMC 45- EITHER SNORE /
SIDE OF PERPENDICULAR @E (871 (66) (44) (37)
b. FETCH-LONGEST LESS 2.1 6.1 GREATER
LONGEST DISTANCE IN THAN (1.31 (3.81 THAN
OILOVITERS IVILES) OF to to
OPEN "Tto MEASURED 2.0 6.0 18.0 18.0
PERPENDICULAR TO THE (1.2) (3.71 (1 1.21 111.2)
Smoot OR 45. EITHER 1, SNORE -.I
'000,
SIDE OF PERPENDICULAR (67) (41) 1

MEANDER
C. SHORELINE COVE OR HEADLAND
-STRAIGHT
GEOM..ETRY -7-

GEWIAL SHAPE OF THE SmonfLINE
AT T.( POINT OF-INTENtST S/ ?f re
Sir
PLUS 200 #(IM 1660 Fri
an (ITHER slot (85) (62) (50)
d greater than
SEDIMENT' less than 0.4 0.4-0.8
0.8
GRAIN SIZE OF SEDIMENTS
IN SWAIN loot f..1 (841 (41) (18)
4. CUMULATIVE SCORE

5. SCORE INTERPRETATION
a. CUMULATIVE 122-200 201-300 300-345
SCORE
b. POTENTIAL 0 to 30% 30 to 80% 80 to 1000%
SUCCESS RATE

lGrain-size scale for the Unified soils classification (casagrande,
1948; U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1953):

Clay, silt, and find sand - 0.0024 to 0.42 millimeter
Medium sand - 0.42 to 2.0 millimeters
Coarse sand - 2.0 to 4.76 millimeters.

Figure 6-18. Vegetative Stabilization Site Evaluation Form (Knutson and Woodhouse, 1983).

6-68 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Table 6-4. Sources for Proper Design of Shoreline and Strearnbank Erosion Control Structures

Index Source Location Practices

1 USDA, Soil Conservation Service. United States e removal of debris
1985. Streambank and Shoreline * reduction of slope
Protection. * heavy stone placement
a deflectors
e vegetation protection

2 Henderson, J.E. 1986. United States e vegetative shoreline
Environmental Designs for stabilization
Streambank Protection Projects. * structural shoreline stabilization
Water Resources Bulletin, 22 (4)
549-558.

3 Porter, D.L. 1992. Light Touch, Tennessee 9 piling revetment
Low Cost, Streambank and * tree revetment and breakwaters
Shoreline Erosion Control * board fence revetments and
Techniques. Tennessee Valley dikes
Authority. * tire post retards and
revetments
9 wire cribs
9 floating tire breakwater
- sand bag revetment
0 toe protection
* brush mat revetment
- log and cable revetment
* vegetative plantings

4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. United States 9 planning/land use management
1983. Streambbnk Protection . stream rerouting
Guidelines for Landowners and * removal of obstructions
Local Governments. Vicksburg, o bed scour control
Ms. - vegetative stabilization
o bank shaping
o gabions and wire mattresses
0 rubble
* sacks
0 blocks
- fences
- kellnerjacks
* bulkheads
e dikes

5 Hill, Lambert, and Ross. 1983. Virginia o management of shorelines to
Best Management Practices for prevent erosion
Shoreline Erosion Control. * vegetative covers
Virginia Cooperative Extension * bank grading
Service. Publication 447-004. * marsh creation
0 grassed filter strips

6 Gutman, A.L. 1979. Low-cost Massachusetts o sand-filled fabric bags
Shoreline Protection in
Massachusetts. In Proceedings of
the Specialty Conference on
Coastal Structures 1979,
Alexandria, VA, March 14-16,
1979.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 6-69

IV Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

Table 6-4. (Continued)

Index Source Location Practices

7 Graham, J.S. 1983. Design of United States 9 wood bulkheads/retaining
Pressure-treated Wood Bulkheads. In walls
Coastal Structures '83. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.

8 Cumberland County SWCD, Knox- Maine * vegetative dune
Lincoln SWCD, Maine Department of stabilization
Environmental Protection, Maine Soil e vegetative streambank
and Water Conservation Commission, stabilization
Portland Water District, Time and * vegetated buffer strips
Ride RC and D, USEPA, and USDA- * culverts
SCS. Fact Sheet Series (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, - grassed swales
9, 10, 12) e diversion
e minimization of cut and
fill
0 structures to channelize
water down steep slopes
* shoreline riprap
* streambank riprap
* temporary check dams

9 Gloucester County, Virginia, Gloucester County, VA e marsh establishment
Department of Conservation and e bank grading and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water revegetation
Conservation, Shoreline Programs 0 riprap revetment
Bureau. June 1991. Gloucester - bulkheading
County Shoreline Erosion Control - groins
Guidance (Draft). 0 gabions

10 Ehrlich, L.A., and F. Kulhawy. 1982. New York 0 breakwaters
Breakwaters, Jetties and Groins: A - jetties
Design Guide. New York Sea Grant 0 groins
Institute, Coastal Structures 0 mound structures
Handbook Series. 0 wall structures
0 longard tubes
* sand-filled bags
* rock mastic
precast concrete units

11 Saczynski, T.M., and F. Kulhawy. New York * anchored walls
1982. Bulkheads. New York Sea - cantilevered walls
Grant Institute, Coastal Structures * walls in clay
Handbook Series.

12 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, United States e seawalls and bulkheads
Waterways Experimental Station. * revetments
Shoreline Protection Manual, Volumes * beach fill
I and 11. Vicksburg, MS. 0 groins
- jetties
0 breakwaters

6-70 EPA-840-B-92-002 danuaty 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Table 6-4. (Continued)

Index Source Location Practices

13 Fulford, E.T. 1985 Reef Type Chesapeake Bay - reef-type breakwaters: low-crested
Breakwaters for Shoreline rubble-mound breakwaters built
Stabilization. In* Proceedings of parallel to the shoreline
Coastal Zone '85, pp. 1776-1795. 9 revetments
American Society of Civil * bulkheads
Engineers. * groins

14 Tainter, S.P. 1982. Bluff Slumping United States - reshaping bluff face
and Stability. A Consumer's Guide. 9 subsurface drainage
Michigan Sea Grant. e surface water control
e vegetation

15 FEMA. 1986. Coastal Construction United States * structural design recommendations
Manual. Federal Emergency e landscaping
Management Agency, Washington, e dune protection
DC. * bulkheads
e use of earthfill

16 Hardaway, C.S., and J.R. Gunn. Chesapeake Bay # headland breakwater systems:
1991. Headland Breakwaters in series of headlands and pocket
Chesapeake Bay. beaches

(1) Determine the limits of the shoreline reach;

(2) Determine the rates and patterns of erosion and accretion and the active processes of erosion within the
reach;

(3) Determine, within the reach of the sites of erosion-induced sediment supply, the volumes of that sediment
supply available for redistribution within the reach, as well as the volumes of that sediment supply lost
from the reach;

(4) Determ@ine the direction of sediment transport and, if possible, estimation of the magnitude of the gross
and net sediment transport rates; and

(5) Estimate factors such as ground-water seepage or surface water runoff that contribute to erosion.

The most widely-accepted alternative engineering practices for streambank or shoreline erosion control are described
below. These practices will have varying levels of effectiveness depending on the strength of waves, tides, and
currents at the project site. They will also have varying degrees of suitability at different sites and may have varying
types of secondary impacts. One important impact that must always be considered is the transfer of wave energy,
which can cause erosion offshore or alongshore. Finding a satisfactory balance between these three factors
(effectiveness, suitability, and secondary impacts) is often the key to a successful streambank or shore erosion control
project.

Fixed engineering structures are built to protect upland areas when resources become impacted by erosive processes.
Sound design practices for these structures are essential (Kraus and Pilkey, 1988). Not only are poorly designed
structures typically unsuccessful in protecting the intended stretch of shoreline, but they also have a negative impact
on other stretches of shoreline as well. One example of accelerated erosion of unprotected properties adjacent to
shoreline erosion structures is the Siletz Spit, Oregon, site (Komar and McDougal, 1988).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-71

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

For sites where soil bioengineering marsh creation would not be an effective means of streambank or shoreline
stabilization, a variety of engineering approaches can be considered. One approach involves the design and
installation of fixed engineering structures. Bulkheads and seawalls are two types of wave-resistant walls that are
similar in design but slightly different in purpose. Bulkheads are primarily soil-retaining structures designed also
to resist wave attack (Figure 6-19). Seawalls are principally structures designed to resist wave attack, but they also
may retain some soil (USAeE, 1984). Both bulkheads and seawalls may be built of many materials, including steel,
timber, or aluminum sheet pile, gabions, or rubble-mound structures.

Although bulkheads and seawalls protect the upland area against further erosion and land loss, they often create a
local problem. Downward forces of water, produced by waves striking the wall, can produce a transfer of wave
energy and rapidly remove sand from the wall ,(Pilkey and Wright, 1988). A stone apron is often necessary to
prevent scouring and undermining. With vertical protective structures built from treated wood, there are also
concerns about the leaching of chemicals used in the wood preservatives (Baechler et al., 1970; Arsenault, 1975).
Chromated copper arsenate (CCA), the most popular chemical used for treating the wood used in docks, pilings, and
bulkheads, contains elements of chromium, copper, and arsenic, which have some value as nutrients in the marine
environment but are toxic above trace levels (Weis et al., 1991; Weis et al., 1992).

A revetment is another type of vertical protective structure used for shoreline protection. One revetment design
contains several layers of randomly shaped and randomly placed stones, protected with several layers of selected
armor units or quarry stone (Figure 6-20). The armor units in the cover layer should be placed in an orderly manner
to obtain good wedging and interlocking between individual stones. The cover layer may also be constructed of
specially shaped concrete units (TJSACE, 1984).

Sometimes gabions (stone-filled wire baskets) or interlocking blocks of precast concrete are used in the construction
of revetments. In addition to the surface layer of armor stone, gabions, or rigid blocks, successful revetment designs
also include an underlying layer composed of either geotextile filter fabric and gravel or a crushed stone filter and
bedding layer. This lower layer functions to redistribute hydrostatic uplift pressure caused by wave action in the
foundation substrate. Precast cellular blocks, with openings to provide drainage and to allow vegetation to grow
through the blocks, can be used in the construction of revetments to stabilize banks. Vegetation roots add additional
strength to the bank. In situations where erosion can occur under the blocks, fabric filters can be used to prevent
the erosion. Technical assistance should be obtained to property match the filter and soil characteristics. Typically
blocks are hand placed when mechanical access to the bank is limited or costs need to be minimized. Cellular block
revetments have the additional benefit of being flexible to conform to minor changes in the bank shape (USACE,
1983).

Groins are structures that are built perpendicular to the shore and extend into the water. Groins are generally
constructed in series, referred to as a groin field, along the entire length of shore to be protected. Groins trap sand
in littoral drift and halt its longshore movement along beaches. The sand beach trapped by each groin acts as a
protective barrier that waves can attack and erode without damaging previously unprotected upland areas. Unless
the groin field is artificially filled with sand from other sources, sand is trapped in each groin by interrupting the
natural supply of sand moving along the shore in the natural littoral drift. This frequently results in an inadequate
natural supply of sand to replace that which is carried away from beaches located farther along the shore in the
direction of the littoral drift. If these "downdrift" beaches are kept starved of sand for sufficiently long periods of
time, severe beach erosion in unprotected areas can result.

As with bulkheads and revetments, the most durable materials used in the construction of groins are timber and stone.
Less expensive techniques for building groins use sand- or concrete-filled bags or fires. It must be recognized that
the use of lower-cost materials in the construction of bulkheads, revetments, or groins frequently results in less
durability and reduced project life.

Breakwaters are wave energy barriers designed to protect the land or nearshore area behind them from the direct
assault of waves. Breakwaters have traditionally been used only for harbor protection and navigational purposes;
in recent years, however, designs of shore-parallel segmented breakwaters, such as the one shown in Figure 6-17,

6-72 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

hi I kheaJ t matcc4 to bew

OrOOVO 0

e, ro@ or

thru loab@

-6ypical

Figure 6-19. Schematic cross section of a timber bulkhead showing important design
elements (FEMA, 1986).

have been used for shore protection purposes (Fulford, 1985; USACE, 1990; Hardaway and Gunn, 1989; Hardaway
and Gunn, 199 1). Segmented breakwaters can be used to provide protection over longer sections of shoreline than
is generally affordable through the use of bulkheads or revetments. Wave energy is able to pass through the
breakwater gaps, allowing for the maintenance of some level of longshore sediment transport, as well as mixing and
flushing of the sheltered waters behind the structures. The cost per foot of shore for the installation of segmented

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-73

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

offshore breakwaters is generally competitive with the costs of stone revetments and bulkheads (Hardaway et al.,
1991).

Selection of Structural Stabilization Techniques

Five factors are typically taken into consideration when choosing from among the various alternatives of engineering
practices for protection of eroding shorelines (USACE, 1984):

(1) Foundation conditions;
(2) Level of exposure to wave action;
(3) Availability of materials;
(4) Initial costs and repair costs; and
(5) Past performance.

Foundation conditions may have a significant influence on the selection of the type of structure to be used for
shoreline or streambank stabilization. Foundation characteristics at the site must be compatible with the structure
that is to be installed for erosion control. A structure such as a bulkhead, which must penetrate through the existing
substrate for stability, will generally not be suitable for sho*relines with a rocky bottom. Where foundation conditions
are poor or where little penetration is possible, a gravity-type structure such as a stone revetment may be preferable.
However, all vertical protective structures (revetments, seawalls, and bulkheads) built on sites with soft or
unconsolidated bottom materials can experience scouring as incoming waves are reflected off the structures. In the
absence of additional toe protection in these circumstances, the level of scouring and erosion of bottom sediments
at the base of the structure may be severe enough to contribute to structural failure at some point in the lifetime of
the installation.

Along streambanks, the force of the current during periods of high strearnflow will influence the selection of bank
stabilization techniques and details of the design. For coastal bays, the levels of wave exposure at the site will also
generally influence the selection of shoreline stabilization techniques and details of the design. In areas of severe
wave action or strong currents, light structures such as timber cribbing or light riprap revetment should not be used.

The effects of winter ice along the shoreline or streambank also need to be considered in the selection and design
of erosion control projects. The availability of materials is another key factor influencing the selection of suitable

4'-6" Rounding Topsoil and Seed

Elev. 9.00'
Elev. 8.75'___J@

Stone Rip-Rop 2 Ft. Thick
(25% 3- 300 lbs., 25 %-- 30lbs.
50% wt. 150 lbs.) 2
Existing Beach Grovel Blanket I Ft. Thick
(200 Sieve to 3",50%3-1-1/2")
Elev. 0.00'M.S.L. Over Regraded Bank
E -1 e v. - 1.00

Figure 6-20. Schematic cross section of a stone revetment showing important design elements (USACE, 1984).

6-74 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

structures for an eroding streambank or shoreline. A particular type of bulkhead, seawall, or revetment may not be
economically feasible if materials are not readily available near the construction site. Installation methods may also
preclude the use of specific structures in certain situations. For instance, the installation of bulkhead pilings in
coastal areas near wetlands may not always be permissible due to disruptive impacts in locating pile-driving
equipment at the project site.

Costs are influenced not only by the availability of materials but also by the type of structure that is selected for
protection of the shoreline. The total cost of a shoreline or streambank protection project should be viewed as
including both the initial costs of materials and the annual costs of maintenance. In some parts of the country, the
initial costs of timber bulkheads may be less than the cost of stone revetments. However, stone structures typically
require less maintenance and 'have a longer life than timber structures. Other types of structures whose installation
costs are similar may actually have a wide difference in overall cost when annual maintenance and the anticipated
lifetime of the structure are considered (USACE, 1984).

Other engineering practices for stabilizing shorelines and streambanks rely less on fixed structures. The creation or
nourishment of existing beaches provides protection to the eroding area and can also provide a riparian habitat
function, particularly when portions of the finished project are planted with beach or dune grasses (Woodhouse,
1978). Beach nourishment requires a readily available source of suitable fill material that can be effectively
transported to the erosion site for reconstruction of the beach (Hobson, 1977). Dredging or pumping from offshore
deposits is the method most frequently used to obtain fill material for beach nourishment. A second possibility is
the mining of suitable sand from inland areas and overland hauling and dumping by trucks. To restore an eroded
beach and stabilize it at the restored position, fill is placed directly along the eroded sector (USACE, 1984). In most
cases, plans must be made to periodically obtain and place additional fill on the nourished beach to replace sand that
is carried offshore into the zone of breaking waves or alongshore in littoral drift (Houston, 1991; Pilkey, 1992).

One important task that should not be overlooked in the planning process for beach nourishment projects is the
proper identification and assessment of the ecological and hydrodynamic effects of obtaining fill material from nearby
submerged coastal areas (Thompson, 1973). Removal of substantial amounts of bottom sediments in coastal areas
can disrupt populations of fish, shellfish, and benthic organisms. Grain size analysis should be performed on sand
from both the borrow area and the beach area to be nourished. Analysis of grain size should include both size and
size distribution, and fill material should match both of these parameters. Fill materials should also be analyzed for
the presence of contaminants, and contaminated sediment should not be used. Turbidity levels in the overlying
waters can also be raised to undesirable levels (Sherk et al., 1976; O'Connor et al., 1976). Certain coastal areas may
have seasonal restrictions on obtaining fill from nearby submerged coastal areas (Profiles Research and Consulting
Group, Inc., 1980). Timing of nourishment activities is frequently a critical factor since the recreational demand for
beach use frequently coincides with the best months for completing the beach nourishment. These may also be the
worst months from the standpoint of impacts to aquatic life and the beach community such as turtles seeking nesting
sites.

Design criteria should include proper methods for stabilizing the newly created beach and provisions for long-term
monitoring of the project td document the stability of the newly created beach and the recovery of the riparian habitat
and wildlife in the area.

c. In areas where existing protection methods are being flanked or are failing, implement properly
designed and constructed shore erosion control methods such as returns or return walls, toe
protection, and proper maintenance or total replacement.

Toe Protection. A number of qualitative advantages are to be gained by providing toe protection for vertical
bulkheads. Toe protection usually takes the form of a stone apron installed at the base of the vertical structure to
reduce wave reflection and scour of bottom sediments during storms (Figure 6-21). The installation of rubble toe
protection should include filter cloth and perhaps a bedding of small stone to reduce the possibility of rupture of the
filter cloth. Ideally, the rubble should "tend to an elevation such that waves will break on the rubble during storms.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-75

IV Strearnbank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

EXISTING TIMBER BULKHEAD FILL W/ 6" MIN OF TOPSOIL

STONE REVETMENT STONE APR ON
400 TO 1000 L9 10' OF V-S"RUN OF
ARMOR STONE QUARRY ST 0, ON
END OF 2 XISTI.NG SHEETI NG ISFI LTE.R CLO.TH
FILTER CLOTH \19 CKIO W1 FILTER CLOT
0 OF FILTER CLOTH
EXI TING
S
BOTTOM
OF3 8" RUN OF
OU ARRT STONE

Figure 6-21. Schematic cross section of toe protection for a timber bulkhead showing important design elements
(Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1982).

Return Walls. Whenever shorelines or streambanks are "hardened" through the installation of bulkheads, seawalls,
or revetments, the design process must include consideration that waves and currents can continue to dislodge the
substrate at both ends of the structure, resulting in very concentrated erosion and rapid loss of fastland. This process
is called flanking (Figure 6-22). To prevent flanking, return walls should be provided at either end of a vertical
protective structure and should extend landward for a horizontal distance consistent with the local erosion rate and
the design life of the structure.

Maintenance of Structures. Periodic maintenance of structures is necessary to repair the damage from storms and
winter ice and to address the effects of flanking and off-shore profile deepening. The maintenance varies with the
structural type, but annual inspections should be made by the property owners. For stone revetments, the replacement
of stones that have been dislodged is necessary; timber bulkheads need to be backfilled if there has been a loss of
upland material, and broken sheet pile should be replaced as necessary. Gabion baskets should be inspected for
corrosion failure of the wire, usually caused either by improper handling during construction or by abrasion from
the stones inside the baskets. Baskets should be replaced as necessary since waves will rapidly empty failed baskets.

Steel, timber, and aluminum bulkheads should be inspected for sheet pile failure due to active earth pressure or debris
impact and for loss of backfill. For aR structural types not contiguous t@ other structures, lengthening of flanking
walls may be necessary every few years. Through periodic monitoring and required maintenance, a substantially
greater percentage of coastal structures will perform effectively over their design life.

M d. Plan and design all streambank, shoreline, and navigation structures so that they do not transfer
erosion energy or otherwise cause visible loss of surrounding streambanks or shorelines.

Many strearnbank or shoreline protection projects result in a transfer of energy from one area to another, which
causes increased erosion in the adjacent area (USACE, 1981 a). Property owners should consider the possible effects
of erosion control measures on other properties located along the shore.

0 e. Establish and enforce no-wake zones to reduce erosion potential from boat wakes.

No-wake zones should be given preference over posted speed limits in shallow coastal waters for reducing the
erosion potential of boat wakes on streambanks and shorelines. Posted speed hmits on waterways generally restrict
the movement of recreational boating traffic to speeds in the range of 6-8 knots, but motorboats traveling at these
speeds in shallow waters can be expected to throw wakes whose wave heights will be at or near the maximum size
that can be produced by the boats.

6-76 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

SHORELINE SHORELINE
IN EXISTING IN EXI STING
10 YEARS HORELINE 10 YEARS SHOREUNE

4 4 -0 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4
44 4 4 4-6 4 Vr
4 4 4 4 4 4 4: 4 4 4 4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4 4
0 4 4 A

4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 0
4 .4
4 444#040*4** 4 z
4 4 4 4 41 4 4
4 4444 444 44 4
RETURN?
4 *POTENTIAL 7. *%*4444 WALLS
4 4 STRUCTUR
4 4 4 4 4 4
4 -DAMAGE DUE 4 4 4 4 4 4 41,41,
4 4 4 4 4
TO EROSION 4 4 4 4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4

4 4 0 4 -4 41 4

4-4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0
4 4 4 4 4 0
4 4 4 40
0
LAND 4 4 1 LAND
4 A 4 WATER WATER

...........

W/ Ir Li
WITH041T 117
RETURN WALLS -RETURN WALLS

Figure 6-22. Example of return walls to prevent flanking in a bulkhead (Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
1982).

In theory, the boat speed that Will produce the maximum wake depends on the depth of the water and the speed of
the boat (Johnson, 11171, The ratio of these variables is called the Froude Numl,,,,,, named after an early scientific
investigator of fluid mechanics. As the Froude Number (F) approaches 1, the wakes produced by a boat will reach

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-77

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

their maximum value. The relationship between the Froude Number, the boat speed, and the basin depth is described
by the following equation (Johnson, 1957):
F = V, IVg--d
where:
V, = Velocity of boat speed (knots)
g = Gravity constant (ft/sec')
d = Basin depth (ft)

It is important to note that this equation can be used only to describe the boat speed at which a maximum wake will
occur in water of a known depth. The equation cannot be used to calculate the actual height of the maximum wake.

Table 6-5 contains values for F calculated for different combinations of boat speed and water depth, prepared as part
of a study of wakes produced by recreational boating traffic on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland (Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, 1980). The dotted line drawn through this table shows those combinations for
which F approximately equals 1. For instance, boats traveling 6 to 8 knots can be expected to produce their
maximum wake in water depths of 4 to 6 feet, while boats traveling 10 to 12 knots can be expected to produce their
maximum wake in water depths of 12 feet. These depths are typical of conditions in small creeks and coves in
coastal areas where there is generally the greatest concern about shore erosion resulting from recreational motorboat
traffic.

Table 6-5 was verified with field data collected in a shallow creek in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay for two types of
motorboats. The results are presented in Figure 6-23. As predicted from Table 6-5, maximum wake heights were
produced at speeds ranging from 6 to 8 knots. Wake heights did not increase with increasing speed.

I
These results show that boats can be expected to still produce damaging wakes as they slow from high speed to enter
a narrow creek or cove with a posted 6-knot limit. Locating the speed reduction zones in open water, so that boats
are slowing through the critical range of velocities far from shore, would reduce the potential for shore erosion from
boat wakes. The designation of no-wake zones, rather than posted speed limits, would also reduce the potential for
shore erosion from boat wakes.

f. Establish setbacks to minimize disturbance of land adjacent to streambanks and shorelines to
reduce other impacts. Upland drainage from development should be directed away from bluffs and
banks so as to avoid accelerating slope erosion.

In. addition to the soil bioengineering, marsh creation, beach nourishment, and structural practices discussed on the
preceding pages of this guidance, another approach that should be considered in the planning process for shoreline
and streambank erosion involves the designation of setbacks. Setbacks most often take the form of restrictions on
the siting and construction of new standing structures along the shoreline. Where setbacks have been implemented
to reduce the hazard of coastal land loss, they have also included requirements for the relocation of existing structures
located within the designated setback area. Setbacks can also include restrictions on uses of waterfront areas that
are not related to the construction of new buildings (Davis, 1987).

A recent report, Managing Coastal Erosion (NRC, 1990), summarizes the experience of coastal States in the
implementation and administration of regulatory setback programs. The NRC report also discusses "the taking issue,"
which views setbacks as a severe restriction on the rights of private landowners to fill or build in designated setback
areas. Setback regulations implemented in some States have been challenged in the courts on the grounds of "the
taking issue," i.e., that the setback requirements are so restrictive that they "take" the value of the property without
providing compensation to the property owners, violating the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts,
however, have provided general approval of floodplain and wetlands regulations, and the NRC report concludes:
"there is a strong legal basis for the broader use of setbacks for coastal construction based on the best available
scientific estimates of future erosion rates."

6-78 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Table 6-6. Froude Number for Combinations of Water Oepth and Boat Speed
(Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1980)

DEPTH SPEED
(Knots)

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
1
2 0.42 0.83 '. 1.25 1.66 2.08 2.49 2.91 3.32 3.74
L-------- 1
4 0.29 0.59 0.88 1 1.17 1.47 1.76 2.06 2.35 2.64
L------- 11
6 0.24 0.48 0.72 0.96 1.20 1.44 1.68 1.92 2.16

8 0.21 0.42 0.62 0.83 1.04 1.25 1.45 1.66 1.87
L -------- I
10 0.18 0.37 0.56 0.74 0.93 1.11 1.30 1.49 1.67

12 0.17 0.34 0.51 0.68 0.85 1.02 1.19 1.36 1.52
L------- 11
14 0.16 0.31 0.47 0.63 0.78 0.94 1.10 1.26 1.41

16 0.15 0.29 0.44 0.59 0.73 0.88 1.03 1.17 1.32
L -------- 1
18 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.55 0.69 0.83 0.97 1 1.11 1.25
- I

Table 6-6 contains a summary of State programs and experiences with setbacks. In most cases, States have used
the local unit of government to administer the program on either a mandatory or voluntary basis. This allows local
government to retain control of its land use activities and to exceed the minimum State requirements if this is deemed
desirable (NRC, 1990).

Technical standards for defining and delineating setbacks also vary from State to State. One approach is to establish
setback requirements for any "high hazard area" eroding at greater than I foot per year. Another approach is to
establish setback requirements along all erodible shores because even a small amount of erosion can threaten homes
constructed too close to the streambank or shoreline. Several States have general setback requirements that, while
not based on erosion hazards, have the effect of limiting construction nearlhe streambank or shoreline.

The basis for variations in setback regulations between States seems to be based on several factors, including (NRC,
1990):

� The language of the law being enacted;
� The geomorphology of the coast;
� The result of discretionary decisions;
� The years of protection afforded by the setback; and
� Other variables decided at the local level of government.

From the perspective of controlling NPS pollution resulting from erosion of shorelines and streambanks, the use of
setbacks has the immediate benefit of discouraging concentrated flows and other impacts of storm water runoff from
new development in areas close to the streambank or shoreline. These effects are described and discussed in Chapter
4 of this guidance document. In particular, the concentration of storm water runoff can aggravate the erosion of
shorelines and strearnbanks, leading to the formation of gullies, which are not easily repaired. Therefore, drainage
of storm water from developed areas and development activities located along the shoreline should be directed inland
to avoid accelerating slope erosion.

The best NPS benefits are provided by setbacks that not only include restrictions on new construction along the shore
but also contain additional provisions aimed at preserving and protecting coastal features such as beaches, wetlands,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-79

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

-T-
Ft. Boston Whale

2.0 DISTANCE
FEET
d@=O
L5 - X 150
* 100
%moo 50
- 1.0 SKIERI
X

:E .5 X 0
'06 -
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Boat Speed Knots)
L5 5260. Uniflite Cruiser

OWN% DISTANCE
P.. 0
(FE ETI.
k%
U- .6 0 200
X 150
%moo 1.5 100
X
1.0 X
X
0.3

0
0 5 10 15 Ito 25 30 35
Boat Speed ( Knots)

Figure 6-23. Wakes from two different types of boat hulls (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1980).

and riparian forests. This approach promotes the natural infiltration of surface water runoff before it passes over:
the edge of the bank or bluff and flows directly into the coastal waterbody. This approach also helps protect zones
of naturally occurring vegetation growing along the shore. As discussed in the section on "bioengineering practices,"
A

the presence of undisturbed shoreline vegetation itself can help to control erosion by removing excess water from
the bank and by anchoring the individual soil particles of the substrate.

6-80 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaiy 1993

'Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Table 6-6. Examples of State Programs Defining Minimum Set-Backs (National Research Council, 1990)

Recession Recession
Rates from Recession Rates from Erosion One Foot
Aerial Rates from Ground Setbacks Reference Years of Local per Year Fixed Floating
Staterrerritory Photos Charts Surveys Established* Feature Setback Administration Standard Setback Setback

Alabama Y Y N Y MHW NA N Y N

Alaska Y Y N NA NA NA NA NA NA

American N N N N NA NA NA NA NA NA
Samoa

California Y Y Y N NA NA Y NA NA NA

Connecticut Y Y N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Delaware Y Y Y4 TD NA Y N Y N

Florida Y Y Y5 NA 30 Y N Y N

Georgia Y Y N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Hawaii N N N Y 6 N Y N Y N

Indiana Y N Y N NA NA NA Y NA NA

Illinois Y Y Y N NA NA NA NA NA

Louisiana Y Y N N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Maine N N Y N7 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Maryland Y ly N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Massachusetts Y Y N N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Michigan Y N N Y BC2 30 Y Y N Y
M@nnesota Y N N N NA NA NA Y NA NA
M ssissippi N N N N NA NA NA NA NA NA
Now Hampshire N N N N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Now Jersey Y Y Y Y MHW so

New York Y Y N Y BC 30-40 Y Y Y N

North Carolina Y N Y DC 30-60 Y N N Y
N. Mariana's N Ni N N NA NA NA NA NA NA
Ohio Y Y N N1 BC 30 NA Y Y N

Oregon N NA NA NA NA NA
Pennsylvania Y N Y Y BC 50+ Y Y N Y

Puerto Rico N N N N NA NA NA NA

Rhode Island N N Y Y DC 30 N N7 Y N

South Carolina Y Y 40 BL Y N

Texas Y Y Y N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virgin Islands N N N N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Virginia Y Y N MHW NA Y
Washington N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Wisconsin Y Y N N3 NA NA NA N Y

Note: I = setbacks may be established within 2 years; 2 bluff crest or edge of active erosion; 3 some counties have setbacks; 4 has 100-foot
setback regulation over now subdivisions and parcels where sufficient room exists landward of setback; 5 . not all counties have coastal
construction control lines established-, 6 = storm debris line or vegetation line; 7 = 2 feet per year standard. Y, yes; N, no; NA, not applicable; BC,
bluff crest; MHW, mean high water TD, toe of dune; DC, dune crest, toe of frontal dune or vegetation line; BL, bass line. A blank means no
information was available.

'Most States have setbacks from water line but not based on an erosion hazard.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-81

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

Almost all States with setback regulations have modified their original programs to improve effectiveness or correct
unforeseen problems (NRC, 1990). States' experiences have shown that procedures for updating or modifying the
setback width need to be included in the regulations. For instance, application of a typical 30-year setback standard
in an area whose rate of erosion is 2 feet per year results in the designation of a setback width of 60 feet. This
width may not be sufficient to protect the beaches, wetlands, or riparian forests whose presence improves the ability
of the streambank or shoreline to respond to severe wave and flood conditions, or to high levels of surface water
ninoff during extreme precipitation events. A setback standard based on the landward edge of streambank or
shoreline vegetation is one alternative that has been considered (NRC, 1990; Davis, 1987).

From the standpoint of NPS pollution control, the approach that best designates coastal wetlands, beaches, or riparian
forests as a special protective feature, allows no development on the feature., and measures the setback from the
landward side of the featur@ is recommended (NRC, 1990). In some cases, provisions for soil bioengineering, marsh
creation, beach nourishment, or engineering structures may also be appropriate since the special protective features
within the designated setbacks can continue to be threatened by uncontrolled erosion of the shoreline or streambank.
Finally, setback regulations should recognize that some special features of the strearnbank or shoreline will change
position. For instance, beaches and wetlands can be expected to migrate landward if water levels continue to rise
as a result of global warming. Alternatives for managing these situations include flexible criteria for designating
setbacks, vigorous maintenance of beaches and other special features within the setback area, and frequent monitoring
of the rate of streambank or shoreline erosion and corresponding adjustment of the setback area.

5. Costs for All Practices

This section describes costs for representative activities that would be undertaken in support of one or more of the
practices listed under this management measure. The description of the costs is grouped into the following three
categories: (1) costs for streambank and shoreline stabilization with vegetation; (2) costs for streambank and shoreline
stabilization with engineering structures; and (3) costs for designation and enforcement of boating speed limits.

a. Vegetative Stabilization for Shorelines and Streambanks

Representative costs for this practice can include costs for wetland plants and riparian area vegetation, including trees
and shrubs. Additional costs could be incurred depending on the level of site preparation that is required. The items
of work could include (1) clearing the site of fallen trees and debris; (2) extensive site work requiring heavy
construction equipment; (3) application of seed stock or sprigging of nursery-reared plants; (4) application of
fertilizer (most typically for marsh creation); and (5) postproject maintenance and monitoring. For a more extensive
description of these tasks, refer to the sections of Chapter 7 describing marsh restoration efforts.

(1) Costs reported in 1989 for bottornland f6rest plants using direct seeding were $40 to $60 per acre (NRC,
1991). If vegetation is assumed to be planted'across a 50-foot width along the shoreline or streambank,
the cost per linear foot of shore or streambank, in 1990 dollars, can be calculated as $0.05 - $0.08/foot.

(2) Costs reported in 1990 for nursery-reared tree seedlings were $212.50 per acre (Illinois Department of
Conservation, 1990). If vegetation is assumed to be planted across a 50-foot width along the shoreline
or strearnbank, the costs per linear foot of shore or streambank, in 1990 dollars, can be calculated as
$0.25/foot.

(3) Costs reported for restoration of riparian areas in Utah between 1985 and 1988 included extensive site
work: bank grading, installation of riprap and sediment traps in deep gullies, planting of juniper trees and
willows, and fencing to protect the sites from intrusion by livestock. Assuming a 100-foot width along
the shore or streambank for this work, the reported costs, in 1990 dollars, of $2,527 per acre can be
calculated as $5.94 per foot.

(4) Costs were reported in 1988 for vegetative erosion control projects involving creation of tidal fringe
marsh, using nursery-reared Spartina alterniflora and S. patens alopg the shorelines of the Chesapeake

6-82 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Bay in Maryland (Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Area). Two projects
involving marsh creation along a total of 4,650 linear feet of shoreline averaged $20.48 per foot. Costs
of 12 projects involving marsh creation combined with grading and see@ding of the shoreline bank ranging
in height from 5 to 12 feet averaged $54.82 per foot along a total of 8,465 feet. These costs can be
calculated in 1990 dollars as:

Marsh creation - no bank grading ................. $21.44 per foot
Marsh creation - bank grading ................... $57.40 per foot

b. Structural Stabilization for Shorelines and Streambanks

Representative costs for stru&ural stabilization typically include costs for survey and design and for extensive site
work, including costs to gain access for trucks and front-end loaders necessary to place the stone (for revetments)
or sheet pile (for bulkheads). As indicated in the data described below for specific projects, costs frequently vary
depending on the level of wave exposure at the site and on the overall length of shoreline or strearnbank that is being
protected in a single project. In some of the examples shown below, construction costs were reported along with'
design and administration costs. For cases where only installation costs were reported in the source document, a total
project cost was computed by adding 15 percent of first construction costs to the reported installation cost, and then
dividing by the reported project length to compute cost per foot. Thus, all costs shown below include design and
administration costs.

(1) Costs for timber bulkhead on private property along 100 linear feet of shore on Cabin Creek, York
County, Virginia (less than 2 miles of wave exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $69 per foot (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, undated).

(2) Costs for replacement of timber bulkhead on private pr9perty along 375 linear feet of shore on the
Rappahannock River, Middlesex County, Virginia (2 to 5 miles of wave exposure), in 1990 dollars, were
$60 per foot (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, undated).

(3) Costs for timber bulkhead at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Oak Harbor, Washington (more than 5
miles of wave exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $129 per foot (USACE, 1981a).

(4) Costs for timber and steel bulkhead along 200 feet of shoreline of a County park at Port Wing, Bayfield
County, Wisconsin (more than 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $356 per foot (USACE, 198 1 a).

(5) Costs for stone revetment on private property along 270 feet of shoreline on Linkhorn Bay, Virginia
Beach, Virginia (less than 2 miles of wave exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $63 per foot (Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, undated).

(6) Costs for stone revetment and bank grading along 420 linear feet of shoreline on James River, Surry
County, Virginia (2 to 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $342 per foot (Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, undated).

(7) Costs for stone revetment on private community property along 2000 linear feet of shoreline on Lorain
Harbor, Ohio (more than 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $1,093 per foot (USACE, 1981b).

(8) Costs for beachfill and dune construction on a city public beach along 10,000 feet of shoreline at North
Nantasket Beach, Hull, Massachusetts (more than 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $162 per
foot (USACE, 1988).

(9) Costs for six riprap and six gabion breakwater, with beachfill on State Wildlife Management Area
property along 1250 linear feet of shore on the James River, Surry County, Virginia (2 to 5 miles of
exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $62 per foot (Hardaway et al., 1991).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 6-83

IV. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Chapter 6

(10) Costs for breakwAters, beachfill, and beachgrass planting at a County park along 1100 feet of shoreline
at Elm's Beach, Chesapeake Bay, Maryland (more than 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $292
per foot (Hardaway and Gunn, 1991).

(11) Costs for breakwaters, beachfill, and revetment along 11,000 feet of shoreline at Maumee Bay State Park,
Ohio (more than 5 miles of exposure), in 1990 dollars, were $961 per foot (USACE, 1982).
1
c. Designation and Enforcement of Boating Speed Limits

Representative costs for this practice can be broken down into the following two tasks:

(1) Providing notification of a posted speed limit or "no-wake" zone in navigational channels along coastal
waterways. One approach used to advise boaters of posted speed limits is the placement of marked buoys
along the channel in speed reduction zones. Alternatively, signs designating speed reduction zones can
be placed on pilings that are driven into the bottom of the coastal creek or bay. In narrow creeks or
coves, signs can be mounted onshore along the streambank. The number of signs, buoys, or beacons that
will be required will depend on the length and configuration of the channel. For a channel I mile in
length that is fairly straight and linear, with good visibility on both the downstrearn and upstream
approaches, three posted speed limit signs could be deployed for upstream traffic and three for
downstream traffic. Representative costs for this practice, in 1990 dollars, can be estimated from data
provided by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Marine Police Administration. These costs
include all labor, materials, and installation:

(a) Costs for purchasing, marking, and setting six buoys at $285 each are $1,7 10.

(b) Costs for six onshore signs mounted on 2-ft by 3-ft by 8-ft posts at $165 each are $990.

(2) The enforcement of designated boating speed limit zones, which can be expected to include costs for the
acquisition and maintenance of marine police vessels and costs for marine police personnel to monitor
boating patterns. Representative costs, in 1990 dollars, which are incurred for these items by the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Gwynne Schultz, personal communication, 1992) are listed
below:

(a) One large patrol boat (suitable for areas of open water in coastal bays or rivers):

Acquisition $180,000
Annual maintenance per vessel per year $ 2,000
Crew of dim marine police $90,000

(b) One small patrol boat (suitable for protected creeks and coves):

Acquisition $20,000
Annual maintenance per vessel per year $2,000
Crew of two marine police $60,000

These costs do not consider overtime that is provided to members of the Maryland Marine Police for any
shift greater than 8 hours in length. No overtime is paid for holidays.

6-84 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

V. GLOSSARY

Accretion: May be either natural or artificial. Natural accretion is the buildup of land, solely by the action of the
forces of nature, on a beach by deposition of waterbome or airborne material. Artificial accretion is a similar buildup
of land by reason of an act of humans, such as the accretion formed by a groin, breakwater, or beach fill deposited
by mechanical means. Also known as aggradation. (USACE, 1984)

Alongshore: Parallel to and near the shoreline; longshore (USACE, 1984).

Armor unit: A relatively large quarrystone or concrete shape that is selected to fit specified geometric characteristics
and density. Armor units are usually uniform in size and usually large enough to require individual placement. In
normal cases armor units are used as primary wave protection and are placed in thicknesses of at least two units.
(USACE, 1984)

Artificial nourishment: The process of replenishing a beach with material (usually sand) obtained from another
location (USACE, 1984).

Backshore: That zone of the shore or beach lying between the foreshore and the coastline comprising the berm or
berms and acted upon by waves only during severe storms, especially when combined with exceptionally high water
(USACE, 1984).

Bank: (1) The rising ground bordering a lake, river, or sea; or of a river or channel, for which it is designated as
right or left as the observer is facing downstream. (2) An elevation of the sea floor or large area, located on a
continental (or island) shelf and over which the depth is relatively shallow but sufficient for safe surface navigation;
a group of shoals. (3) In its secondary sense, used only with a qualifying word such as "sandbank" or "gravelbank,"
a shallow area consisting of shifting forms of silt, sand, mud, and gravel. (USACE, 1984)

Bar: A submerged or emerged embankment of sand, gravel, or other unconsolidated material built on the sea floor
in shallow water by waves and currents (USACE, 1984).

Barrier beach: A bar essentially parallel to the shore, the crest of which is above normal high water level (USACE,
1984).

Basin, boat: A naturally or artificially enclosed or nearly enclosed harbor area for small craft (USACE, 1984).

Bathymetry: The measurement of depths of water in oceans, seas, and lakes; also information derived from such
measurements (USACE, 1984).

Bay: A recess in the shore or an inlet of a sea between two capes or headlands, not so large as a gulf but larger than
a cove (USACE, 1984).

Bayou: A minor sluggish waterway or estuarine creek, tributary to, or connecting, other stream or bodies of water,
whose course is usually through lowlands or swamps (USACE, 1984).

Beach: The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low water line to the place where there
is marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation (usually the effective limit
of storm waves). The seaward limit of a beach-unless otherwise specified-is the mean low water line. A beach
includes foreshore and backshore. See also shore. (USACE, 1984)

Beach planting: The placement of vegetation in the zone of sedimentary material that extends landward from the
low water line to the place where there is marked change in material or form, or to the line of permanent vegetation.

Beach accretion: See accretion (USACE, 1984).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-85

V. Glossary Chapter 6

Beach berm: A nearly horizontal part of the beach or backshore formed by the deposit of material by wave action.
Some beaches have no berms; others have one or several. (USACE, 1984)

Beach erosion: The carrying away of beach materials by wave action, tidal currents, littoral currents, or wind
(USACE, 1984).

Beachface: The section of the beach normally exposed to the action of the wave uprush. Theforeshore of a beach
(not synonymous with shoreface). (USACE, 1984)

Beach fill: Material placed on a beach to renourish eroding shores (USACE, 1984).

Beach width: The horizontal dimension of the beach measured normal to the shoreline (USACE, 1984).

Bench mark: A permanently fixed point of known elevation. A primary bench mark is one close to a tide station
to which the tide staff and tidal datum originally are referenced. (USACE, 1984)

Bluff. A high, steep bank or cliff (USACE, 1984).

Bottom: The ground or bed under any body of water; the bottom of the sea (USACE, 1984).

Bottom (nature of): The composition or character of the bed of an ocean or other body of water (e.g., clay, coral,
gravel, mud, ooze, pebbles, rock, shell, shingle, hard, or soft) (USACE, 1984).

Boulder: A rounded rock more than 10 inches in diameter; larger than a cobblestone. See soil classification.
(USACE, 1984)

Breakwater: A structure or partition to retain or prevent sliding of the land. A secondary purpose is to protect the
upland against damage from wave action. (USACE, 1984)

Bulkhead: A structure or partition to retain or prevent sliding of the land. A secondary purpose is to protect the
upland against damage from wave action. (USACE, 1984)

Bypassing, sand- Hydraulic or mechanical movement of sand from the accreting updrift side to the eroding downdrift
side of an inlet or harbor entrance. The hydraulic movement may include natural movement as well as movement
caused by humans. (USACE, 1984)

Canal: An artificial watercourse cut through a land area for such uses as navigation and irrigation (USACE, 1984).

Cape: A relatively extensive land area jutting seaward from a continent or large island that prominently marks a
change in, or interrupts notably, the coastal trend; a prominent feature (USACE, 1984).

Channel: (1) A natural or artificial waterway or perceptible extent that either periodically or continuously contains
moving water, or that forms a connecting link between two bodies of water. (2) The part of a body of water deep
enough to be used for navigation through an area otherwise too shallow for navigation. (3) A large strait, as the
English Channel. (4) The deepest part of a stream, bay, or strait through which the main volume or current of water
flows. (USACE, 1984)

Channelization and channe I modification: River and stream channel engineering for the purpose of flood control,
navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel migration potential; activities include the straightening,
widening, deepening, or relocation of existing stream channels, clearing or snagging operations, the excavation of
borrow pits, underwater mining, and other practices that change the depth, width, or location of waterways or
embayments in coastal areas.

6-86 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

Clay: See soil classification (USACE, 1984).

Cliffi. A high, steep face of rock; a precipice (USACE, 1984).

Coast: A strip of land of indefinite width (may be several kilometers) that extends from the shoreline inland to the
first major change in terrain features (USACE, 1984).

Coastal area: The land and sea area bordering the shoreline (USACE, 1984).

Coastal plain: The plain composed of horizontal or gently sloping strata of clastic materials fronting the coast, and
generally representing a strip of sea bottom that has emerged from the sea in recent geologic time (USACE, 1984).

Coastline: (1) Technically, the line that forms the boundary between the coast and the shore. (2) Commonly, the
line that forms the boundary between the land and the water. (USACE, 1984)

Cobble (cobblestone): See soil classification (USACE, 1984).

Continental shelf. The zone bordering a continent and extending from the low water line to the depth (usually about
180 meters) where there is a marked or rather steep descent toward a greater depth.

Contour: A line on a map or chart representing points of equal elevation with relation to a datum. It is called an
isobath when it connects points of equal depth below a datum. Also called depth contour. (USACE, 1984)

Controlling depth: The least depth in the navigable parts of a waterway, governing the maximum draft of vessels
that can enter (USACE, 1984).

Convergence: (1) In refraction phenomena, the decreasing of the distance between orthogonals in the direction of
wave travel. Denotes an area of increasing wave height and energy concentration. (2) In wind-setup phenomena,
the increase in setup observed over that which would occur in an equivalent rectangular basin of uniform depth,
caused by changes in plainform or depth; also the decrease in basin width or depth causing such an increase in'setup
(USACE, 1984).

Cove: A small, sheltered recess in a coast, often inside a larger embaynient. (USACE, 1984)

Current: A flow of water (USACE, 1984).
Current, coastal: One of th@ offshore currents flowing generally parallel to the shoreline in the deeper water beyond
and near the surf zone. Such currents are not related genetically to waves and resulting surf, but may be related to
tides, winds, or distribution of mass. (USACE, 1984)

Current, drift: A broad, shallow, slow-moving ocean or lake current. Opposite of current, stream. (USACE, 1984)

Current, ebb: The tidal current away from shore or down a tidal stream. Usually associated with the decrease in
the height of the tide. (USACE, 1984)

Current, flood: The tidal current toward shore or up a tidal stream. Usually associated with the increase in the
height of the tide. (USACE, 1984)

Current, littoral: Any current in the littoral zone caused primarily by wave action; e.g., longshore current, rip
current. See also current, nearshore. (USACE, 1984)

Current, longshore: The littoral current in the breaker zone moving essentially parallel to the shore, usually
generated by waves breaking at an. angle to the shoreline (USACE, 1984).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-87

V. Glossary Chapter 6

Current, nearshore: A current in the nearshore zone (USACE, 1984).

Current, offshore: See offshore current (USACE, 1984).

Current, tidal: The alternating horizontal movement of water associated with the rise and fall of the tide caused by
the astronomical tide-producing forces. Also current, periodic. See also current, flood and current, ebb. (USACE,
1984)

Cutoff. Wall, collar, or other structure, such as a trench, filled with relatively impervious material intended to reduce
seepage of water through porous strata; in river hydraulics, the new and shorter channel formed either naturally or
artificially when a stream cuts through the neck of a band.

Deep water: Water so deep that surface waves are little affected by the ocean bottom. Generally, water deeper than
one-half the surface wavelength is considered deep water. Compare shallow water. (USACE, 1984)

Delta: An alluvial deposit, roughly triangular or digitate in shape, formed at a river mouth (USACE, 1984).

Depth: The vertical distance from a specified tidal datum to the sea floor (USACE, 1984).

Depth of breaking: The still-water depth at the point where the wave breaks (USACE, 1984).

Detritus: Loose material worn or broken away from a mass, as by the action of water, usually carried from inland
sources by streams (USACE, 1981a).

Dike (dyke): A channel stabilization structure sited in a river or stream perpendicular to the bank.

Downdrift: The direction of predominant movement of littoral materials (USACE, 1984).

Drift (noun): (1) Sometimes used as a short form for littoral drift. (2) -The speed at which a current runs. (3)
Floating material deposited on a beach (driftwood). (4) A deposit of a continental ice sheet; e.g., a drumlin.
(USACE, 1984)

Dunes: (1) Ridges or mounds of loose, wind-blown material, usually sand. (2) Bed forms smaller than bars but
larger than ripples that are out of phase with any water-surface gravity waves associated with them (USACE, 1984).

Ebb tide: The period of tide between high water and the succeeding low water; a falling tide (USACE, 1984).

Embankment: An artificial bank such as a mound or dike, generally built to hold back water or to carry a roadway
(USACE, 1984).

Embayment: An indentation in the shoreline forming an open bay (USACE, 1984).

Ephemeral: Lasting for a brief time; short-lived; transitory (Morris, 1978).

Erosion: The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces. On a beach, the carrying away of beach material
by wave action, tidal currents, littoral currents, or by deflation (USACE, 1984).

Estuary: (1) The part of the river that is affected by tides. (2) The region near a river mouth in which the fresh
water in the river mixes with the salt water of the sea (USACE, 1984).

Eutrophication: The alteration of lake ecology through excessive nutrient input, characterized by excessive -growth
of aquatic plants and algae and low levels of dissolved oxygen (USEPA, 1992).

6-88 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

Fastland. Land near the shoreline that is safely above the erosive zone of waves and tides. The area landward of
the bank.

Fetch: The area in which seas are generated by a wind having a fairly constant direction and speed. Sometimes
used synonymously with fetch length (USACE, 1984).

Flood tide: The period of tide between low water and the succeeding high water; a rising tide (USACE, 1984).

Flow alteration: A category of hydromodification activities that results in either an increase or a decrease in the
usual supply of fresh water to a stream, river, or estuary.

Foreshore: The part of the shore, lying between the crest of the seaward berm (or upper limit of wave wash at high
tide) and the ordinary low-water mark, that is ordinarily traversed by the uprush and back rush of the waves as the
tides rise and fall. See beach face. (USACE, 1984)

Freeboard. The additional height of a structure above design high-water level to prevent overflow. Also, at a given
time, the vertical distance between the water level and the top of the structure. On a ship, the distance from the
waterline to main deck or gunwale (USACE, 1984).

Froude number: The dimensionless ratio of the inertial force to the force of gravity for a given fluid flow. It may
be given as Fr = V/Lg where V is a characteristic velocity, L is a characteristic length, and g the acceleration of
gravity--or as the square root of this number. (USACE, 1984)

Gabion: A rectangular basket or mattress made of galvanized, and sometimes PVC-coated, steel wire in a hexagonal
me-sh. Gabions are generally subdivided into equal-sized cells that are wired together and filled with 4- to 8-inch-
diameter stone, forming a large, heavy mass that can be used as a shore-protection device. (USACE, 1990)

Generation of waves: (1) The creation of waves by natural or mechanical means. (2) The creation and growth of
waves caused by a wind blowing over a water surface for a certain period of time (USACE, 1984).

Geomorphology: That branch of both physiography and geology that deals with the form of the Earth, the general
configuration of its surface, and the changes that take place in the evolution of landforni. (USACE, 1984).

Grade stabilization structure: A structure used to control the grade and head cutting in natural or artificial channels
(USDA-SCS, 1988).

Gradient (grade): See slope. With reference to winds or currents, the rate of increase or decrease in speed, usually
in the vertical; or the curve that represents this rate (USACE, 1984).

Gravel: See soil classification (USACE, 1984).

Groin: A shore protection structure built (usually perpendicular to the shoreline) to trap littoral drift or retard erosion
of the shore (USACE, 1984).

Groin system: A series of groins acting together to protect a section of beach. Commonly called a groin field.
(USACE, 1984)

Ground water Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation. In a strict sense, the term is applied only to
water below the water table (USACE, 1984).

Habitat: The place where an organism naturally lives or grows.

Harbor. Any protected water area affording a place of safety for vessels. See also port. (USACE, 1994)

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-89

V. Glossary Chapter 6

Headland breakwater: A shore-connected breakwater (USACE, 1990).

Headland (head): A high, steep-faced promontory extending into the sea (USACE, 1984).

Height of wave: See wave height (USACE, 1984).

High tide, high water The maximum elevation reached by each rising tide (USACE, 1984).

High water line: The intersection of the plane of mean high water with the shore. The shoreline delineated on the
nautical charts of the National Ocean Service is an approximation of the high water line. For specific occurrences,
the highest elevation on the shore reached during a storm or rising tide, including meteorological effects (USACE,
1984).

Hurricane: An intense tropical cyclone in which winds tend to spiral inward toward a core of low pressure, with
maximum surface wind velocities that equal or exceed 33.5 meters per second (75 mph or 65 knots) for several
minutes or longer at some points. Tropical storm is the term applied if maximum winds are less than 33.5 meters
per second. (USACE, 1984)

Hydr9graphy: (1) A configuration of an underwater surface including its relief, bottom materials, coastal structures,
etc. (2) The description and study of seas, lakes, rivers, and other waters (USACE, 1984).

Hydrologic modification: The alteration of the natural circulation or distribution of water by the placement of
structures or other activities (USEPA, 1992).

Hydromodification: Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters, which in turn could
cause degradation of water resources.

Impoundment: The collection and confinement of water as in a reservoir or dam.

Inlet: (1) A short, narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of water with a large parent body
of water. (2) An arm of the sea (or other body of water) that is long compared to its width and may extend a
considerable distance inland. See also tidal inlet. (USACE, 1984)

Inshore (zone): In beach terminology, the zone of variable width extending from the low water line through the
breaker zone. See also shoreface. (USACE, 1984)

Jetty: (United States usage) On open seacoasts, a structure extending into a body of water, which is designed to
prevent shoaling of a channel by littoral materials and to direct and confine the stream or tidal flow. Jetties are built
at the mouths of rivers or tidal inlets to help deepen and stabilize a channel. (USACE, 1984)

Lagoon: A shallow body of water, like a pond or lake, usually connected to the sea (USACE, 1984).

Levee: An embankment or shaped mound for flood control or hurricane protection (USACE, 1981a).

Littoral: Of or pertaining to a shore, especially of the sea (USACE, 1984).

Littoral current: See current, littoral (USACE, 1984).

Littoral drift: The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone under the influence of waves and currents
(USACE, 1984).

Littoral transport: The movement of littoral drift in the littoral zone by waves and currents. Includes movement
parallel (longshore transport) and perpendicular (on-offshore transport) to the shore (USACE, 1984).

6-90 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

Littoral zone: In beach terminology, an indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline to just beyond the
breaker zone (USACE, 1984).

Load: The quantity of sedinient transported by a current. It includes the suspended load of small particles and the
bedload of large particles that move along the bottom. (USACE, 1984)

Longshore: Parallel to and near the shoreline; alongshore (USACE, 1984).

Longshore current- See current, longshore.

Longshore transport rate: Rate of transport of sedimentary material parallel to the shore. Usually expressed in cubic
meters (cubic yards) per year. Commonly synonymous with littoral transport rate. (USACE, 1984)

Low tide, low water: The minimum elevation reached by each falling tide. See tide. (USACE, 1984)

Low water datum: An approximation to the plane of mean low water that has been adopted as a standard reference
plane (USACE, 1984).

Mangrove: A tropical tree with interlacing prop roots, confined to low-lying brackish areas (USACE, 1984).

Marsh: An area of soft, wet, or periodically inundated land, generally treeless and usually characterized by grasses
and other low growth (USACE, 1984).

Marsh, salt: A marsh periodically flooded by salt water (USACE, 1984).

Marsh vegetation: Plants that grow naturally in a marsh.

Mean high water: The average height of the high waters over a 19-year period. For shorter periods of observations,
corrections are applied to eliminate known variations and reduce the results to the equivalent of a mean 19-year
value. All low-water heights are included in the average where the type of field is either semidiurnal or mixed.
Only lower-low water heights are included in the average where the type of tide is diurnal. So determined, mean
low water in the latter case is the same as mean lower low water.

Mean sea level: The average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19-year period, usually
determined from hourly height readings. Not necessarily equal to mean tide level. (USACE, 1984)

Mean tide level: A plane midway between mean high water and mean low water. Not necessarily equal to mean
sea level. (USACE, 1984)

Meander A bend in a river.

Mud: A fluid-to-plastic mixture of finely divided particles of solid material and water (USACE, 1984).

Nearshore (zone): In beach terminology an indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well beyond the
breaker zone. It defines the area of nearshore currents. (USACE, 1984)

Nearshore current system: The current system that is caused primarily by wave action in and near the breaker zone
and consists of four parts: the shoreward mass transport of water; longshore currents; the seaward return flow,
including rip currents; and the longshore movement of the expanding heads of rip currents (USACE, 1984).

Nourishment: The process of replenishing a beach. It may be. brought about naturally by longshore transport or
artificially by the deposition of dredged materials. (USACE, 1984)

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1@93 6-91

V. Glossaty Chapter

Oceanography: The study of the sea, embracing and indicating all knowledge pertaining to the sea's physical
boundaries, the chemistry and physics of seawater, and marine biology (USACE, 1984).

Offshore: (1) In beach terminology, the comparatively flat zone of variable width, extending from the breaker zone
to the seaward edge of the Continental Shelf. (2) A direction seaward from the shore. (USACE, 1984)

Offshore current: (1) Any current in the offshore zone. (2) Any current flowing away from shore. (USACE, 1984)

Onshore: A direction landward from the sea (USACE, 1984).

Overtopping: Passing of water over the top of a structure as a result of wave runup or surge action (USACE, 1984).

Overwash: That portion of the uprush that carries over the crest of a berm or of a structure (USACE, 1984).

Oxbow: An isolated lake formed by a bend in a river that becomes disconnected from the river channel.

Parapet: A low wall built along the edge of a structure such as a seawall or quay (USACE, 1984).

Peninsula: An elongated body of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a large body of land (USACE,
1984).

Percolation: The process by which water flows through the interstices of a sediment. Specifically, in wave
phenomena, the process by which wave action forces water through the interstices of the bottom sediment and which
tends to reduce wave heights. (USACE, 1984)

Pier. A structure, usually of open construction, extending out into the water from the shore, to serve as a landing
place, recreational facility, etc., rather than to afford coastal protection. In the Great Lakes, a term sometimes
improperly applied to jetties. (USACE, 1984)

Pile: A long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal to be driven or jetted into the earth or seabed to serve
as a support or protection (USACE, 1984).

Pile, sheet: A pile with a generally slender flat cross section to be driven into the ground or seabed and meshed or
interlocked with like members to form a diaphragm, wall, or bulkhead (USACE, 1984).

Piling: A group of piles (USACE, 1984).

Plain, coastal: See coastal plain (USACE, 1984).

Plainform: The outline or shape of a body of water as determined by the stillwater line (USACE, 1984).

Point: The extreme end of a cape; the outer end of any land area protruding into the water, usually less prominent
than a cape (USACE, 1984).

Port: A place where vessels may discharge or receive cargo; it may be the entire harbor, including its approaches
and anchorages, or only the commercial part of a harbor where quays, wharves, facilities for transfer of cargo, docks,
and repair shops are situated (USACE, 1984).

Preexisting: Existing before a specified time or event (Morris, 1978).

Profile, beach: The intersection of the ground surface with a vertical plane; may extend from the top of the dune
line to the seaward limit of sand movement (USACE, 1984).

6-92 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

Quarrystone: Any stone processed from a quarry (USACE, 1984).

Recession (of a beach): (1) A continuing landward movement of the shoreline. (2) A net landward movement of
the shoreline over a specified time (USACE, 1984).

Reflected wave: That part of an incident wave that is returned seaward when a wave impinges on a steep beach,
barrier, or other reflecting surface (USACE, 1984).

Refraction (of water waves): (1) The process by which the direction of a wave moving in shallow water at an angle
to the contours is changed; the part of the wave advancing in shallower water moves more slowly than that part still
advancing in deeper water, causing the wave crest to bend toward alignment with the underwater contours. (2) The
bending of wave crests by currents. (USACE, 1984)

Retreat: To move in a landward direction away from an eroding streambank or shoreline.

Revetment: A facing of stone, concrete, etc., built to protect a scarp, embankment, or shore structure against erosion
by wave action or currents (USACE, 1984).

Riparian: Pertaining to the banks of a body of water (USACE, 1984).

Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian
areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent
waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two land forms; they will
not in all cases have all of the characteristics necessary for them to be classified as wetlands. (Mitsch and Gosselink,
1986; Lowrance et al., 1988)

Riprap: A protective layer or facing of quarrystone, usually well graded within wide size limit, randomly placed
to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment of bluff; also the stone so usecl. The quarrystone is placed
in a layer at least twice the thickness of the 50 percent size, or 1.25 times the thickness of the largest size stone in
the gradation.

Rubble: (1) Loose, angular, waterworn stones along a beach. (2) Rough, irregular fragments of broken rock.
(USACE, 1984)

Rubble-mound structure: A mound of randomly-shaped and randorrily-placed stones protected with a cover layer
of selected stones or specially 'shaped concrete armor units. (Armor units in a primary cover layer may be placed
in an orderly manner or dumped at random.) (USACE, 1984)

Run-of-the-river dam: Usually a low dam with small hydraulic head, limited storage area, short detention time, and
no positive control over take storage.

Runup: The rush of water up a structure or beach on the breaking of a wave. Also uprush, swash. The amount
of runup is the vertical height above still-water level to which the rush of water reaches. (USACE, 1984)

Salt marsh: A marsh periodically flooded by salt water (USACE, 1984).

Sand: See soil classification (USACE, 1984).

Sandbar: (1) See bar. (2) In a river, a ridge of sand built up to or near the surface by river currents. (USACE,
1984)

Sand bypassing: See bypassing, sand (USACE, 1984).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-93

V. Glossary Chapter 6

Scour. Removal of underwater material by waves and currents, especially at the base or toe of a shore structure
(USACE, 1984).

Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due
to wave action (USACE, 1984).

Shoal (noun): A detached elevation of the sea bottom, composed of any material except rock or coral, which may
endanger surface navigation (USACE, 1984).

Shoal (verb): (1) To become shallow gradually. (2) To cause to become shallow. (3) To proceed from a greater
to a lesser depth of water. (USACE, 1984)

Shore: The narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water
lines. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. (USACE, 1984)

Shoreface: The narrow zone seaward from the low tide shoreline, covered by water, over which the beach sands
and gravels actively oscillate with changing wave conditions (USACE, 1984).

Shoreline: The intersection of a specified plane of water with the shore or beach (e.g., the high water shoreline
would be the intersection of the plane of mean high water with shore or beach). The line delineating the shoreline
on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean high water line. (USACE, 1984)

Silt: See soil classification (USACE, 1984).

Slip: A berthing space between two piers (USACE, 2984).

Slope: The degree of inclination to the horizontal. Usually expressed as a ratio, such as 1:25 or I on 25, indicating
I unit vertical rise in 25 units of horizontal distance, or in a decimal fraction (0.04); degrees (2* 18), or percent (4
percent). (USACE, 1984)

Soil classification (size): An arbitrary division of a continuous scale of grain sizes such that each scale unit or grade
may serve as a convenient class interval for conducting the analysis or for expressing the results of an analysis
(USACE, 1984).

Spit: A small point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body of water from the shore (USACE, 1984).

Splash zone: Area along the shoreline above the zone of influence of waves and tides that is still wetted by the spray
from breaking waves.

Storage dam: Typically a,high dam with large hydraulic head, long detention time, and positive control over the
volume of water released from the impoundment.

Stream: (1) A course of water flowing along a bed in the earth. (2) A current in the sea formed by wind action,
water density differences, etc.; e.g., the Gulf Stream. See also current, stream. (USACE, 1984)

Suspended load: (1) The material moving in suspension in a fluid, kept up by the upward components of the
turbulent currents or by colloidal suspension. (2) The material collected in or computed from samples collected with
a suspended load sampler. Where it is necessary to distinguish between the two meanings given above, the first one
may be called the "true suspended load." (USACE, 1984)

Tailwater: Channel or streain below a dam (Walberg et al., 1981).

6-94 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V. Glossary

Tidalflats: Marshy or muddy land areas that are covered and uncovered by the rise and fall of the tide (USACE,
1984).

Tidal inlet: (1) A natural inlet maintained by tidal flow. (2) Loosely, an inlet in which the tide ebbs and flows.
Also tidal outlet. (USACE, 1984)

Tidal period: The interval of time between two consecutive, like phases of the tide (USACE, 1984).

Tidal range: The difference in height between consecutive high and low (or higher high and lower low) waters
(USACE, 1984).

Tide: The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from gravitational attraction of the Moon and Sun and
other astronomical bodies acting upon the rotating Earth. Although the accompanying horizontal. movement of the
water resulting from the same cause is also sometimes called the tide, it is preferable to designate the latter as tidal
current, reserving the name tide for the vertical movement. (USACE, 1984)

Topography: The configuration of a surface, including its relief and the positions of its streams, roads, building, etc.
(USACE, 1984).

Tropical stor?n: A tropical cyclone with maximum winds of less than 34 meters per second (75 miles per hour).
Compare hurricane. (USACE, 1984)

Updrift: The direction opposite that of the predominant movement of littoral materials (USACE, 1984).

Upland: Ground elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Waterline: A juncture of land and sea. This line migrates, changing with the tide or other fluctuation in the water
0 level. Where waves are present on the beach, this line is also known as the lin-Lit of backrush. (Approximately, the
intersection of the land with the still-water level.) (USACE, 1984)

Wave: A ridge, deformation, or undulation of the surface of a liquid (USACE,,1984).

Wave height: The vertical distance between a crest and the preceding trough (USACE, 1984).

Wave period: The time required for a wave crest to traverse a distance equal to one wavelength. The time required
for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point. (USACE, 1984)

Wave, reflected: That part of an incident wave that is returned seaward when a wave impinges on a steep beach,
barrier, or other reflecting surface (USACE, 1984).
I
Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions; wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (This definition is
consistent with the Federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated December 24, 1980. As amendments are made
to the wetland definition, they will be considered applicable to this guidance.)

Wind waves: (1) Waves being formed and built up by the wind. (2) Loosely, any waves generated by wind.
(USACE, 1984)

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-95

Vi. References Chapter 6

V1. REFERENCES

A. Channel ization, and Channel Modification

Anderson, S. 1992. Studies Begin on Kaneohe Bay's Toxin Problem. Makai, 14(2):1,3. University of Hawaii Sea
Grant College Program.

Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1991. Use of Habitat Assessment in Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Strvam
Communities. In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, pp. 25-38. Washington, DC. EPA-440/5-91-005.

Barclay, J.S. 1980. Impact of Stream Alterations on Riparian Communities in Southcentral Oklahoma. U.S.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/17.

Bowie, A.J. 198 1. Investigation of Vegetation for Stabilizing Eroding Streambanks. Appendix C to Stream Channel
Stability. U.S. Department of Agriculture Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, MS. Original not available for
examination. Cited in Henderson, 1986.

Brocksen, R.W., M. Fraser, 1. Murarka, and S.G. Hildebrand. 1982. The Effects of Selected Hydraulic Structures
of Fisheries and Limnology. CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, 1 2(l):69-89.

Brookes, A. 1990. Restoration and Enhancement of Engineered River Channels: Some European Experiences.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 5:45-56. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Burch, C.W., et al. 1984. Environmental Guidelines for Dike Fields. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-84-4.

Burress, R.M., D.A. Kriege@, and C.H. Pennington. 1982. Aquatic Biota of Bank Stabilization Structures on the
Missouri River, North Dakota. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Technical Report E-82-6.

Erickson, R.E., R.L. Linder, and K.W. Harmon. 1979. Stream Channelization (PL 83-566) Increased Wedand
Losses in the Dakotas. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 7(2):71-78.

Hamilton, P. 1990. Modelling Salinity and Circulation for the Columbia River Estuary. Progr. Oceanogr., 25:113-
156.

Hehnke, M., and C.P. Stone. 1978. Value of Riparian Vegetation to Avian Populations along the Sacramento River
System. In Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplains, Wetlands, and other Riparian Ecosystems,
ed. R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick. U.S. Forest Service, Washington DC. GTR-WO-12. Original not available
for examination. Cited in Henderson and Shields, 1984.

Henderson, J.E. 1986. Environmental Design for Strearnbank Protection Projects. Water Resources Bulletin,
22(4):549-558.

Henderson, J.E., and F.D. Shields, Jr. 1984. Environmental Features for Streambank Protection Projects. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-84-1 1.

Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1986. Vegetation and Bank-Slope Development. In Proceedings of the Forest Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 83-92. U.S. Interagency Advisory Committee on Water
Data, Washington, DC.

6-96 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

Hupp, C.R., and A. Simon. 1991. Bank Accretion and the Development of Vegetated Depositional Surfaces Along
Modified Alluvial Channels. Geomorphology, 4:111-124.

Hynson, J.R., P.R. Adamus, J.0. Elmer, T. DeWan, and F.D. Shields. 1985. Environmental Featuresfor Streamside
Levee Projects. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report
E-85-7.

James and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1976. The Effects of Altered Streambeds on Fish and Wildlife in California.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R..Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity in
Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey. Special Publication No. 5.

Los Angeles River Watershed, Angeles National Forest, Region 5. 1973. Evaluation of Check Dams for Sediment
Control.

McAnally, W.H., Jr. 1987. Modeling Estuarine Sediment Transport Processes. In Proceedings Sedimentation
Control to Reduce Maintenance Dredging of Navigational Facilities in Estuaries, ed. R.B. Krone. Marine Board,
Committee on Engineering @nd Technical Systems, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

McPherson, J.A. 1991. Computation of Salinity Intrusion by One-Dimensional Analysis. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC. ETL 11 10-8-7(FR).

Orlova and Popova. 1976. Original not available for examination. Cited in Brocksen et al., 1982.

Parrish, J.D., et al. 1978. Stream Channelization in Hawaii, Part D: Summary Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Hawaii Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Horiolulu, Hawaii. FWS/OBS-78/19. In Environmental Impact
of Water Resources Projects. Lewis Publishers Company, 1985.

Pennington, E.E., and W.E. Dodge. 1982. Environmental Effects of Tennessee-Tombigbee Project Cutoff
Bendways. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper E-82-4.
In Environmental Impact of Water Resources Projects. Lewis Publishers Company, 1985.

Petersen, J.C. 1990. Trends and Comparison of Water Quality and Bottom Material of Northern Arkansas, 1974-85.
In Effects of Planned Diversions. U.S. Geological Survey, Little Rock, AR. USGS Water-Resources Investigation
Report 90-4017.

Platkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocolsfor
Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington, DC. EPA/440/4-89/001.

Reiser, D.W., M.P. Ramey, and T.R. Lambert. 1985. Review of Flushing Flow in Regulated Streams. Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA. In Flushing and Scouring Flows for Habitat Maintenance in Regulated
Streams, ed. W.R. Nelson, J.R. Dwyer, and W.E. Greenberg. 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

Rosgen, D. 1985. A Stream Classification System. In Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management. Reconciling
Conflicting Issues. First North American Riparian Conference. U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC. General Technical Report No. RM-120.

Rosg en, D., and B. Fittante. 1986. Fish Habitat Structures: A Selection Guide Using Stream Classification. In Fifth
Trout Stream Habitat Improvement Workshop, ed. 1. Miller, J, Areway, and R. Carline. Loch Haven, PA,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-97

V1. References Chapter 6

Roy, D., and D. Messier. 1989. A Review of the Effects of Water Transfers - the La Grange Hydroelectric
Complex (Quebec, Canada). Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 4:299-316.

Sandheinrich, M.B., and G.J. Atchison. 1986. Environmental Effects of Dikes and Revetments on Large Riverine
Systems. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Iowa Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and the Department
of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. I

Schoof, R. 1980. Environmental Impacts of Channel Modification. Water Resources Bulletin, 16:697-701. In
Channelization of Streams and Rivers in Illinois: Procedural Review and Selected Case Studies, ed. R.L. Mattingly
and E.E. Herricks. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Springfield, IL. INENR/re-WR-91/01.
1990.

Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff.- A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Sherwood, C.R., D.A. Jay, R. Harvey, P. Hamilton, and C. Simenstad. 1990. Historical Changes in the Columbia
River Estuary. Progr. Oceanogr., 25:299-352.

Shields, F.D., Jr., J.J. Hoover, N.R. Nunnally, K.J. Killgore, T.E. Schaefer, and T.N. Waller. 1990. Hydraulic and
Environmental Effects of Channel Stabilization, Twentymile Creek, Mississippi. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. EL-90-14.

Shields, F.D., Jr., and T.E. Schaefer. 1990. ENDOW User's Guide. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Simon, A. 1989a. A Model of Channel Response in Disturbed Alluvial Channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 14:11-26.

Simon, A. 1989b. T'he Discharge of Sediment in Channelized Alluvial Streams. Water Resources Bulletin,
25(6):1177-1187.

Simon, A., and C.R. Hupp. 1986. Channel Evolution in Modified Tennessee Channels. In Proceedings of the
Forest Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 71-82. U.S. Interagency Advisory
Committee on Water Data, Washington, DC.

Simon, A., and C.R. Hupp. 1987. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and Watershed
Management. Proceedings of the Vancouver Symposium. IAHS-AISH Publication No. 167.

Spaulding, M.L., ed. 1990. Proceeding of ASCE Estuarine and Coastal Transport Modeling Conference. Newport,
Rhode Island, November 1989.

Swanson, S., D. Franzen, and M. Manning. 1987. Rodero Creek: Rising Water on the High Desert. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 42(6):405-407.

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and W.J. Miller. 1984. Instream Water Temperature Model. Instream Flow Information
Paper No. 16. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-84/15.

Theurer, F.D., K.A. Voos, and C.G. Prewitt. 1982. Application of IFG's Instream Water Temperature Model in
the Upper Colorado River. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Hydrometeorology, Denver, CO, 13-17
June 1982, pp. 287-292. American Water Resources Association.

6-98 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1,993

Chapter 6 Vt. References

USACE. 1978. Design and Construction of Levees. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. Engineering
Manual 1110-2-1913.

USACE. 1981. Low Cost Shore Protection. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.

USACE. 1983. Strearnbank Protection Guidelines for Landowners and Local Governments. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

USACE. 1989. Engineering and Design: Sedimentation Investigations of Rivers and Reservoirs. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington, DC. Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-4000.

USDOI-FWS. 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), BSM 102. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1985. Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Atlanta, GA.

Wilcock, D.N., and C.I. Essery. 199 1. Environmental Impacts of Channelization of the River Main, County Antrim,
North Ireland. Journal of Environmental Management, 32:127-143.

Wolff, S.W., T.A. Wesche, and W.A. Hubert. 1989. Stream Channel and Habitat Changes Due to Flow
Augmentation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 4:225-233.

B. Dams

Adams, J.S., and G.E. Hauser. 1990. Comparison of Minimum Flow Alternatives South Fork Holston River Below
South Holston Dam. Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. Report No. WR28-1-21-102

Andrews, J. 1988. Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancementfor the Middle Fork and Upper Salmon River. Prepared
for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.
Technical Report DOE/BP/17579-2.

ASCE. 1986. American Society of Civil Engineers. Lessons Learnedfrom Design, Construction, and Performance
of Hydraulic Structures. Hydraulic Structures Committee of the Hydraulics Division of the ASCE, New York, NY.

Beecher, J.A., and A.P. Laubach. 1989. Compendium on Water Supply, Drought, and Conservation. The National
Regulatory Research Institute, Columbus, OH. NRRI 89-15.

Beecher, LA., P.C. Mann, and J.R. Landers. 1990. Cost Allocation and Rate Design for Water Utilities. National
Regulatory Research Institute and Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Bender, M.D., G.E. Hauser, and M.C. Shiao. 1991. Modeling Boone Reservoir to Evaluate Cost-Effectiveness of
Point and Nonpoint Source Pollutant Controls. Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN.
Report No. WR28-1-31-107.

Bohac, C.E., and R.J. Ruane. 1990. Solving the Dissolved Oxygen Problem. Hydro-Review: The Magazine of the
North American Hydroelectric Industry, 9(l):62-70.

Bonneville Power Administration. 1991. Environmental Assessment: East Fork Salmon Habitat Enhancement
Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-99

V1. References Chapter 6

Cooke, G.D., and R.H. Kennedy. 1989. Water Quality Managementfor Reservoirs and Tailwaters: Report 1, In-
Reservoir Water Quality Management Techniques. U.S. Army Engineering Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-89-1.

Dodge, N.A. 1989. Managing the Columbia River to Meet Anadromous Fish Requirements. In Proceedings
Waterpower '89, 23-25 August 1989, Niagara Falls, NY. American Society of Civil Engineers.

EPRI. 1990. Electric Power Research Institute. Assessment and Guidefor Meeting Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality
Standards for Hydroelectric Plant Discharges. Aquatic Systems Engineering, Wellsboro, PA. EPRI GS-7001.

Fast, A.W., M.W. Lorenzen, and J.H. Glenn. 1976. Comparative Study with Costs of Hypolimnetic Aeration.
Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 102:1175-1187.

Findley, D.I., and K. Day. 1987. Dissolved Oxygen Studies Below Walter F. George Dam. In Proceedings: CE
Workshop on Reservoir Releases, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Misc. Paper E-87-3.

Fontane, D.G., W.J. Labadie, and B. Loftis. 1981. Optimal Control of Reservoir Discharge Quality Through
Selective Withdrawal: Hydraulic Laboratory Investigation. Prepared by Colorado State University and the Hydraulics
Laboratory, Waterways Experimental Station, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-82-1.

Gallagher, J.W., and G.V. Mauldin. 1987. Oxygenation of Releases from Richard B. Russell Dam. In Proceedings:
CE Workshop on Reservoir Releases, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Misc. Paper E-87-3.

Grisham, A., and W.M. Flen-dng. 1989. Long-term Options for Municipal Water Conservation. Journal of the
American Water Works Association, (March):34.

Hansen, R.P., and M.D. Crumrine. 1991. The Effects of Multipurpose Reservoirs on the Water Temperature of the
North and South of Santiam Rivers, Oregon. U.S. Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. Water Resources Investigations, Report 91-4007.

Harris, G.G., and W.A. Van Bergeijk. 1962. Evidence that the Lateral-Line Organ Responds to Near-Field
Displacements of Sound Sources in Water. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 34:1831-1841.

Harshbarger, E.D. 1987. Recent Developments in Turbine Aeration. In Proceedings: CE Workshop on Reservoir
Releases. U.S. Army Corp of-Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper E-87-3.

Hauser, G.E. 1989. Turbine Pulsing for Minimum Flow Maintenance Downstream from Tributary Projects.
Tennessee Valley Authority Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. Technical Report No. WR28-2-590-147.

Hauser, G.E., M.D. Bender, M.C. Shiao, and R.T. Brown. 1987. Two-Dimensional Modelling of Water Quality in
Cherokee Reservoir. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN. Technical Report No. WR28-1-590-131.

Hauser, G.E., M.D. Bender, and M.K. McKinnon. 1989. Model Investigation of Douglas Tailwater Improvements.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN. Technical Report No. WR28-1-590-143.

Hauser, G.E., and R.J. Ruane. 1985. Model Exploration of Holston River Water Quality Improvement Strategies.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water
Resources, Norris, TN. Water Systems Development Branch Report No. WR28-1-590-109.

6-100 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

Hauser, G.E., M.C. Shiao, and M.D. Bender. 1990a. Modeled Effects of Extended Pool Level Operations on Water
is Quality. Tennessee Valley Authority Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. Technical Report No. ArR28-2-590-148.

Hauser, G.E., M.C. Shiao, and R.J. Ruane. 1990b. Unsteady One-Dimensional Modelling of Dissolved Oxygen in
Nickajack Reservoir. Tennessee Valley Authority Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN. Technical Report No. WR28-
1-590-150.

Higgins, I.M., and R.R. Kim. 1982. DO Model for Discharges from Deep Impoundments. Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 108(EE 1): 107-122.

Holland, J.P. 1984. Parametric Investigation of Localized Mixing in Reservoirs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-84-7. Original not available for examination.
Cited in Price, 1989.

Howington, S.E. 1990. Simultaneous, Multilevel Withdrawalfrom a Density Stratified Reservoir. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report W-90-1.

Hynson, J.R., P.R. Adamus, J.O. Elmer, and T. DeWan. 1985. Environmental Features for Strearnside Levee
Projects. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-85-7.

Johnson, J.T., R.J. Ruane, and L.H. Howe 11. 1991. Hydrogen Sulfide in Hydropower Reservoirs. In Proceedings
Waterpower '91, July 1991, Denver, CO. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Johnson, P.L., and J.F. LaBounty. 1988. Optimization of Multiple Reservoir Uses Through Reaeration - Lake
Casitas, USA: A Case Study. Commision Internationale des Grands Barrages. Seizi6me Congr6s des Grands
Barrages, San Francisco, 1988. Q. 60, R. 27 pp. 437-451.

Jones, R.K., and P.A. March. 1991. Efficiency and Cavitation Effects of Hydroturbine Venting. In Progress in
Autoventing Turbine Development. Tennessee Valley Engineering Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN.

Kondolf, G.M., G.F. Cada, and M.J. Sale. 1987. Assessing Flushing-Flow Requirements for Brown Trout Spawning
Gravels in Steep Streams. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(5):927-935.

Kortmann, R.W. 1989. Raw Water Quality Control: An Overview of Reservoir Management Techniques. Journal
NEWWA, December 1989, pp. 197-220.

Kushlan, J.A. 1987. External Threats and Internal Management: The Hydrologic Regulation of the Everglades,
Florida, USA. Environmental Management, 11(l):109-119.

Larinier, M., and S. Boyer-Bernard. 1991. Downstream Migration of Smolts and Effectiveness of a Fish Bypass
Structure at Halsou Hydroelectric Powerhouse on the Nive River. Bulletin Francais de P&he et Pisciculture,
321:72-92.

Li, H. W., C. B. Schreck, R. A. Tubb, K. Rodnick, M. Ahlgren, and A. Crook. 1983. The Impact of Small-Scale
Dams on Fishes of the Willamette River, Oregon and an Evaluation o Fish Habitat Models. Water Resources
Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. WRRI-91.

Lorenzen, M.W., and A. Fast. 1977. A Guide to AerationlCirculation Techniques for Lake Management. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-600/3-77-004.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-101

V1. References Chapter 6

Maddaus, W.O. 1989. Water Conservation. American Water Works Association.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality, and York County Soil and Water
Conservation District. 1990. Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management.

March, P.A., J. Cybularz, and B.G. Ragsdale. 1991. Model Tests for Evaluation of Auto-Venting Hydroturbines.
In Progress in Autoventing Turbine Development. Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory, Norris, TN.

Mattice, J.S. 1990. Ecological Effects of Hydropower Facilities. In Hydropower Engineering Handbook, pp. 8.1-
8.57. McGraw-Hill, New York.

McQueen, D.J., and D.R.S. Lean. 1986. Hypolimnetic Aeration: An Overview. Water Pollution Resources Journal
of Canada, 21:205-217.

"Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California." 199 1. September. June draft.
(Created California Urban Water Conservation Council including water suppliers, public advocacy organizations, and
other interested groups.)

Muckleston, K.W. 1990. Striking a Balance in. the Pacific Northwest. Environment, 32(l): 11-15, 32-35.

Nelson, R.W., J.R. Dwyer, and W.E. Greenberg. 1987. Regulated Flushing in a Gravel-Bed River for Channel
Habitat Maintenance: A Trinity River Fisheries Case Study. Environmental Management, 11(4):479-493.

Nelson, R.W., J.R. Dwyer, and W.E. Greenberg. 1988. Flushing and Scouring Flows for Habitat Maintenance in
Regulated Streams. Final Technical Report Contract No. 68-01-6986, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Criteria and Standard Division, Washington, DC.

Nelson, R.W., G.C. Horak, and J.E. Olson. 1978. Western Reservoir and Stream Habitat Improvements Handbook.
U.S. Department of the. Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO. FWS/OBS-78156.

Nestler, J.M., J. Fritschen, R.T. Milhous, and J. Troxel. 1986a. Effects of Flow Alterations on Trout, Angling, and
Recreation in the Chattahoochee River Between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-86-10.

Nestler, J.M., C.H. Walburg, J.F. Novotny, K.E. Jacobs, and W.D. Swink. 1986b. Handbook on Reservoir Releases
for Fisheries and Environmental Quality. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. Instruction Report E-86-3.

Nichols, A.B. 1992. Life System Helps Fish Overcome Dammed Waters, Water Environment and Technology,
4(9):40-42. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.

Peters, J.C. 1978. Environmental Control During Dam Construction. In Environmental Effects of Large Dams, pp.
15-27. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Podar, M.K., J.C. Crossman, D.E. Burmaster, R.J. Ruane, J.A. Jaksch, G. Hauser, and S.L. Sessions. 1985.
Optimizing PointlNonpoint Source Tradeoff in the Holston River Near Kingsport, Tennessee. Prepared for
presentation at the National, Conference on Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Kansas City.

Price, R.E. 1989. Evaluating Commercially Available Destratification Devices. Water Operations Technical
Support Information Exchange Bulletin, Volume E-89-2, December 1989. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

6-102 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

Pugh, J.R., G.L. Monan, and J.R. Smith. 1971. Effect of Water Velocity on the Fish-Guiding Efficiency of an
Electrical Guidance System. Fishery Bulletin, 68(2):307-324

Quick, R., and C. Richmond. 1992. Number of Dams in the Coastal Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
unpublished memo.

RMI. 199 1. Rocky Mountain Institute. Water Efficiency: A Resource for Utility Managers, Community Planners,
and Other Decisionmakers. The Water Program, Rocky Mountain Institute. Snowmass, CO.

Rochester, H. Jr., T. Lloyd, and M. Farr. 1984. Physical Impacts of Small-Scale Hydroelectric Facilities and their
Effects on Fish and Wildlife. Prepared for Western Energy and Land Use Team, Division of Biological Services,
Research and Development, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-84/19.

Smith, D.R, S.C. Wilhelms, J.P. Holland, M.S. Dortch, and LE. Davis. 1987. Improved Description of Selfctive
Withdrawal Through Point Sinks. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical
Report E-87-2.

Stone and Webster. 1986., Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation. Assessment of Downstream Migrant Fish
Protection Technologies for Hydroelectric Application. Palo Alto, California, Electric Power Research Institute.
Report AP-471 1.

Stromberg, J.C., and D.T. Patten. 1990. Riparian Vegetation Instream Flow Re
quirements: A Case Study from a
Diverted Stream in the Eastern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Environmental Management, 14(2):185-194.

Tanovan, B. 1987. System Spill Allocation for the Control of Dissolved Gas Saturation on the Columbia River.
In Proceedings: CE Workshop on Reservoir Releases. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. Misc. Paper E-87-3.

TVA. 1985. Feasibility Report Tims FordlElk River Minimum Flows. Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of
Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water Resources. Report Number
TVA/ONRED/A&WR-85/22.

TVA. 1988. The Tennessee Valley Authority's Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Activities Under the Memorandum
of Understanding Between the State of Tennessee and the Tennessee Valley Authority During Fiscal Years 1983-
1986. Tennessee Valley Authority.

TVA. 1990. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Tennessee River and Reservoir Operation and Planning
Review. Tennessee Valley Authority. Report Number TVA/RDG/EQS-91/1.

TVA. 1991. Progress in Autoventing Turbine Development. Tennessee Valley Authority, Engineering Laboratory.

USDOE. 199 1. Environmental Mitigation at Hydroelectric Projects: Volume I Current Practicesfor Instream Flow
Needs, Dissolved Oxygen, and Fish Passage. U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/ID-10360.

USDOI. 1983. Central Utah Project Bonneville Unit Diamond Fork Power System Draft Environmental Statement.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region.

USDOI. 1988. Glen Canyon Environmental Studies Final Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Upper Colorado
Region, Salt Lake City, LT. NTIS No. PB88-183348/AS.

USDOI-FWS. 1976. The Effects ofAltered Streamflows on Fish and Wildlife in California, Task 11. Individual Case
Study Results, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Fort Collins, CO. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-103

V1. References Chapter 6

USEPA. 1973. The Control of Pollutionfrom Hydrographic Modifications. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1979. Best Management Practices Guidance, Discharge ofDredged or Fill Materials. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 440/3-79-028.

USEPA. 1989. Report to.Congress: Dam Water Quality Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC.
EPA 506/2-89/002.

USEPA. 1990. The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual. Office of Water. EPA-440/4-90-006.

USGAO. 1990. Hydroelectric Dams, Issues Surrounding Colombia Basin Juvenile Fish Bypasses. Report to the
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. GAO/RCED-90-180.

van der Borg, R., and J. Ferguson. 1989. Hydropower and Fish Passage Impacts. In Proceedings Waterpower '89,
23-25 August 1989, Niagara'Falls, NY. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Virginia State Water Control Board. 1979. Best Management Practices Handbook - Hydrologic Modifications,
Richmond, VA. Planning Bulletin 319.

Walburg, C.H., J.F. Novotny, K.E. Jacobs, W.D. Swink T.M. Campbell, J. Nestler, and G.E. Saul. 1981. Effects
of Reservoir Releases on Tailwater Ecology: A Literature Review. Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Reservoir Research Program, East Central Reservoir Investigations, and Environmental
Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-81-
12.

Waldrop, W.R. 1992. The Autoventing Turbine--A New Generation of Environmentally Improved Hydroturbines.
In Proceedings of the American Power Conference.

Wesche, T.A., V.R. Hasfurther, and Q.D. Skinner. 1987. Recommendation and Evaluation of a Mitigative Flushing
Flow Region Below a High Mountain Diversion. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Water Resources Related to
Mining and Energy-Preparingfor the Future, pp. 281-298. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.

Wilhelms, S.C. 1984. Turbine Venting. Environmental & Water Quality Operational Studies, Volume E-84-5,
September 1984. - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Wilhelms, S.C. 1988. Reaeration at Low-Head Gated Structures; Preliminary Results. Water Operations Technical
Support, Volume E-88-1, July 1988. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Wilhelms, S.C., and D. R. Srnith. 1981. Reaeration Through Gated-Conduit Outlet Works. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report E-81-5.

Wolff, S.W., T.A. Wesche, and W.A. Hubert. 1989. Stream Channel and Habitat Changes Due to Flow
Augmentation. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 4:235-247.

Zimmerman, M.J., and M. S. Dortch. 1989. Modelling Water Quality of a Reregulated Stream Below a Hydropower
Dam. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 4:235-247.

6-104 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

C. Streambank and Shoreline Erosion

Allen, H.H., and C.V. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir Shoreline and Revegetation Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. E-86-13.

Arsenault, R.D. 1975. CCA-Treated Wood Foundations: A Study of Permanence, Effectiveness, Durability, and
Environmental Considerations. In Proceedings, Annual Meeting of the American Wood Preservers Association, San
Francisco, California, pp. 1-23.

Baechler, R.H., B.R. Richards, A,P. Richards, and H.G. Roth. 1970. Effectiveness and Permanence of Several
Preservatives in Wood Coupons Exposed to Sea Water. In Proceedings, Annual Meeting of the American Wood
Preservers Association, pp. 47-62.

Bascom, W. 1964. Waves and Beaches - The Dynamics of the Ocean Surfaces. Anchor Books, Doubleday and
Company, Inc. New York.

Cumberland County SWCD, Know-Lincoln SWCD, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Soil and
Water Conservation Commission, Portland Water District, Time and Ride RC and D, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service. Fact Sheet Series (2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12).

Davis, C.A. 1987. A Strategy to Save the Chesapeake Shoreline. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
42(2):72-75.

Ehrlich, L. A., and F. Kulhawy. 1982. Breakwaters, Jetties and Groins: A Design Guide. New York Sea Grant
Institute: Coastal Structures Handbook Series, New York Sea Grant Institute, Stony Brook, NY,

Environmental Concern, Inc. 1992. EC Involved in Urban Wetland Restoration in Baltimore. Environmental
Concern Newsletter, 4(l):7.

FEMA. 1986. Coastal Construction Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC. FEMA-
55.

Fulford, E.T. 1985. Reef Type Breakwaters for Shoreline Stabilization. In Coastal Zone '85, pp. 1776-1795.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Garbisch, E.W., P.B. Woller, W.J. Bostian, R.J. McCallum. 1973. Biotic Techniques for Shore Stabilization.
Prepared for the International Estuarine Research Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, 1973.

Gloucester County, Virginia, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation,
Shoreline Programs Bureau. June 1991. Gloucester County Shoreline Erosion Control Guidance (DRAFT).

Graham, J.S. 1983. Design of Pressure-Treated Wood Bulkheads. In Coastal Structures '83, pp. 286-295.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Gray, D.H., and A.T. Leiser. 1982. Biotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, New York.

Gutman, A.L. 1979. Low-Cost Shoreline Protection in Massachusetts. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference
on Coastal Structures, 14-16 March 1979, Alexandria, VA.

Hall, V.L., and J.D. Ludwig. 1975. Evaluation of Potential Use of Vegetation for Erosion Abatement along the
Great Lakes Shoreline. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA.
MP-7-75.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 19,93 6-105

V1. References Chapter 6

Hardaway, C.S., and J.R. Gunn. 1989. Elm's Beach Breakwater Project - St. Mary's County, Maryland. In
Proceedings Beach Technology '89, Tampa, FL.

Hardaway, C.S., and J.R. Gunn. 1991. Working Breakwaters. Civil Engineering, October 1991:64-66.

Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, and J.-H. Li. 1991. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Study: Headland Breakwaters and
Pocket Beachesfor Shoreline Erosion Control, Final Report. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
VA.

Henderson, J.E. 1986. Environmental Design for Streambank Protection Projects. Water Resources Bulletin,
22(4):549-558.

Hill, Lambert, and Ross. 1983. Best Management Practicesfor Shoreline Erosion Control. Virginia Cooperative
Extension Service. Publication 447-004.

Hobbs, C.H., R.J. Byrne, W.R. Kerns, and N.J. Barber. 1981. Shoreline Erosion: A Problem in Environmental
Management. Coastal Zone Management Journal, 9(l):89-105.

Hobson, R.D. 1977. Review of Design Elementsfor Beach-Fill Evaluation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal
Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. TP 77-6.

Houston, J.R. 1991. Beachfill Performance. Shore and Beach, 59(3):15-24.

lbison, N.A., J.C. Baurner, C.L. Hill, N.H. Burger, and J.E. Frye. 1992. Eroding Bank Nutrient Veri cation Study
f,
for the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Gloucester Point, VA.

lbison, N.A., C.W. Frye, J.E. Frye, C.E. Hill, and N.H. Burger. 1990. Sediment and Nutrient Contributions of
Selected Eroding Banks of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System. Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Gloucester Point, VA.

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1990. Forestry Development Cost-Share Program. Illinois Administrative
Code, Title 17, Chapter I, Subchapter d, Part 1536.

Johnson, J.W. 1957. Ship Waves in Navigational Channels. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Gainesville, FA, pp. 666-690.

Knutson, P.L. 1977. Planting Guidelines for Marsh Development and Bank Stabilization. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. Coastal Engineering Technical Aid No. 77-3.

Knutson, P.L. 1988. Role of Coastal Marshes in Energy Dissipation and Shore Protection. In The Ecology and
Management of Wetlands, Volume PEcology of Wetlands, ed. D.D. Hook, W.H. McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith, J. Gregory,
V.G. Burrell, Jr., M.R. DeVoe, R.E. Scjka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and T.H.
Shear, pp. 161-175. Timber Press, Portland, OR.

Knutson, P.L., and M.R. Inskeep. 1982. Shore Erosion Control with Salt Marsh Vegetation. Coastal Engineering
Technical Aid No. 82-3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Knutson, P.L., and W.W. Woodhouse, Jr. 1983. Shore Stabilization with Salt Marsh Vegetation. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. Special Report No. 9.

Komar, P.D., and W.G. McDougal. 1988. Coastal Erosion and Engineering Structures: The Oregon Experience,
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 4.

6-106 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

Kraus, N.C., and O.H. Pilkey. 1988. Introduction: The Effects of Seawalls on the Beach, Journal of Coastal
Research, Special Issue No. 4.

Leatherman, S.P. 1986. Cliff Stability along Western Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. Marine Technology Society
Journal, 20(3): 28-36.

Lewis, R.L. Ill, ed. 1982. Creation and Restoration of Coastal Plant Communities. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,
FL.

Lowrance, R.R., S. McIntyre, and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and Deposition in a Field/Forest System Estimated
Using Cesium-137 Activity, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2):195-199.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1980. Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in
Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Maryland DNR, Annapolis, MD.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1982. An Assessment of Shore Erosion in Northern Chesapeake Bay
and of the Performance of Erosion Control Structures. Maryland DNR, Annapolis, MD.

Maryland Eastern Shore Resource Conservation and Development Area. Completion Reports. Maryland Eastern
Shore Resource Conservation and Development Area, Non-structural Shore Erosion Control Program, Easton, MD.

Michigan Sea Grant College Program. 1988. Vegetation and its Role in Reducing Great Lakes Shoreline Erosion:
A guide for Property Owners. MICHU-SG-700.

Mitsch, W.J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

Morris, W., ed. 1978. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston.

NRC. 1990. National Research Council, Committee on Coastal Zone Erosion Management. Managing Coastal
Erosion. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NRC. 1991. National Research Council. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public
Policy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

O'Connor, J.M., D.A. Neumann, and J.A. Sherk, Jr. 1976. Lethal Effects of Suspended Sediments on Estuarine Fish.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. TP 76-20.

Palmer, H.D. 1973. Shoreline Erosion in Upper Chesapeake Bay: The Role of Groundwater. Shore and Beach,
41(2):1-5.

Pilkey, O.H. 1992. Another View of Beachfill Performance. Shore and Beach, 60(2):20-25.

Pilkey, O.H., and H.L. Wright Ill. 1988. Seawalls Versus Beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue
No. 4:41-64. Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Charlottesville, VA.

Porter, D.L. 1992. Light Touch, Low Cost, Streambank and Shoreline Erosion Control Techniques. Tennessee
Valley Authority.

Profiles Research and Consulting Groups, Inc. 1980. Seasonal Restrictions on Dredging Projects by NMFS i n the
Northeast. Prepared for Environmental Assessment Branch U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC. 2 vols.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-107

V1. References Chapter 6

Saczynski, T. M., and F. Kulhawy. 1982. Bulkheads. New York Sea Grant Institute: Coastal Structures Handbook
Series. New York Sea Grant Institute, Stony Brook, NY.

Schiechd, H. 1980. Bioengineering for Land Reclamation and Conservation. The University of Alberta Press,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Schultz, Gwynne. Letter to Chris Zabawa, 15 April 1992.

Sharp, W.C., C.R. Belcher, and J. Oyler. Undated. Vegetation for Tidal Shoreline Stabilization in the Mid-Atlantic
States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Broomall, PA.

Sherk, LA. Jr., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Neumann. 1976. Effects of Suspended Solids on Selected Estuarine
Plankton. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. MR 76-1.

Tainter, S.P. 1982. Bluff Slumping and Stability: A Consumer's Guide. Michigan Sea Grant, Ann Arbor, MI.

Thompson, J.R. 1973. Ecological Effects of Offshore Dredging and Beach Nourishment: A Review. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Coastal Engineering Research Center. MP 1-73.

USACE. 1981a. Low-Cost Shore Protection, Final Report on the Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstration
Program (Section 54). Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Washington, DC.

USACE. 1981b. Detailed Project Report and Environmental Assessment: Section 111, Shores East of Diked
Disposal Area, Lorain Harbor, Ohio. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

USACE. 1982. Maumee Bay State Park, Ohio Shoreline Beach Restoration Study: Final Feasibility Report and
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I Main Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District.

USACE. 1983. Streambank Protection Guidelines for Landowners and Local Governments. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.

USACE. 1984. Shoreline Protection Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. 2 vols.

USACE. 1988. North Nantasket Beach Shore Protection Study: Hull, Massachusetts. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England Division.

USACE. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Shoreline Erosion Study: Feasibility Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USDA-SCS. 1992. Engineering Field Handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC.

USDA-SCS. 1985. Streambank and Shoreline Protection. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
'Service.

USEPA-CBP. 1991. Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy 1990 Progress Report. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

USEPA, 1992. National Water Quality Inventory 1990 Report to Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

6-108 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 6 V1. References

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Shore Erosion Advisory Service. Undated. Bid Documents.
Gloucester Point, VA.

Weis, P., J.S. Weis, and L.M. Coohill. 1991. Toxicity to Estuarine Organisms of Leachates from Chromated Copper
Arsenate Treated Wood. Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 20(1991):118-124.

Weis, P., LS. Weis, A. Greenberg, and T.J. Nosker. 1992. Toxicity of Construction Materials in the Marine
Environment: A Comparison of Chromated-Copper-Arsenate-Treated Wood and Recycled Plastic. Archives
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 22(1992):99-106.

Woodhouse, W.W., Jr., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. 1972. Marsh Building with Dredge Spoil in North
Carolina. U.S. Army Cerps of Engineers Coastal Research Center, North Carolina Research Center. Distributed
by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA. COM-72-11434.

Woodhouse, W.W., Jr. 1978. Dune Building and Stabilization with Vegetation. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Coastal Engineering Center, Fort Belvoir, VA. Special Report No. 3.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 6-109

CHAPTER 7: Management Measures for
Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and
Vegetated Treatment Systems

1. INTRODUCTION
A. What "Management Measures" Are

This chapter specifies management measures to protect and restore wetlands and riparian areas to protect coastal
waters from coastal nonpoint pollution. "Management measures" are defined in section 6217 of the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) as economically achievable measures to control the addition
of pollutants to our coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the
application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating
methods, or other alternatives.

These management measures will be incorporated by States into their coastal nonpoint programs, which under
CZARA are to provide for the implementation of management measures that are "in conformity" with this guidance.
Under CZARA, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop and implement their Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs in conformity with this guidance and will have some flexibility in doing so. The
application of these management measures by States to activities causing nonpoint pollution is described more fully
in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA).

B. What "Management Practices" Are

In addition to specifying management measures, this chapter also lists and describes management practices for
illustrative purposes only. While State programs are required to specify management measures in conformity with
this guidance, State programs need not specify or require the implementation of the particular management practices
described in this document. However, as a practical matter, EPA anticipates that the management measures generally
will be implemented by applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.
The practices listed in this document have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can
be applied successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA has also used some of these practices, or
appropriate combinations of these practices, as a basis for estimating the effectiveness, costs, and economic impacts
of achieving the management measures. (Economic impacts of the management measures are addressed in a separate
document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters.)

EPA recognizes that there is often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness of practices. The list of practices
for each management measure is not all-inclusive and does not preclude States or local agencies from using other
technically and environmentally sound practices. In all cases, however, the practice or set of practices chosen by
a State needs to achieve the management measure.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-1

1. Introduction Chapter 7

C. Scope of This Chapter

This chapter contains management measures that address multiple categories of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution that
affect coastal waters. The primary NPS pollutants addressed are sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature.
This chapter is divided into three management measures:

(1) Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas;
(2) Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas; and
(3) Promoting the Use of Vegetated Treatment Systems, such as Constructed Wetlands and Vegetated Filter
Strips.

Each category of management measure is addressed in a separate section of this guidance. Each section contains
(1) the management measure; (2) an applicability statement that describes, when appropriate, specific activities and
locations for which the measure is suitable; (3) a description of the management measure's purpose; (4) the basis
for the management measure's selection; (5) information on management practices that are suitable, either alone or
in combination with other practices, to achieve the management measure; (6) information on the effectiveness of the
management measure and/or of practices to achieve the measure; and (7) information on costs of the measure and/or
of practices to achieve the measure.

CZARA requires EPA to specify management measures to control nonpoint pollution from various sources.
Wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems have important potential for reducing nonpoint pollution
in coastal waters from a variety of sources. Degradation of existing wetlands and riparian areas can cause the
wetlands or riparian areas themselves to become sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters. Such degradation
can result in the inability of existing wetlands and riparian areas to treat nonpoint pollution. Therefore, management
measures are presented in this chapter specifying the control of nonpoint pollution through (1) protection of the M1
range of functions of wetlands and riparian areas to ensure continuing nonpoint source pollution abatement,
(2) restoration of degraded systems, and (3) the use of vegetated treatment systems.

The intent of the three wedarids management measures is to ensure that the nonpoint benefits of protecting and
restoring wetlands and riparian areas, and of constructing vegetated treatment systems, will be considered in all
coastal watershed water pollution control activities. These management measures form an essential element of any
State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

There is substantial evidence in the literature, and from case studies, that one important function of both natural and
human-made wetlands is the removal of nonpoint source pollutants from storm water. Much of this literature is cited
in this chapter. These pollutants include sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus (Whigham et al., 1988; Cooper et al.,
1987; Brinson et aL, 1984). Also, wetlands and riparian areas have been shown to attenuate flows from higher-than-
average storm events, thereby protecting receiving waters from peak flow hydraulic impacts such as channel scour,
streambank erosion, and fluctuations in temperature and chemical characteristics of surface waters (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1986; Novitzki, 1979).

A degraded wetland has less ability to remove nonpoint source pollutants and to attenuate storm water peak flows
(Richardson and Davis, 1987; Bedford and Preston, 1988). Also, a degraded wetland can deliver increased amounts
of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants to the adjoining waterbody, thereby acting as a source of nonpoint
pollution instead of a treatment (Brinson, 1988).

Therefore, the first management measure is intended to protect the full range of functions for wetlands and riparian
areas serving a nonpoint source abatement function. This protection will preserve their value as a nonpoint source
control and help to ensure that they do not become a significant nonpoint source due to degradation.

The second management measure promotes the restoration of degraded wetlands and riparian systems with nonpoint
source control potential for similar reasons: the increase in pollutant loadings that can result from degradation of
wetlands and riparian areas, arid the substantial evidence in the literature on effectiveness of wetlands and riparian
areas for nonpoint pollution abatement. In addition, there may be other benefits of restoration to wildlife and aquatic

7-2 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 19W

Chapter 7 L Introduction

organisms. This measure provides for evaluation of degraded wetlands and riparian systems, and for restoration if
the systems will serve a nonpoint source pollution abatement function (e.g., by cost-effectively treating nonpoint
source pollution or by attenuating peak flows).

The third management measure promotes the use of vegetated treatment systems because of their wide-scale ability
to treat a variety of sources of nonpoint pollution. This measure will apply, as appropriate, to all other chapters in
this guidance. Placing the large amount of information on vegetated treatment systems in one management measure
avoids duplication in most other 6217(g) measures and thereby limits the potential for confusion. All descriptions,
applications, case studies, and costs are in one measure within the CZARA 6217(g) guidance and are cross-referenced
in the management measures for which these systems are a potential nonpoint pollution control. Also, all positive
and negative aspects of design, construction, and operation have been included in one place to avoid confusion in
applications due to potential inconsistencies from placement in multiple measures.

D. Relationship of This Chapter to Other Chapters and to Other EPA
Documents

2. Chapter 3 of this document contains a management measure and accompanying information on forestry
practices in wetlands and protection of wetlands subject to forestry operations.

3. Chapter 8 of this document contains information on recommended monitoring techniques (1) to ensure proper
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the management measures and (2) to assess over time the
success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

4. EPA has separately published a document entitled Economic Impacts of EPA Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

5. NOAA and EPA have jointly published guidance entitled Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval Guidance. This guidance contains details on how State Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs are to be developed by States and approved by NOAA and EPA. It includes
guidance on the following:

� The basis and process for EPA/NOAA approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;

� How NOAA and EPA expect State programs to provide for the implementation of management measures
"in conformity" with this management measures guidance;

� How States may target sources in implementing their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs;
I
� Changes in State coastal boundaries; and

� Requirements concerning how States are to implement their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.

E. Definitions and Background Information

The preceding five chapters of this guidance have specified management measures that represent the most effective
systems of practices that are available to prevent or reduce coastal nonpoint source INPSI pollution from live specific
categories of sources. In this chapter, management measures that apply to a broad variety of sources, including the
five categories of sources addressed in the preceding chapters, are specified. These measures promote the protection

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-3

L Introduction Chapter 7

and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas and the use of vegetated treatment systems as means to control the
nonpoint pollution emanating from such nonpoint sources. Management measures for protection and restoration of
wetlands and riparian areas are developed as part of NPS and coastal management programs to take into
consideration the multiple functions and values these ecosystems provide to ensure continuing nonpoint source
pollution abatement.

1. Wetlands and Riparian Areas

For purposes of this guidance, wetlands are defined as:

Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas.'

Wetlands are usually waters of the United States and as such are afforded protection under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Although the focus of this chapter is on the function of wetlands in reducing NPS pollution, it is important
to keep in mind that wetlands are ecological systems that perform a range of functions (e.g., hydrologic, water
quality, or aquatic habitat), as well as a number of pollutant removal functions.

For purposes of this guidance, riparian areas are defined as:

Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas
characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the
adjacent waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two land
forms. They will not in all cases have all of the characteristics necessary for them to be classified as
wetlands.'

Figure 7-1 illustrates the general relationship between wetlands, uplands, riparian areas, and a stream channel.
Identifying the exact boundaries of wetlands or riparian areas is less critical than identifying ecological systems of
concern. For instance, even those riparian areas falling outside wetland boundaries provide many of the same
important water quality functions that wetlands provide. In many cases, the area of concern may include an upland
buffer adjacent to sensitive wetlands or riparian areas that protects them from excessive NPS impacts or pretreats
the inflowing surface waters.
Wetlands and riparian areas can play a critical role in reducing NPS pollution, 'by intercepting suriace runoff,
subsurface flow, and certain ground-water flows. Their role in water quality improvement includes processing,
removing, transforming, and storing such pollutants as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and certain heavy metals.
Thus, wetlands and riparian areas buffer receiving waters from the effects of pollutants, or they prevent the entry
of pollutants into receiving waters.

The functions of wetlands and riparian areas include water quality improvement, aquatic habitat, stream shading,
flood attenuation, shoreline stabilization, and ground-water exchange. Wetlands and riparian areas typically occur
as natural buffers between uplands and adjacent waterbodies. Loss of these systems allows for a more direct
contribution of NPS pollutants to receiving waters. The pollutant removal functions associated with wetlands and
riparian area vegetation and soils combine the physical process of filtering and the biological processes of nutrient
uptake and denitrification (Lowrance et al., 1983; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984). Riparian forests, for example, have
been found to contribute to the quality of aquatic habitat by providing cover, bank stability, and a source of organic

This definition is consistent with the Federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated December 24, 1980. As amendments are
made to the wetland definition, they will be considered applicable to this guidance.

'This definition is adapted from the definitions offered previously by Mitsch and Gosselink (1986) and Lowrance et al. (1988).

7-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 1. Introduction

UPLAND UPLAND

UPLAND

UPLAND UPLAND
w4h Wolff 19h Water
tV lawd,

water laws Water table
Low Water Strosin Groundwater
--- Discharge
6.6 Ft.
MlVW

V V 7--j LV-j
00preamio" wetslind ovemow Do"Welor Overflow Seeps" Weiland on Stage
Weiland Hamm Welland

Figure 7-1. Cross section showing the general relationship between wetlands, uplands, riparian areas, and a
stream channel (Burke et al., 1988).

carbon for microbial processes such as denitrification (James et al., 1990; Pinay and Decamps, 1988). Riparian
forests have also been found to be effective at reducing instream pollution during flood flows (Karr and Gorman,
1975; Kleiss et al., 1989).

In highly developed urban areas, wetlands and riparian areas may be virtually destroyed by construction, filling,
channelization, or other significant alteration. In agricultural areas, wetlands and riparian areas may be impacted by
overuse of the area for grazing or by removal of native vegetation and replacement by annual crops or perennial
cover. In addition, significant hydrologic alterations may have occurred to expedite drainage of farmland. Other
significant impacts may occur as a result of various activities such as highway construction, surface mining,
deposition of dredged material, and excavation of ports and marinas. All of these activities have the potential to
degrade or destroy the water quality improvement functions of wetlands and riparian areas and may exacerbate NPS
problems.

A wetland's position in the landscape affects its water quality functions. Some cases have been studied sufficiently
to predict how an individual wedand will affect water quality on a landscape scale,(Whigham et al., 1988). Wetlands
that border first-order streams were found by Whigham and others (1988) to be efficient at removing nitrate from
ground water and sediment from surface waters. They were not found to be as efficient in removing phosphorus.
When located downstream from first-order streams, wetlands and riparian areas were found to be less effective at
removing sediment and nutrient from the stream itself because of a smaller percentage of stream water corning into
contact with the wetlands (Whigham et al., 1988). It has also been estimated that the portion of a wetland or riparian
area immediately below the source of nonpoint pollution may be the most effective filter (Cooper et al., 1986;
Lowrance et al., 1983; Phillips, 1989).

Although wetlands and riparian areas reduce NPS pollution, they do so within a definite range of operational
conditions. When hydrologic changes or NPS pollutants exceed the natural assimilative capacity of these systems,
wedand and riparian areas become stressed and may be degraded or destroyed. Therefore, wetlands and riparian
areas should be protected from changes that would degrade their existing functions. Furthermore, degraded wetlands
and riparian areas should be restored, where possible, to serve an NPS pollution abatement function.

EPA-840-8-,92-002 January 1993 7-5

L Introduction Chapter 7

2. Vegetated Buffers

For the purpose of this guidance, vegetated buffers are defined as:

Strips of vegetation separating a waterbody from a land use that could act as a nonpoint pollution source.
Vegetated buffers (or simply buffers) are variable in width and can range in function from a vegetated
filter strip to a wetland or riparian area.

This term is currently used inmany contexts, and there is no agreement on any single concept of what constitutes
a buffer, what activities are acceptable in a buffer zone, or what is an appropriate buffer width. In one usage, the
term vegetated buffer refers to natural riparian areas that are either set aside or restored to filter pollutants from
runoff and to maintain the ecological integrity of the waterbody and the land adjacent to it (Nieswand et al., 1989).
In another usage, the term vegetated buffer refers to constructed strips of vegetation used in various settings to
remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site (Nieswand et al., 1989). Finally, the term vegetated buffer can
be used to describe a transition zone between an urbanized area and a naturally occurring riparian forest (Faber et
al., 1989). In this context, buffers can be designed to provide value to wildlife as well as aesthetic value.

A vegetated buffer usually has a rough surface and typically contains a heterogeneous mix of ground cover, including
herbaceous and woody species of vegetation (Stewardship Incentive Program, 1991; Swift, 1986). This imix of
vegetation allows the buffer to function more like a wetland or riparian area. A vegetated filter strip (see below)
can also be constructed to remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site, but a filter strip differs from a
vegetated buffer in that a filter strip typically has a smooth surface and a vegetated cover made up of a homogeneous
species of vegetation (Dillaha et al., 1989a).

Vegetated buffers can possess characteristics and functions ranging from those of a riparian area to those of a
vegetated filter strip. To avoid confusion, the term vegetated buffer will not be discussed further in this chapter
although the term is used in other chapters of this guidance.

3. Vegetated Treatment Systems

For purposes of this guidance, vegetated treatment systems (VTS) are defined to include either of the following or
a combination of both: vegetated filter strips and constructed wetlands. Both of these systems have been defined
in the scientific literature and have been studied individually to determine their effectiveness in NPS pollutant
removal.

In this guidance, vegetatedfilter strips (VFS) are defined as (Dillaha et al., 1989a):

Created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from surface water runoff
by filtration, deposition, infiltration, adsorption, absorption, decomposition, and volatilization. A vegetated
filter strip is an area that maintains soil aeration as opposed to a wetland that, at times, exhibits anaerobic
soil conditions.

In this guidance, constructed wetlands are defined as (Hammer, 1992):

Engineered systems designed to simulate natural wetlands to exploit the water purification functional value
for human use and benefits. Constructed wetlands consist of former upland environments that have been
modified to create poorly drained soils and wetlands flora and fauna for the primary purpose of
contaminant or pollutant removal from wastewaters or runoff. Constructed wetlands are essentially
wastewater treatment systems and are designed and operated as such though many systems do support
other functional values.

In areas where naturally occurring wetlands or riparian areas do not exist, VTS can be designed and constructed to
perform some of the same functions. When such engineered systems are installed for a specific NPS-related purpose,
however, they may not offer the same range of functions that naturally occurring wetlands or riparian areas offer.

7-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 L Introduction

egetated treatment systems have been installed in a wide range of settings, including cropland, pastureland, forests,
and developed, as well as developing, urban areas, where the systems can perform a complementary function of
vsediment control and surface water runoff management. Practices for use of vegetated treatment systems are
discussed in other chapters of this guidance, and VTS should be considered to have wide-ranging applicability to
various NPS categories.

When properly installed and maintained, VFS have been shown to effectively prevent the entry of sediment,
sediment-bound pollutants, and nutrients into waterbodies. Vegetated filter strips reduce NPS pollutants primarily
by filtering water passing over or through the strips. Properly designed and maintained vegetated filter strips can
substantially reduce the delivery of sediment and some nutrients to coastal waters from nonpoint sources. With
proper planning and maintenance, vegetated filter strips can be a beneficial part of a network of NPS pollution
control measures for a particular site. Vegetated filter strips are often coupled with practices that reduce nutrient
inputs, minimize soil erosion, or collect runoff. Where wildlife needs are factored into the design, vegetated filter
strips or buffers in urban areas can add to the urban environment by providing wildlife nesting and feeding sites, in
addition to serving as a pollution control measure. However, some vegetated filter strips require maintenance such
as mowing of grass or removal of accumulated sediment. These and other maintenance activities may preclude much
of their value for wildlife, for example by disturbing or destroying nesting sites.

Constructed wetlands are designed to mimic the pollutant-removal functions of natural wetlands but usually lack
aquatic habitat functions and-are not intended to provide species diversity. Pollutant removal in constructed wetlands
is accomplished by several mechanisms, including sediment trapping, plant uptake, bacteria] decomposition, and
adsorption. Properly designed constructed wetlands filter and settle suspended solids. Wetland vegetation used in
constructed wetlands converts some pollutants (i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals) into plant biomass (Watson
et al., 1988). Nitrification, denitrification, and organic decomposition are bacterial processes that occur in constructed
wetlands. Some pollutants, such as phosphorus and most metals, physically attach or adsorb to soil and sediment
particles. Therefore, constructed wetlands, used as a management practice, could be an important component in
managing NPS pollution from a variety of sources. They are not intended to replace or destroy natural wetland
areas, but to remove NPS pollution before it enters a stream, natural wetland, or other waterbody.

It is important to note that aquatic plants and benthic organisms used in constructed wetlands serve primarily to
remove pollutants. Constructed wetlands may or may not be designed to provide flood storage, ground-water
exchange, or other functions associated with natural wetlands. In fact, if there is a significant potential for
contamination or other detrimental impacts to wildlife, constructed wetlands should be designed to discourage use
by wildlife.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-7

IL Management Measures Chapter 7

11. MANAGEMENT MEASURES

. .. . .. . ... .. R: B.
. . . ............ .
... . . . . . .
A. Management Measure for Protection of
Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Protect from adverse effects wetlands and riparian areas that are serving a
significant NPS abatement function and maintain this function while protecting the
other existing functions of these wetlands and riparian areas as measured by
characteristics such as vegetative composition and cover, hydrology of surface
water and ground water, geochernistry of the substrate, and species composition.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to protect wetlands and riparian areas from adverse
NPS pollution impacts. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements as they develop coastal NTS programs in conformity with this management measure and
will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Develr;pment and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

The purpose of this management measure is to protect the existing water quality improvement functions of wetlands
and riparian areas as a component of NPS programs. The overall approach is to establish a set of practices that
maintains functions of wetlands and riparian areas and prevents adverse impacts to areas serving an NPS pollution
abatement function. The ecosystem and water quality functions of wetlands and riparian areas serving an NPS
pollution abatement function should be protected by a combination of programmatic and structural practices.

The term NPS pollution abatement function refers to the ability of a wetland or riparian area to remove NPS
pollutants from runoff passing through the wetland or riparian area. Acting as a sink for phosphorus and converting
nitrate to nitrogen gas through denitrification are two examples of the important NPS pollution abatement functions
performed by wetlands and riparian areas.

This management measure provides for NPS pollution abatement through the protection of wetland and riparian
functions. The permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and approved States under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands. The measure and section 404 program complement each other, but the focus of the two
is different.

The measure focuses on nonpoint source problems in wetlands, as well as on maintaining the functions of wetlands
that are providing NPS pollution abatement. The nonpoint source problems addressed include impacts resulting from
upland development and upstream channel modifications that erode wetlands, change salinity, kill existing vegetation,
and upset sediment and nutrient balances. The section 404 program focuses on regulating the discharge of dredged

7-8 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 H. Management Measures

or fill materials in wetlands, thereby protecting wetlands from physical destruction and other pollutant problems that
could result from discharges of dredged or fill material.

The nonpoint source pollution abatement functions performed by wetlands and riparian areas are most effective as
parts of an integrated land management system that combines nutrient, sediment, and soil erosion control. These
areas consist of a complex organization of biotic and abiotic elements. Wetlands and riparian areas are effective in
removing suspended solids, nutrients, and other contaminants from upland runoff, as well as maintaining stream
channel temperature (Table 7-1). In addition, some studies suggest that wedand and riparian vegetation acts as a
nutrient sink (Table 7-1), taking up and storing nutrients (Richardson, 1988). This function may be related to the
age of the wedand or riparian area (Lowrance et al., 1983). The processes that occur in these areas include
sedimentation, microbial and chemical decomposition, organic export, filtration, adsorption, complexation, chelation,
biological assimilation, and nutrient release.

Pollutant-removal efficiencies for a specific wedand or riparian area may be the result of a number of different
factors linked to the various removal processes:

(1) Frequency and duration of flooding;
(2) Types of soils and slope;
(3) Vegetation type;
(4) The nitrogen-carbon balance for denitrifying activity (nitrate removal); and
(5) The edge-to-area ratio of the wedand or riparian area.

Watershed-specific factors include land use practices and the percentage of watershed dominated by wetlands or
riparian areas.

A study performed in the southeastern United States coastal plain illustrates dramatically the role that wetlands and
riparian areas play in abating NPS pollutants. Lowrance and others (1983) examined the water quality role played
by mixed hardwood forests along stream channels adjacent to agricultural lands. These strearnside forests were
shown to be effective in retaining nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. It was projected that total
conversion of the riparian forest to a mix of crops typically grown on uplands would result in a twenty-fold increase
in nitrate-nitrogen loadings to the streams (Lowrance et al., 1983). This increase resulted from the introduction of
nitrates to promote crop development and from the loss of nitrate removal functions previously performed by the
riparian forest.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this management measure was based on:

(1) The opportunity to gain multiple benefits, such as protecting wetland and riparian area systems, while
reducing NPS pollution;

(2) The nonpoint pollution abatement function of wetlands and riparian areas, i.e., their effectiveness in
reducing loadings of NPS pollutants, especially sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus, and in maintaining
stream temperatures; and

(3) The localized increase in NPS pollution loadings that can result from degradation of wetlands
and riparian areas.

Separate sections below explain each of these points in more detail.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-9

A Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-1. Effectiveness of Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollution Control

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

I Tar River Riparian This study looks at how various soil types affect Phillips, J.D. 1989.
Basin, North Forests the buffer width necessary for effectiveness of Nonpoint Source
Carolina riparian forests to reduce loadings of agricultural Pollution Control
nonpoint source pollutants. Effectiveness of
� A hypothetical buffer with a width of 30 m and Riparian Forests Along
designed to remove 90% of the nitrate nitrogen a Coastal Plain River.
from runoff volumes typical of 50 acres of row Journal of Hydrology,
crop on relatively poorly drained soils was used 110 (1989):221 *-237.
as a standard.
� Udic upland soils and sandy entisols met or
exceeded these standards.
� The study also concluded that slope gradient
was the most important contributor to the
variation in effectiveness.

2 Lake Tahoe, Riparian Three years of research on a headwaters Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau,
Nevada watershed has shown this area to be capable of D. Greenlee, and D.
removing over 99% of the incoming nitrate Brown. 1985.
nitrogen. Wetlands and riparian areas in a Quantification of
watershed appear to be able to 'clean up@ nitrate- Nitrate Uptake by
containing waters with a very high degree of Riparian Forests and
efficiency and are of major value in providing Wetlands in an
natural pollution controls for sensitive waters. Undisturbed
Headwaters
Watershed. In Riparian
Ecosystems and Their
Management
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 175-179.
3 Atchafalaya, Riparian Overflow areas in the Atchafalaya Basin had large Lambou, V.W. 1985.
Louisiana areal net exports of total nitrogen (predominantly Aquatic Organic
organic nitrogen) and dissolved organic carbon but Carbon and Nutrient
acted as a sink for phosphorus. Ammonia levels Fluxes, Water Quality,
increased dramatically during the summer. The and Aquatic
Atchafalaya Basin floodway acted as a sink for Productivity in the
total organic carbon mainly through particulate Atchafalaya Basin,
organic carbon (POC). Net export of dissolved Louisiana. In Riparian
organic carbon was very similar to that of POC for Ecosystems and Their
all three areas. Management:
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 180-185.

7-10 EPA -840-19-92-002 - Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 Management Measures

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source
4 Wyoming Riparian The Green River drains 12,000 Mi2 of western Fannin,T.E., M. Parker,
Wyoming and northern Utah and incorporates a and T.J. Maret. 1985.
diverse spectrum of geology, topography, soils, Multiple Regression
and climate. Land use is predominantly range and Analysis for Evaluating
forest. A multiple regression model was used to Non-point Source
associate various riparian and nonriparian basin Contributions to Water
attributes (geologic substrate, land use, channel Quality in the Green
slope, etc.) with previous measurements of River, Wyoming. In
phosphorus, nitrate, and dissolved solids. Riparian Ecosystems
and Their
Management.,
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 201-205.

5 Rhode River Riparian A case study focusing on the hydrology and Correll, D.L., and D.E.
Subwater- below-ground processing of nitrate and sulfate was Weller. 1989. Factors
shed, conducted on a riparian folrest wetland. Nitrate Limiting Processes in
Maryland and sulfate entered the wetiand from cropland Freshwater: An
ground-water drainage and from direct Agricultural Primary
precipitation. Data collected for 3 years to Stream Riparian
construct monthly mass balances of the fluxes of Forest. In Freshwater
nitrate and sulfate into and out of the soils of the Wetlands and Wildlife,
wetland showed: ed. R.R. Sharitz and
J.W. Gibbons, pp. 9-
� Averages of 86% of nitrate inputs were removed 23. U.S. Department of
in the wetland. Energy, Office of
� Averages of 25% of sulfates were removed in Science and
the wetland. Technology, Oak
� Annual removal of nitrates varied from 87% in Ridge, Tennessee.
the first year to 84% in the second year. DOE Symposium
� Annual removal of sulfate varied from 13% in the Series #61.
second year to 43% in the third year.
� On average, inputs of nitrate and sulfate were
highest in the winter.
� Nitrate outputs were always highest in the
winter.
� Nitrate removal was always highest in the fall
(average of 96%) when input fluxes were lowest
and lowest in winter (average of 81%) when
input fluxes were highest.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-11

Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

6 Carmel River, Riparian Ground water is closely coupled with streamflow to Groenveld, 0. P., and
California maintain water supply to riparian vegetation, E. Griepentrog. 1985.
particularly where precipitation is seasonal. A Interdependence of
case study is presented where Mediterranean Groundwater, Riparian
climate and ground-water extraction are linked with Vegetation, and
the decline of riparian vegetation and subsequent Streambank Stability:
severe bank erosion on the Carmel River. A Case Study. In
Riparian Ecosystems
and their Management
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 201-205.
7 Cashe River, Riparian A long'term study is being conducted to determine Kleiss, B. et al. 1989.
Arkansas the chemical and hydrological functions of Modification of
bottomland hardwood wetlands. Hydrologic Riverine Water Quality
gauging stations have been established at inflow by an Adjacent
and outflow points on the river, and over 25 Bottomland Hardwood
chemical constituents have been measured. Wetland. In Wetlands:
Preliminary results for the 1988 water year Concerns and
indicated: Successes, pp. 429-
438. American Water
*Retention of total and inorganic suspended Resources
solids and nitrate; Association.
eExportation of organic suspended solids, total
and dissolved organic carbon, inorganic carbon,
total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus,
ammonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen;
*All measured constituents were exported during
low water when there was limited contact
between the river and the wetlands; and
eAll measured constituents were retained when
the Cypress-Tupelo part of the floodplain was
Inundated.
8 Scotsman Riparian Nitrate removal in riparian areas was determined Cooper, A.S. 1990.
Valley, using a mass balance procedure In a small New Nitrate Depletion in the
New Zealand Zealand headwater stream. The results of 12 Riparian Zone and
surveys showed: Stream Channel of a
Small Headwater
�The majority of nitrate removal occurred in Catchment.
riparian organic soils (56-100%) even though the Hydrobiologia, 202:13-
soils occupied only 12% of the stream's border. 26.
�The disproportionate role of organic soils in
removing nitrate was due in part to their location
in the riparian zone. A high percentage (37-
81%) of ground water flowed through these
areas on its passage to the stream.
�Anoxic conditions and high concentrations of
denitrifying enzymes and available carbon in the
soils also contributed to the role of the organic
soils in removing nitrates.

7-12 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 /L Management Measures

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

9 Wye Island, Riparian Changes in nitrate concentrations in ground water James, BA, B.B.
Maryland between an agricultural field planted in tall fescue Bagley, and P.H.
(Festuca arundinacea) and riparian zones Gallagher, P.H. 1990.
vegetated by leguminous or nonleguminous trees Riparian Zone
were measured to: Vegetation Effects on
Nitrate Concentrations
�Determine the effectiveness of riparian in Shallow
vegetation management practices in the Groundwater.
reduction of nitrate concentrations in ground Submitted for
water; publication in the
�Identify effects of leguminous and Proceedings of the
nonleguminous trees on riparian attenuation of 1990 Chesapeake Bay
nitrates; and Research Conference.
�Measure the seasonal variability of riparian University of Maryland,
vegetation's effect on the chemical composition Soil Chemistry
of ground water. Laboratory, College
Park, Maryland.
Based on the analysis of shallow ground-water
samples, the following patterns were observed:

�Ground-water nitrate concentrations beneath
non-leguminous riparian trees decreased toward
the shoreline, and removal of the trees resulted
in increased nitrate concentrations.
*Nitrate concentrations did not decrease from the
field to the riparian zone in ground water below
leguminous trees, and removal of the trees
resulted in decreased ground-water nitrate
concentrations.
�Maximum attenuation of nitrate concentrations
occurred in the fall and winter under non-
leguminous trees.

10 Little Lost Riparian Nitrate retention was evaluated in a third-order Triska, F.J., V.C.
Man Creek, stream under background conditions and during Kennedy, R.J.
Humboldt, four intervals of modified nitrate concentration Avanzino, G.W.
California caused by nutrient amendments or storm- Zellweger, and K.E.
enhanced discharge. Measurements of the stream Bencala. 1990. In Situ
response to nitrate loading and storm discharge Retention-Tran sport
showed: Response to Nitrate
Loading and Storm
�Under normal background conditions, nitrate was Discharge in a Third-
exported from the subsurface (11% greater than Order Stream. Journal
input). of North American
�With increased nitrate input, there was an initial Senthological Society,
390/6 reduction from the subsurface followed by a 9(3):229-239.
steady state reduction of 14%.
�During a storm event, the subsurface area
exported an increase of 6%.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 7-13

It. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Welland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

11 Toronto, Riparian Field enrichments of nitrate in two spring-fed Warwick, J., and A.R.
Ontario, drainage lines showed an absence of nitrate Hill. 1988. Nitrate
Canada depletion within the riparian zone of a woodland Depletion in the
stream. The results of the study indicated: Riparian Zone in a
Small Woodland
*The efficiency of nitrate removal within the Stream. Hydrobiologia,
riparian zone may be limited by short water 157:231-240.
residence times.
*The characteristics of the substrate and the
routes of ground-water movement are important
in determining nitrate attenuation within riparian
zones.

12 Little River, Ripa rian A study was conducted on riparian forests located Fail, J.L. Jr., Haines,
Tifton, adjacent to agricultural uplands to test their ability B.L., and Todd, R.L.
Georgia to intercept and utilize nutrients (N, P, K, Ca) Undated. Riparian
transported from these uplands. Tissue nutrient Forest Communities
concentrations, nutrient accretion rates, and and Their Role in
production rates of woody plants on these sites Nutrient Conservation
were compared to control sites. Data from this in an Agricultural
study provide evidence that young (bloom state) Watershed. American
riparian forests within agricultural ecosystems Journal of Alternative
absorb nutrients lost from agricultural uplands. Agriculture, 11(3):114-
120.

13 Chowan River Riparian A study was conducted to determine the trapping Cooper, J.R., J.W.
Watershed, efficiency for sediments deposited over a 20-year Gilliam, R.B. Daniels,
North Carolina period in the riparian areas of two watersheds. and W.P. Robarge.
'-'7CS data and soil morphology were used to 1987. Riparian Areas
determine areal extent and thickness of the as Filters for
sediments. Results of the study showed: Agriculture Sediment.
Soil Science Society of
�Approximately 800/6 of the sediment measured America Journal,
was deposited in the floodplain swamp. 51(6):417-420.
�Greater than 500/9 of the sediment was deposited
within the first 100 m adjacent to cultivated
fields.
�Sediment delivery estimates indicated that 84%
to 90% of the sediment removed from cultivated
fields remained in the riparian areas of a
watershed.
14 New Zealand Riparian Several recent studies in agricultural fields and Schipper, L.A., A.B.
forests showed evidence of significant nitrate Cooper, and W.J.
removal from drainage water by riparian zones. Dyck. 1989. Mitigating
The results of these studies showed: Non-point Source
Nitrate Pollution by
e A typical removal of nitrate of greater than 85% Riparian Zone
and Denitrification. Forest
*An increase of nitrate removal by denitrification Research Institute,
where greater contact occurred between Rotorua, New Zealand.
leaching nitrate and decaying vegetative matter.

7-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janilary 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Welland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

15 Georgia Riparian A strearnside, mixed hardwood, riparian forest Lowrance, R.R., R.L.
near Tifton, Georgia, set in an agricultural Todd, and L.E.
watershed was effective in retaining nitrogen Asmussen. 1983.
(67%), phosphorus (25%), calcium (42%), and Waterbome Nutrient
magnesium (22%). Nitrogen was removed from Budgets for the
subsurface water by plant uptake and microbial Riparian Zone of an
processes. Riparian land use was also shown to Agricultural Watershed.
affect the nutrient removal characteristics of the Agriculture,
riparian area. Forested areas were more effective Ecosystems and
in nutrient removal than pasture areas, which were Environment, 10:371-
more effective than croplands. 384.

16 North Carolina Riparian Riparian forests are effective as sediment and Cooper, J. R., J. W.
nutrient (N and P) filters. The optimal width of a Gilliam, and T. C.
riparian forest for effective filtering is based on the Jacobs. 1986. Riparian
contributing area, slope, and cultural practices on Areas as a Control of
adjacent fields. Nonpoint Pollutants.
In Watershed
Research
Perspectives, ed. D.
Correll, Smithsonian
Institution Press,
Washington, DC.

17 Unknown Riparian A riparian forest acted as an efficient sediment Karr, J.R., and O.T.
trap for most observed flow rates, but in extreme Gorman. 1975. Effects
storm events suspended solids were exported from of Land Treatment on
the riparian area. the Aquatic
Environment. In U.S.
EPA Non-Point Source
Pollution Seminar, pp.
4-1 to 4-18. U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA
905/9-75-007.

18 Arkansas Riparian The Army Corps of Engineers studied a 20-mile Stuart, G., and J.
stretch of the Cashe River in Arkansas where Greis. 1991. Role of
floodplain deposition reduced suspended solids by Riparian Forests in
50%, nitrates by 80%, and phosphates by 50%. Water Quality on
Agricultural
Watersheds,

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 7-15

l/. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

19 Maryland Riparian Phosphorus export from the forest was nearly Peterjohn, W.T., and
evenly divided between surface runoff (59%) and D.L. Correll. 1984.
ground-water flow (41 %), for a total P removal of Nutrient Dynamics in
80%. The mean annual concentration of dissolved an Agricultural
total P changed little in surface runoff. Most of the Watershed:
concentration changes occurred during the first 19 Observations on the
m of the riparian forest for both dissolved and Role of a Riparian
particulate pollutants. Dissolved nitrogen Forest. Ecology,
compounds in surface runoff also declined. Total 65:1466-1475.
reductions of 79% for nitrate, 73% for ammonium-
N and 62% for organic N were observed. Changes
in mean annual ground-water concentrations
indicated that nitrate concentrations decreased
significantly (90-98%) while ammonium-N
concentrations increased in concentration greater
than threefold. Again, most of the nitrate loss
occurred within the first 19 m of the riparian forest.
Thus it appears that the major pathway of nitrogen
loss from the forest was in subsurface flow (75%
of the total N), with a total removal efficiency of
89% total N.

20 France Riparian Denitrification explained the reduction of the nitrate Pinay, G., and H.
load in ground water beneath the riparian area. Decamps. 1988. The
Models used to explain the nitrogen dynamics in Role of Riparian
the riparian area of the Lounge River indicate that Woods in Regulating
the frequency, intensity, and duration of flooding Nitrogen Fluxes
influence the n itrogen- removal capacity of the Between the Alluvial
riparian area. Aquifer and Aurface
Water: A Conceptual
Three management practices in riparian areas Model. Regulated
would enhance the nitrogen-removal Rivers: Research and
characteristics, including: Management, 2:507-
516.
�River flow regulation to enhance flooding in
riparian areas, which increases the waterlogged
soil areas along the entire stretch of river;

�Reduced land drainage to raise the water table,
which increases the duration and area of
waterlogged soils; and

�Decreased deforestation of riparian forests,
which maintains the amount of carbon (i.e., the
energetic input that allows for microbial
denitrification).

7-16 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 /1. Management Measures

Table 7-1. (Continued)

Wetland/
No. Location Riparian Summary of Observations Source

21 Georgia Riparian Processes within the riparian area apparently Lowrance, R.R., R.L.
converted primarily inorganic N (76% nitrate, 6% Todd, and L.E.
ammonia, 18% organic N) into primarily organic N Assmussen. 1984.
(10% nitrate, 14% ammonia, 76% organic N). Nutrient Cycling in an
Agricultural Watershed:
Phreatic Movement.
Journal of
Environmental Quality,
13(l):22-27.

22 North Carolina Riaprian Subsurface nitrate leaving agricultural fields was Jacobs, T.C., and J.W.
reduced by 93% on average. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian
Losses of Nitrate from
Agricultural Drainage
Waters. Journal of
Environmental Quality,
14(4):472-478.

23 North Carolina Riparian Over the last 20 years, a riparian forest provided a Cooper, J.R., and J.W.
sink for about 50% of the phosphate washed from Gilliam. 1987.
cropland. Phosphorus
Redistribution from
Cultivated Fields into
Riparian Areas, Soil
Science Society of
America Journal,
51(6):1600-1604.

24 Illinois Riparian Small streams on agriculture watersheds in Illinois Karr, J.R., and I.J.
had the greatest water temperature problems. The Schlosser. 1977.
removal of shade increased water temperature 10- Impact of Nearstream
15 degrees Fahrenheit. Slight increases in water Vegetation and Stream
temperature over 60 OF caused a significant Morphology on Water
increase in phosphorus release fiom sediments. Quality and Stream
Blota. Ecological
Research Series, EPA-
600/3-77-097. U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

EPA-840-9-92-002 January 1993 7-17

it. Management Measures Chapter 7

a. Multiple Benefits

The preservation and protection of wetlands and riparian areas are encouraged because these natural systems have
been shown to provide many benefits, in addition to providing the potential for NPS pollution reduction (Table 7-2).
The basis of protection involves minimizing impacts to wetlands and riparian areas serving to control NPS pollution
by maintaining the existing functions of the wetlands and riparian areas, including vegetative composition and cover,
flow characteristics of surface water and ground water, hydrology and geochernical characteristics of substrate, and
species composition (Azous, 1991; Hammer, 1992; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Reinelt and Homer, 1990; Richter
et al., 1991; Stockdale, 1991).

Wetlands and riparian areas perform important functions such as providing a source of food for a variety of wildlife,
a source of nesting material, habitat for aquatic animals, and nursery areas for fish and wildlife (Atcheson et al.,
1979). Animals whose development histories include an aquatic phase--amphibians, some reptiles, and
invertebrates-need wetlands to provide aquatic habitat (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986). Other important functions of
wetlands and riparian areas include floodwater storage, erosion control, and ground-water recharge. Protection of
wetlands and riparian areas should allow for both NPS control and other corollary benefits of these natural aquatic
systems.

b. Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Function

Table 7-1 is a representative listing of the types of research results that have been compiled to document the
effectiveness of wetlands and riparian areas in serving an NPS pollution abatement function. Wetlands and riparian
areas remove more than 50 percent of the suspended solids entering them (Karr and Gorman, 1975; Lowrance et al.,
1984; Stuart and Greis, 1991). Sixty to seventy-five percent of total nitrogen loads are typically removed from
surface and ground waters by wetlands and riparian areas (Cooper, 1990; Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985; James et al.,
1990; Lowrance et al., 1983; Lowrance et al., 1984; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984; Pinay and Decamps, 1988; Stuart
and Greis, 199 1), Phosphorus removal in wetlands and riparian areas ranges from 50 percent to 80 percent (Cooper
and Gilliam, 1987; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984; Stuart and Greis, 1991).

c. Degradation Increases Pollution

Tidal wetlands perform many water quality functions; when severely degraded, however, they can be a source of
nonpoint pollution (Richardson, 1988). For example, the drainage of tidal wetlands underlain by a layer of organic
peat can cause the soil to rapidly decompose and release sulfuric acid, which may significantly reduce pH in
surrounding waters. Removal of wetland or riparian area vegetation along the shorelines of streams, bays, or
estuaries makes these areas more vulnerable to erosion from storm events, wave action, or concentrated runoff.
Activities such as channelization, which modify the hydrology of floodplain wetlands, can alter the ability of these
areas to retain sediment when they are flooded and result instead in erosion and a net export of sediment from the
wedand (Reinelt and Homer, 1990).

4. Practices

7-18 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

Table 7-2. Range of Functions of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
(adapted from National Research Council, 1991)

Function Example

Flood conveyance Riverine wetlands and adjacent floodplain lands often form
natural floodways that convey floodwaters from upstream to
downstream areas.

Protection from storm waves and Coastal wetlands and inland wetlands adjoining larger lakes
erosion and rivers reduce the impact of storm tides and waves before
they reach upland areas.
Flood storage Inland wetlands may store water during floods and slowly
release it to downstream areas, lowering flood peaks.
Sediment control Wetlands reduce flood flows and the velocity of floodwaters,
reducing erosion and causing floodwaters to release
sediment.

Habitat for fish and shellfish Wetlands are important spawning and nursery areas and
provide sources of nutrients for commercial and recreational
fin and shellfish industries, particularly in coastal areas.
Habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife Both coastal and inland wetlands provide essential breeding,
nesting, feeding, and refuge sites for many forms of
waterfowl, other birds, mammals, and reptiles.

Habitat for rare and endangered species Almost 35 percent of all rare and endangered animal species
either are located in wetland areas or are dependent on them,
although wetlands constitute only about 5 percent of the
coterminous United States.

Recreation Wetlands serve as recreation sites for fishing, hunting, and
observing wildlife.

Source of water supply Wetlands are important in replacing and maintaining supplies
of ground water and surface water.

Natural products Under proper management, forested wetlands are an
important source of timber, despite the physical problems of
timber removal. Under selected circumstances, natural
products such as timber and furs can be harvested from
wetlands.

Preservation of historic, archaeological Some wetlands are of archaeological interest. Native
values American settlements were sometimes located in coastal and
inland wetlands, which served as sources of fish and
-shellfish.

Education and research Tidal, coastal, and inland wetlands provide educational
opportunities for nature observation and scientific study.

Source of open space and contribution Both tidal and inland wetlands are areas of great diversity and
to aesthetic values beauty, and they provide open space for recreational and
visual enjoyment.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-19

A Management Measures Chapter 7

=a. Consider wetlands and riparian areas and their NPS control potential on a watershed or landscape
scale.

Wetlands and riparian areas should be considered as part of a continuum of filters along rivers, streams, and coastal
waters that together serve an important NPS abatement function. Examples of the practice were outlined by
Whigham. and others (1988). They found that a landscape approach can be used to make reasonable decisions about
how any particular wetland might affect water quality parameters. Wetlands in the upper parts of the drainage
systems in particular have a greater impact on water quality. Hanson and others (1990) used a model to determine
the effect of riparian forest fragmentation on forest dynamics. They concluded that increased fragmentation would
lead to lower species diversity and an increased prevalence of species that are adapted to isolated conditions. Naiman
and others (1988) discussed the importance of wetlands and riparian areas as boundary ecosystems, providing a
boundary between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Wetlands and riparian areas are particularly sensitive to
landscape changes and fragmentation. Wetland and riparian boundaries covering large areas may persist longer than
those on smaller spatial scales and probably have different functional values (Mitsch, 1992).

Several States have outlined the role of wetlands and riparian areas in case studies of basinwide and statewide water
quality plans. A basinwide plan for the restoration of the Anacostia River and associated tributaries considered in
detail the impacts of wetlands creation and riparian plantings (USACE, 1990). In Louisiana and Washington State,
EPA has conducted studies that use the synoptic approach to consider wetlands' water quality function on a landscape
scale (Abbruzzese et al., 1990a, 1990b). The synoptic approach considers the environmental effects of cumulative
wetlands losses. In addition, this approach involves assembling a framework that ranks watersheds according to the
relative importance of wetland functions and losses. States are also encouraged to refine their water quality standards
applicable to wetlands by assigning wetlands-specific designated uses to classes of wetlands.

Ob. Identify existing functions of those wetlands and riparian areas with significant NPS control potential
when implementing NPS management practices. Do not alter wetlands or riparian areas to
improve their water quality function at the expense of their other functions.

In general, the following practices should be avoided: (1) location of surface water runoff ponds or sediment retention
basins in healthy wetland systems and (2) extensive dredging and plant harvesting as part of nutrient or metals
management in natural wetlands. Some harvesting may be necessary to control the invasion of exotic plants.
Extensive harvesting for surface water runoff or nutrient management, however, can be very disruptive to the existing
plant and animal communities.

M c. Conduct permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory NPS pollution abatement activities
in a manner that protects wetland functions.

There are many possible programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, to protect wetland functions. Table 7-3
contains a representative listing of Federal, State, and Federal/State programs whose primary goals involve the
identification, technical study, or management of wetlands protection efforts. Table 7-4 provides a list of Federal
programs involved in the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas on private lands. Federal programs
with cost-share funds are designated as such in Table 7-4. The list of possible programmatic approaches to wetlands
protection includes the following:

Acquisition. Obtain easements or full acquisition rights for wetlands and riparian areas along streams, bays, and
estuaries. Numerous Federal programs, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wetlands Reserve,
administered by USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (USDA-ASCS) with technical assistance
provided by USDA's Soil Conservation Service (USDA-SCS) and U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife
Service (USDOI-FWS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service North American Waterfowl Management Plan can provide
assistance for acquiring easements or full title. Acquisition of water rights to ensure maintenance of minimum
instrearn flows is another means to protect riparian/wetland areas, and it can be a critical issue in the and West. In
Arizona, The Nature Conservancy has acquired an instrearn water rights certificate for its Ramsey Canyon preserve

7-20 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 /1. Management Measures

Table 7-3. Federal, State, and FederaYState Programs for Wetlands Identification, Technical Study, or
Management of Wetlands Protection Efforts

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

1 New Mexico Riparian/ This Bureau of Land Management (BLM) USDOI, BLM, New
Wetland document identifies planning strategies and Mexico State Office.
needs for future planning for riparian-wetland 1990. New Mexico
area resource management in New Mexico. Riparian- Wetland 2000. A
Management Strategy.
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.

2 Washington Riparian Riparian areas on BLM lands in OR and WA are Oakely, A.L. 1988.
and Oregon managed by a combination of land-use Riparian Management
allocations and management practices designed Practices of the Bureau
to protect and restore their natural functions. of Land Management. In
The riparian-stream ecosystem is managed as Streamside Management:
one unit, designated as a Riparian Management Riparian Wildlife and
Area (RMA). Riparian areas are classified by Forestry Interactions, pp.
stream order. Timber harvesting is generally 191-196.
restricted from those riparian areas with the
highest nontimber resource values. Mitigation
measures are also used to reduce impacts from
timber harvesting in riparian areas with minor
nontimber values.

3 Pacific Riparian The Bureau of Indian Affairs has no formal Bradley, W.P. 1988.
Northwest riparian management policy because BIA Riparian Management
management must be done in cooperation with Practices on Indian
the tribe. This situation creates tremendous Lands. In Streamside
variation in Indian lands management because Management Riparian
the individual management plans must be Wildlife and Forestry
tailored to the needs of the individual tribe. Interactions, pp. 201-206.

4 Washington Riparian This article discusses the riparian management Calhoun, J.M. 1988.
policies of the Washington State Dept. of Natural Riparian Management
Resources, including design and concerns of Practices of the
Riparian Management Zones. Department of Natural
Resources. In Streamside
Management Riparian
Wildlife and Forestry
Interactions, pp. 207-211.

5 Riparian The Tennessee Valley Authority, since its Allen, R.T., and R.J.
inception, has promoted the protection and Field. 1985. Riparian
management of the riparian resources of the Zone Protection by TVA:
Tennessee River drainage basin. Current An Overview of Policies
policies, practices, and major programs providing and Programs. In
for protection of the riparian environment are Riparian Ecosystems and
described. Their Management
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 23-26.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-21

/L Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-3. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Welland Summary of Observations Source

6 Riparian Riparian zones play a major role in water quality Corbet, E.S., and J.A.
management. Water supply considerations and Lynch. 1985.
maintenance of strearnside zones from the Management of
municipal watershed managees viewpoint are Strearnside Zones on
detailed. Management impacts affecting water Municipal Watersheds. In
quality and quantity on forested municipal Riparian Ecosystems and
watersheds are discussed in relation to the Their Management
structure of the riparian zone. The impacts of Reconciling Conflicting
management are often integrated in the channel Issues. USDA Forest
area and in the quality of streamflow. Learning Service GTR RM-120,
to read early signs of stress here will aid in pp. 187-190.
evaluating how much "management' a watershed
can take.

7 Riparian Construction of small dams, suppression of Stabler, D.F. 1985.
woody vegetation in riparian zones, and removal Increasing Summer Flow
of livestock from streamsides have all led to in Small Streams
summer strearnflow increase. Potential may Through Management of
exist to manage small valley bottoms for summer Riparian Areas and
flow increase while maintaining or improving Adjacent Vegetation: A
habitat, range, and watershed values. Synthesis. In Riparian
Ecosystems and Their
Management Reconciling
Conflicting Issues. USDA
Forest Service GTR RM-
120, pp. 206-210.
8 Queen Creek, Riparian The interrelationships between riparian Szaro, R.C., and L.F.
Arizona vegetation development and hydrologic regimes DeBano.1985.The
in an ephemeral desert stream were examined at Effects of Strearnflow
Whitlow Ranch Dam along Queen Creek in Pinal Modification on the
County, Arizona. The data indicate that a flood Development of a
control structure can have a positive impact on Riparian Ecosystem. In
riparian ecosystem development and could be Riparian Ecosystems and
used as a mitigation tool to restore this critically Their Management
threatened habitat. Only 7 years after dam Reconciling Conflicting
completion, aerial photos documented a dramatic. Issues. USDA Forest
change in the vegetation. The riparian Service GTR RM-120,
vegetation consisted of a vigorously expanding pp. 211-215.
Sonoran deciduous forest of Gooding willow and
saitcedar occupying an area of approximately
17.7 ha.

7-22 EPA-640-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 l/. Management Measures

Table 7-3. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

9 Southwest Riparian Native American and Spanish American farmers Nabhan, G.P. 1985.
of the arid Southwest have managed riparian Riparian Vegetation and
vegetation adjacent to their agricultural fields for Indigenous Southwestern
centuries. They have planted, pruned, and Agriculture: Control of
encouraged phreatophytic tree species for flood Erosion, Pests, and
erosion control, soil fertility renewal, buffered Microclimate. In Riparian
field microclimate, and fuel-wood production. Ecosystems and Their
These practices benefit wildlife and plant genetic Management Reconciling
diversity. The benefits and stability of native Conflicting Issues. USDA
riparian vegetative mosaics are difficult to assess Forest Service GTR RM-
in monetary or energetic terms, but are 120, pp. 232-236.
nonetheless significant.
10 Riparian Many management goals can be developed for Short, H.L. 1985.
riparian habitats. Each goal may dictate different Management Goals and
management policies and tactics and result in Habitat Structure. In
different impacts on wildlife. Vegetation structure Riparian Ecosystems and
of riparian areas, expressed in terms of habitat Their Management
layers, can provide a useful framework for Reconciling Conflicting
developing effective strategies for a variety of Issues. USDA Forest
management goals because many different land Service GTR RM- 120,
uses can be associated with habitat layers. pp. 232-236.
Well-developed goals are essential both for
purposeful habitat management and for
monitoring the impacts of different land uses on
habitats.

I I Maine Riparian Riparian zones serve important functions for Moring, J.R., G.C.
fisheries and aquatic systems: shading, bank Carman, and D.M.
stability, prevention of excess sedimentation, Mullen. 1985. The Value
overhanging cover for fish, and energy input from of Riparian Zones for
invertebrates and allochtonous material. Impacts Protecting Aquatic
from loss of riparian areas are discussed in Systems: General
relation to aquatic ecosystems, and the results of Concerns and Recent
two recent studies in Maine are reviewed. Intact Studies in Maine. In
riparian zones have inherent values to aquatic Riparian Ecosystems and
systems and though 23-m intact riparian strips Their Management.,
are often recommended for stream protection, Reconciling Conflicting
wildliie biologists are often recommending wider Issues. USDA Forest
zones because of their value as animal corridors Service GTA RM-120,
and winter deer yards. pp. 315-319.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-23

I/. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-3. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

12 Siskiyou Riparian The Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon has Anderson, M.T. 1985.
National managed riparian areas along the Pacific coast Riparian Management of
Forest where high-value conifers stand near streams Coastal Pacific
bearing salmonid fisheries. Riparian areas are Ecosystems. In Riparian
managed by setting objectives that allow for Ecosystems and Their
limited timber harvest along with stream Management Reconciling
protection. The annual sale quantity from the Conflicting Issues. USDA
forest is reduced by 13% to protect riparian Forest Service GTR RM-
areas and the fishery resource. Typically, timber 120, pp. 364-368.
harvest will remove 40-50% of the standing
timber volume within nonfish-bearing riparian
areas and 0-10% along streams that support
f ish.

13 California Riparian A riparian reserve has been established on the Dawson, K.J., and G.E.
UC Davis campus. The 80-acre Putah Cr. Sutter. 1985. Research
Reserve offers the opportunity to research issues Issues in Riparian
related to the typically leveed floodways that flow Landscape Planning. In
through California's agricultural landscape. With Riparian Ecosystems and
over 90% of the original riparian systems of Their Management
California completely eliminated, the remaining Reconciling Conflicting
.altered "systems represent environmental Issues. USDA Forest
corridors of significant value to conservation. Service GTR RM-120,
The key to improving the habitat value of these pp. 408-412.
systems is researching floodway management
alternatives that use an integrated approach.
14 Pacific Riparian Since 1970 the National Forests in Oregon and Swank, G.W. 1985.
Northwest Washington have been operating under a Streamside Management
Regionally developed streamside management Units in the Pacific
unit (SMU) concept, which is essentially a stream Northwest. In Riparian
classification system based on the use made of Ecosystems and Their
the water with specific water quality objectives Management Reconciling
established for each of the four classes of Conflicting Issues. USDA
streams. Inherent in the concept is the Forest Service GTR RM-
underlying premise that the land immediately 120, pp. 435-438.
adjacent to streams is key to protecting water
quality. This land can be managed to protect the
riparian values and in most cases still achieve a
reasonable return of other resource values.

15 Pacific Riparian The USDA Forest Service's concepts of multiple- Vanderhayden, J. 1985.
Northwest use and riparian-area-dependent resources were Managing Multiple
incorporated into a district-level riparian area Resources in Western
management policy. Identifying the degree of Cascades Forest
dependence on forest resource values and uses Riparian Areas: An
on specific characteristics of the riparian area is Example. In Riparian
a key to determining which resources are to be Ecosystems and Their
emphasized during management. The linkage of Management. Reconciling
riparian areas to the aquatic resource and Conflicting Issues. USDA
cumulative processes is integrated into the policy Forest Service GTR RM-
designed to provide consistent direction for on- 120, pp. 448-452.
the-ground management.

7-24 EPA-840-8-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 7 11, Management Measures

Table 7-4. Federal Programs Involved In the Protection and Restoration
of Wetlands and Riparian Areas on Private Lands

Cost Share
Agency Type of Program Program Activities and Funding

U.S. Department of Dredged and fill permit No -Regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
the Army - Army program material into waters of the United States,
Corps of Engineers including wetlands.

U.S. Dept. of the Private Lands No *Provides funding to aid in the restoration of
Interior - Fish and Program wetland functions.
Wildlife Service *Many efforts are targeted at restoring wetlands
that offer important habitat for migratory birds
and other Federal Trust species.

USDOI - FWS North American No *The plan includes the restoration and
Waterfowl enhancement of several million acres of
Management Plan wetlands for migratory birds in Canada, Mexico,
and the United States.
*The NAWMP is being implemented through
innovative Federal- State-private partnerships
within and between States and Provinces.
*Currently, a grants program exists for
acquisition, restoration, enhancement, creation,
management, and other activities that conserve
wetlands and fish and wildlife that depend upon
such habitats. Research, planning, payment of
interest, conservation education programs, and
construction of buildings are activities that are
ineligible for funds under this program.

USDOI-FWS Coastal Wetlands Yes *Provides 50% matching grants to coastal States
Conservation Grants for acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of
Program coastal wetlands.
9States with established trust funds for acquiring
coastal wetlands, other natural areas, or open
spaces are eligible for 75% matching grants.
USDOI - Office of Experimental practices No -Although the agency does not have a cost
Surface Mining programs share program for wetlands restoration, it does
assist coal companies in developing
experimental practices that will provide
environmental protection.
*The agency also pays States for the
reclamation of lands previously left by coal
companies.

U.S. Dept. of No *The national office encourages each State
Agriculture extension service to assist private landowners
Cooperative in the management and restoration of wetlands.
Extension Service Most State extension services provide
information and technical assistance to
landowners.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-25

A Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-4. (Continued)

Cost Share
Agency Type of Program Program Activities and Funding

USDA - Agricultural Conservation Reserve Yes *More than 5,000 ha of wetlands have been
Stabilization and Program restored under the CRP.
Conservation *380,000 ha of cropped wetlands and associated
Service uplands have been reestablished in natural
vegetation under 10-year contracts of up to
$50,000 per person per year.
-The Secretary of Agriculture shares 50% of the
total cost of establishing vegetative cover and
50% of the cost to maintain hardwood trees,
shelterbelts, windbreaks, or wildlife corridors for
a 2- to 4-year period.

USDA - ASCS The Water Bank Yes *Objectives of the program are to preserve,
Program restore, and improve the wetlands of the
Nation.
�The WBP applies to wetlands on designated
farms identified by conservation plans
developed in cooperation with Soil and Water
Conservation Districts.
�Protecting 190,000 ha of natural wetlands and
adjacent buffer areas under 10-year rental
agreements. Annual payments for 1991 ranged
from $7 to $66 per.acre.
�The agency will cost-share up to 75% of the
cost for cover for adjacent land only. These
payments may be made to cover the costs of
installing conseNation practices developed to
accomplish one of the following: establish or
maintain vegetative cover, control erosion;
establish or maintain shallow-water areas and
improve habitat; conserve surface water and
contribute to flood control and improve
subsurface moisture; or provide bottomiand
hardwood management.
eStates participating in the 1992 Water Bank
Program are Arkansas, California, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and
Wisconsin.

USDA - ASCS Welland Reserve Yes &The WRP is expected to restore and protect up
Program to 400,000 ha of wetlands in cropland on farms
and ranches through easements. California,
Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin are currently the only States
participating in the program although
participation by all States is expected by 1993.
*The program currently accepts only permanent
easements and provides a 75% cost share for
such. If in the future less-than-perm anent
easements are accepted, a 50% cost share
would probably be provided.

7-26 EPA-640-0-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 /L Management Measures

Table 7-4. (Continued)

Cost Share
Agency Type of Program Program Activities and Funding

USDA - ASCS Agricultural Yes * The ASCS will cost-share with farmers up to
Conservation Program 75% of the cost of practices that help control
NPS pollution.
� Cost share has been provided for the
restoration of 225,000 ha of wetlands over the
last 30 years for the 'Creation of Shallow Water
Areas* practice.
� Eligible cost share practices include
establishment or improvement of permanent
vegetative cover; installation of erosion control
measures; planting of shrubs and trees for
erosion control; and development of new or
rehabilitation of existing shallow-water areas to
support food, habitat, and cover for wildlife.

USDA - Soil The SCS provides technical assistance to
Conservation private landowners for wetland restoration.
Service

in the Huachuca Mountains. The certificate gives the Arizona Nature Conservancy the legal right to maintain
instrearn flows in the stretch of Ramsey Creek along their property, which in turn preserves instrearn and riparian
habitat and wildlife (Andy Laorenzi, personal communication, 5 October 1992). in turn preserves instrearn and
riparian habitat and wildlife (Andy Laurenzi, personal communication, 5 October 1992).

Zoning and Protective Ordinances. Control activities with a negative impact on these targeted areas through
special area zoning and transferable development rights. Identify impediments to wedand protection such as
excessive street standards and setback requirements that limit site-planning options and sometimes force development
into marginal wetland areas.

Baltimore County, Maryland, has adopted legislation to protect the water quality of streams, wetlands, and floWplains
that requires forest buffers for any activity that is causing or contributing to pollution, including NPS pollution, of
the waters of the State. Baltimore County has also developed management requirements for the forest buffers,
including those located in wetlands and floodplains, that specify limitations on alteration of the natural conditions
of these resources. The provisions call for public and private improvements to the forest buffer to abate and prevent
water pollution, erosion, and sedimentation of stream channels and degradation of aquatic and riparian habitat.

Water Quality Standards. Almost all wetlands are waters of the United States, as defined in the Clean Water Act.
Ensure that State water quality standards apply to wetlands. Consider natural water quality functions when specifying
designated uses for wetlands, and include biological and hydrologic narrative criteria to protect the full range of
wedand functions.

The State of Wisconsin has adopted specific wetlands water quality standards designed to protect the sediment and
nutrient filtration or storage function of wetlands. The standards prohibit addition of those substances that would
1. otherwise adversely impact the quality of other waters of the State" beyond natural conditions of the affected
wedand. In addition, the State has adopted criteria protecting the hydrologic conditions in wetlands to prevent
significant adverse impacts on water currents, erosion or sedimentation patterns, and the chemical and nutrient
regimes of the wedand. Wisconsin has also adopted a sequenced decision-making process for projects potentially

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7.27

l/. Management Measures Chapter 7

affecting wetlands that considers the wetland dependency of a project; practicable alternatives; and the direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts of the project.

Regulation and Enforcement Establish, maintain, and strengthen regulatory and enforcement programs. Where
allowed by law, include conditions in permits and licenses under CWA �401, �402, and �404; State regulations; or
other regulations to protect wetlands.

Restoration. Programs suph as USDA's Conservation Reserve and Wetlands Reserve Program provide opportunities
to set aside and restore wetlands and riparian areas. Also, incentives that encourage private restoration of fish and
wildlife productivity are more cost-effective than Federal acquisition and can in turn reduce property tax receipts by
local government.

Education and Training. Educate farmers, urban dwellers, and Federal agencies on the role of wetlands and
riparian areas in protecting water quality and on best management practices (BMPs) for restoring stream edges.
Teach courses in simple restoration techniques for landowners.

Comprehensive Watershed Planning. Provide a mechanism for private landowners and agencies in mixed-
ownership watersheds to develop, by consensus, goals, management plans, and appropriate practices and to obtain
assistance from Federal and State agencies. Establish a framework for multiagency program linkage, and present
opportunities to link implementation efforts aimed at protection or restoration of wetlands and riparian areas. EPA's
National Estuary Program and the Fish and Wildlife Service's Bay/Estuary Program are excellent examples of this
multiagency approach. A number of State and Federal agencies carry out programs with compatible NPS pollution
reduction goals in the coastal zone. For example, Maryland's Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act encourages
development of comprehensive watershed plans for addressing wetlands protection, mitigation, and restoration issues
in conjunction with water supply issues. In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) administers the
CWA �404 program; USDA implements the Swampbuster, Conservation Reserve, and Wetlands Reserve Programs;
EPA, USACE, and States work together to perform advanced identification of wetlands for special consideration
0404); and States administer both the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program, which provides opportunity for
consistency determinations, and the CWA �401 certification program, which allows for consideration of wetland
protection and water quality objectives.

As an example of a linkage to protect NPS pollutant abatement and other benefits of wetlands, a State could
determine under CWA �401 a proposed discharge or other activity in a wetland that is inconsistent with State water
quality standards, Or, if a proposed permit is allowed contingent upon mitigation by creation of wetlands, such
mitigation might be targeted in areas defined in the watershed assessment as needing restoration. Watershed- or site-
specific permit conditions may be appropriate (e.g., specific widths for strearnside management areas or structures
based on adjacent land use activities). Similarly, USDA's Conservation Reserve Program or Wetlands Reserve
Program could provide landowner assistance in areas identified by the NPS program as needing particular protection
or riparian area reestablishment.

d. Use appropriate pretreatment practices such as vegetated treatment systems or detention or
retention basins (Chapter 4) to prevent adverse impacts to welland functions that affect NPS
pollution abatement from hydrologic changes, sedimentation, or contaminants.

For more information on the technical implementation and effectiveness of this practice, refer to Management
Measure C in this chapter and Sections ILA and III.A of Chapter 4.

5. Costs for All Practices

7-28 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 7 A Management Measures

(1) For implementation of practice "a": costs for mapping, which aids in locating wetlands and riparian areas
in the landscape and determining their relationship to land uses and their potential for NPS pollution
abatement.

(2) For implementation of practices "b" and "c": costs for wetland and riparian area protection programs.

(3) For implementation of practice "d": costs for pretreatment such as filter strips, constructed wetlands, and
detention or retention basins.

a. Mapping

The identification of wetlands within the watershed landscape, and their NPS pollution abatement potential, involves
using maps to determine the characteristics as described in the management measure. These may include vegetation
type and extent, soil type, distribution of fully submerged and partially submerged areas within the wetland boundary,
and location of the boundary between wetlands and uplands. These types of features can be mapped through a
variety of methods.

Lower levels of effort would characteristically involve the acquisition and field-checking of existing maps, such as
those available for purchase from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the National Wetlands Inventory and U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) land use maps (information on these maps is available by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS).
An intermediate level of effort would involve the collection and analysis of remote-sensing data, such as aerial
photographs or digital satellite imagery. Depending on the size of the study area and the extent of the data to be
categorized, the results of photo interpretation or of digital image analysis can be manipulated manually with a
computerized database or electronically with a Geographic Information System. The most costly and labor-intensive
approach involves plane-table surveys of the areas to be investigated.

Three separate costs are reported below from actual examples of recent projects involving wetland identification and
assessment for purposes similar to the goal of the management measure. The examples represent different levels
of effort that could be undertaken in support of practice "a!' under the management measure.

(1) A project in Clarks Fork, Montana, used remote sensing data for identification of wetlands that were
potentially impaired from NPS pollution originating in adjacent portions of the watershed. In addition to
identifying the type and extent of wetlands and riparian vegetation along Clarks Fork and the tributary
streams, the mapping effort categorized land use in adjoining portions of the landscape. The results were
used to identify areas within the watershed that could possibly be contributing NPS pollution in runoff
to the wetlands and riparian areas (Lee, 1991).

Total costs for this project were estimated at $0.06 per acre. The items of work include project
management, collection of aerial photographs, film processing, and photo interpretation (Lee, 1991).

(2) Remote sensing data have also been used as part of a statewide assessment of wetlands in Wisconsin.
The purpose of the project is to determine areas within the landscape where changes are occurring in
wetlands. Three or four counties are evaluated each year. The results are used to provide an ongoing
update of changes to wetlands characteristics such as hydrology and vegetation (Lee, 1991).

Total costs for this project are approximately $0.07 per acre. The items of work include collection of
aerial photography, film processing, photo interpretation, and development and maintenance of a
Geographic Information System (Lee, 1991).

(3) The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has maps for 74 percent of the conterminous United States, 24
percent of Alaska, and all of Hawaii. Wetlands maps have been updated for wetlands assessment in three
areas of Ile southeastern United States. The purpose of the project is to provide current data on the
distribution of wetlands for project reviews, site characterizations, and ecological assessment (Kiraly et
al., 1990).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-29

/1. Management Measures Chapter 7

Total costs reported for this work are listed in Table 7-5. The items of work include staff time, travel
expenses, and per them (Kiraly et aL, 1990).

It is important to note that each of these three cases is presented for illustration purposes only. It is not necessary
to acquire new data or maps to implement the practices and meet the management measure. Existing maps, surveys,
or remotely sensed data (such as aerial photographs) can easily be used. These typically exist in files of State and
local governments or educational institutions. Additional data on wetlands functions, locations, or ecological
assessments can be culled from existing environmental impact statements, from old permit applications, or from
watershed inventories. These sources of information in particular should be evaluated for their usefulness in
categorizing historical conditions.

Where the need for new maps is recognized to meet the management measure, several Federal agencies provide
mapping products that could be useful. Examples include the following:

� USDA aerial photography. Depending on the locality, this photography is available in black-and-white,
color, or color-infrared (color-IR) formats.

� USGS aerial photography. A variety of photo products are available, for example, through the National
Aerial Photography Program (NAPP).

� EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). Some opportunities for cost-shared
projects are available to collect and analyze new imagery on the ecosystem or watershed level (Kiraly et
al., 1990).

b. Wetland and Riparian Area Protection Programs

Examples of programmatic costs for implementing practices "b" and "c" under this management measure include
costs for personnel, the administrative costs of processing applications for permits, and costs for public information
brochures and pamphlets. Since some programs may already be in place, the need for apportionment of existing
programmatic capabilities to NPS-related issues regarding wetlands and riparian areas will vary widely, depending
on the size of the local jurisdiction, the nature and extent of wedand and riparian ecosystems present within the
jurisdictional boundaries, and the severity of the NPS problem. Other programs may need to be adapted to include
NPS-related issues regarding wetlands.

Six separate examples of costs for existing State wetland programs are shown in Table 7-6 for illustrati *ve purposes.
The costs reflect a range of low to high levels of effort, as measured through the assignment of individual full-time

Table 7-5. Total Costs for Wetlands Assessment Project Examples

Location of
Project Cost Item Cost

Northeast Shark River near Slough, Mississippi Four weeks of staff time $2,441
Travel and per them $1,500
Total $3,941
West Broward County, Floridi Six weeks of staff time $3,362
Travel and per them 19ALO
Total $5,762

Swamp of Toa, Alabama Eight weeks of staff time $4,882
Travel and per diem RM
Total $6,882

7-30 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

Table 7-6. Costs for Wetlands Protection ProgramW

State Staffing Budget

Montana One FTE $100,000

South Carolina Three part-time positions $80,000

Alaska Four FTEs $400,000

Tennessee Eleven FTEs $450,000
(Field, clerical, and administrative)

Oregon Fifteen FTEs $300,000
Five seasonal positions
New Hampshire Fifteen FTEs $500,000
Five seasonal positions

8A!l levels of staffing and budgeting were reported by States in response to a questionnaire distributed by the Association of
State Wetlands Managers (ASWMI).

equivalents (FrEs) and the task-specific dedication of discrete levels of clerical and administrative support. A low-
level scenario consists of costs for one FTE. A high-level scenario consists of staffing of 10 or more FlEs,
including clerical and administrative positions.

If the costs for individual FTEs are estimated at $50,000 each, which includes salary plus fringe benefits, then some
of the reported program budgets on the list mentioned above exceed reasonable estimates of salaries. This indicates
that additional funding has been allocated for activities ranging from office support to technical assistance in the
field.

c. Pretreatment

The use of appropriate pretreatment practices to prevent adverse impacts to wetlands that ultimately affect NPS
pollution abatement involves the design and installation of vegetated treatment systems such as vegetated filter strips
or constructed wetlands, or the use of structures such as detention or retention basins. These types of systems are
discussed individually elsewhere in this guidance document. Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of detention and
retention basins. See the discussion of Management Measure C later in Chapter 7 for a description of constructed
wetlands and filter strips. The purpose of each of these BMPs is to remove, to the extent practicable, excessive
levels of NPS pollutants and to minimize impacts of hydrologic changes. Each of these BMPs can function to reduce
levels of pollutants in runoff or to attenuate runoff volume before it enters a natural wedand or riparian area.

Whether these BMPs are used individually or in series will depend on several factors, including the quantity and
quality of the inflowing runoff, the characteristics of the existing hydrology, and the physical limitations of the area
surrounding the wedand or riparian area to be protected.

Costs are reported below for three potential scenarios to implement practice "d" under this management measure.

(1) One filter strip at a cost of .............................................. $129.00

� Includes design and installation of a grass filter strip 1,000 feet long and 66 feet wide.

� Most effective at trapping sediments and removing phosphorus from surface water runoff.

(2) One constructed wedand at a cost of ...................................... $5,000.00

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-31.

H. Management Measures Chapter 7

Includes design and installation of a constructed wetland whose surface area is 0.25 acre in size.
The constructed wetland is planted with commercially available emergent vegetation.

Most effective to remove nutrients and decrease the rate of inflow of surface water runoff into the
natural wetland located further downstream.

(3) One combined filter strip/constructed wetland ................................. $5,129.00

7-32 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 1/. Management Measures

B. Management Measure for Restoration of
Wetland and Riparian Areas
I
Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged and destroyed
wetlands and riparian systems in areas where the systems will serve a significant
NPS pollution abatement function.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States to restore the full range of wetlands and riparian
functions in areas where the systems have been degraded and destroyed and where they can serve a significant NPS
abatement function. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, States are subject to a
number of requirements ai they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with this management measure and
will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States is described more fully in
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance, published jointly by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas refers to the recovery of a range of functions that existed previously by
reestablishing the hydrology, vegetation, and structure characteristics. A restoration management measure should
be used in conjunction with @other measures addressing the adjacent land use activities and, in some cases, water
activities as well.

The term NPS pollution abatement Anction refers to the ability of a wetland or riparian area to remove NPS
pollutants from waters passing through the wetland or riparian area. Acting as a sink for phosphorus and converting
nitrate to nitrogen gas through denitrification are two examples of the important NPS pollution abatement functions
performed by wetlands and riparian areas.

Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas is a holistic approach to water quality that addresses NPS problems while
meeting the goals of the Clean Water Act to protect and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters. Full restoration of complex wetland and riparian functions may be difficult and expensive,
depending on site conditions, the complexity of the system to be restored, the availability of native plants, and other
factors. Specific practices for restoration must be tailored to the specific ecosystem type and site conditions.

3. Management Measure Selection

Selection of this management measure was based on:

(1) The localized increase in pollutant loadings that can result from the degradation of wetlands and riparian
areas (Reinelt and Homer, 1990; Richardson, 1988);

(2) The nonpoint pollution abatement function of wetlands and riparian areas (Cooper, 1990; Cooper and
I

0 Gilliam, 1987; Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985; James et al., 1990; Karr and Gorman, 1975; Lowrance et al.,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-33

11. Management Measures Chapter 7

1983; Lowrance et al., 1984; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984; 9Pinay and Decamps, 1988; Stuart and Greis,
1991); and

(3) The opportunity to gain multiple benefits through the restoration of wedand and riparian area systems, e.g.,
aquatic and riparian habitat functions for wildlife and NPS pollution reduction benefits (Atcheson et al.,
1979; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).

Refer to Section II.A.3 of this chapter for additional information regarding the degradation, effectiveness, and
multiple benefits of wetlands and riparian areas.

4. Practices

a. Provide a hydrologic regime similar to that of the type of wetland or riparian area being restored.

The following list identifies some important information or considerations to address in a restoration project.

� Site history - Know the past uses of the site, including past functioning as a wetland.

� Topography - Map the surface topography, including slope and relief of the existing land surface, and
elevations of levees, drainage channels, ponds, and islands.

� Tide - Determine the mean and maximum tidal range.

� Existing water control structures - Identify the location of culverts, tide gates, pumps, and outlets.

� Hydrology - Investigate the hydrologic conditions affecting the site: wave climate, currents, overland flows,
ground-water dynamics, and flood events.

� Sediment budgets - Understand the rates and paths of sediment inflow, outflow, and retention.

� Soil - Describe the existing soils, including their suitability for supporting wetland plants.

� Plants - Identify the existing and, if different, native vegetation.

� Salinity - Measure the existing or planned salt level at the site.

� Consider the timing of the restoration project and the duration of the construction schedule for installation
activities.

� Assess potential impacts to the site from adjacent human activities.

Restoration of hydrology, in particular, is a critical factor to gain NPS benefits and to increase the probability of
successful restoration.

7-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

M b. Restore native plant species through either natural succession or selected planting.

When consistent with preexisting wetland or riparian area type, plant a diversity of plant types or manage natural
succession of diverse plant types rather than planting monocultures. Deeply rooted plants may work better than
certain grasses for transforming nitrogen because the roots will reach the water moving below the surface of the soil.
For forested systems, a simple approach to successional restoration would be to plant one native tree species, one
shrub species, and one ground-cover species and then allow natural succession to add a diversity of native species
over time, where appropriate and warranted by target community composition and anticipated successional
development. Information on native plant species is available from Federal agencies (e.g., USDA-SCS or USDOI-
FWS), or various State or local agencies, such as the local Cooperative Extension Service Office or State departments
of agriculture or natural resources. Other factors listed below need to be considered in the implementation of this
practice.

Type and Quantity of Pollutant. Sediment, nitrates, phosphates, and thermal pollutants are effectively reduced by
riparian areas. Riparian forests can also effectively remove nitrates from ground water. Eroded materials and
attached pollutants from upslope areas are trapped on the surface. Suspended sediments and attached pollutants are
removed during inundation by floodwaters (Table 7-1).

Slope. Riparian forest water quality functions have primarily been studied on cropland watersheds where slope has
not been a factor. While sheet flow is not required for effective removal of NPS pollution from runoff passing
through a riparian area, concentrated flows must be dispersed before upland runoff enters the riparian area.

Vegetated Area. Nonleguminous hardwoods are the most effective vegetation for nitrate removal. Where shade
is critical, taller conifers may be preferred. The vegetation should be managed to retain larger trees near streams
and denser, more vigorous trees on the remainder of the area. Research has also shown that a naturally rough forest
floor is effective in trapping sediment '1wift, 1111',

c. Plan restoration as part of naturally occurring aquatic ecosystems.

States should factor in ecological principles when selecting sites and designing restoration. For example, seek high
aquatic and riparian habitat diversity and high productivity in the river/wedand systems; look for opportunities to
maximize connectedness (between different aquatic and riparian habitat types); and provide refuge or migration
corridors along rivers between larger patches of uplands (animals are most likely to colonize new areas if they can
move upstream and downstream under cover).

Planning to restore wetlands includes:

Identifying sources of NPS problems;

Considering the role of site restoration within a broader context, such as on a landscape basis;

Setting goals for the restoration project based on location and type of NPS problem;

Replicating multiple functions while still gaining NPS benefits; and

Locating historic accounts (e.g., maps, descriptions, photographs) to identify sites that were previously
wetland or riparian areas. These sites are likely to be more suitable for restoration if the original hydrology
has not been permanently altered.

A few examples of wetland restoration are shown in Table 7-7.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-35

I/. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-7. Review of Wetland Restoration Projects

Type of
No. Location Welland Summary of Observations Source

I The Kattegat, Wetlands The Kattegat, a semienclosed, shallow, and Fleischer, S., L. Stibe,
Swedish west restoration strongly stratified sea area, has experienced and L. Leonardson.
coast increased effects of eutrophication caused by 1991. Restoration of
excessive nitrogen loading. Based on a nitrogen Wetlands as a Means
Vegetation retention model and denitrification studies, the of Reducing Nitrogen
type not following hypotheses will be tested in the wetland Transport to Coastal
specified restoration program: Waters. Ambio.* A
Journal of the Human
� Annual nitrogen retention depends on nitrogen Environment,
load. 20(6):271-272.
� A decrease in the active surface of a wetland
causes an increase in the nitrogen load and
retention per unit area.
� Hydrological loading of a wetland can only be
increased to a certain 'critical' level.
� Nitrogen retention is stabilized as a result of
newly established plant communities and
sediment formation.
� When nitrogen retention is high, denitrification
and sedimentation are the predominating
mechanisms.
� During the winter, high nitrogen load may
counteract low-temperature-limited denitrification.
� If nitrogen transport in a stream is known,
retention in a future restored wetland can be
predicted.

This 5-year wetland restoration study was just
getting under way in 1991.
2 Ballona Wetlands This paper discusses the model used to plan Tsihrintzis, V.A., G.
Channel restoration stormwater detention for site development, and at Vasarhelyi, W. Trott,
Wetlands, the same time to allow wetland restoration. Flood and J. Lipa. 1990.
Marina Del control, restoration of wetland habitat values, and Stormwater
Rey, Los Vegetation quality control of urban stormwater runoff were Management and
Angeles, type not some objectives of the project. This paper Wetland Restoration:
California specified discusses only the model used to engineer the Ballona Channel
plan. Wetlands. In Hydraulic
Engineering. Volume
Z Proceedings of the
1990 National
Conference, pp. 1122-
1127.

1-36 EPA-840-8 92 002 January 1993

Chapter 7 A Management Measures

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Welland Summary of Observations Source

3 Banana Lake Restored As compensation for roadway environmental Powers, R.M., and J.F.
headwater headwaters impacts from the development of a belt loop around Spence.1989.
system, (including Lakeland, Florida, the restoration of Banana Lake Headwater
Lakeland, hardwood was initiated in 1983. Development of the project Restoration: The Key
Florida and was undertaken by the Polk County Engineering Is Integrated Project
herbaceous and Water Resources Division, the Florida Goals. In Proceedings
wetlands) Department of Transportation, and the City of of the Symposium on
Lakeland. Objectives of the restoration project Wetlands: Concerns
include: and Successes, Sept
� Improvement of surface water quality; 17-22, Tampa, Florida,
� Elimination of localized flooding and dangerous pp. 269-279
roadside ditches;
� Restoration of hardwood wetland swamp system;
� Restoration of the premining drainage and
functions of the headwater system.
Postrestoration differences are summarized:
Western basin (average water quality):
- All data in mg/L unless otherwise noted.
' BDL=Below detection limits.
Parameter Change after restoration
Temperature-*C -0.9
pH-units +0.3
DO +1.1
Specific conductance -54
(umhos/cm)
Nitrate-Nitrate as N to BDL
N, Ammonia to BDL
N, Total Kjeldahl -2.98
N, Total -3.03
Orthophosphate as P -0.974
Phosphorus, Total -0.869
Restoration of the western basin was completed in
1985. The following data compare the restored
western basin water quality to the existing (1989)
water quality in the unrestored eastern ditch.
Roadside ditch quality - Lakeland Highlands Rd.:
Western Eastern
Basin Basin
Parameter (Restored) (Unrestored)
Temperature CC) 25.3 22.7
pH-units 7.1 7.1
DO 7.2 7.0
Specific conductance 217 221
(umhos/cm)
Nitrate-Nitrate as N BDL 0.016
N, Ammonia BDL 0.145
N, Total Kjeldahl 1.03 1.48
N, Total 1.03 1.58
Orthophosphate as P 0.233 0.525
Phosphorus, Total 0.571 1.514

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 7-3

I/. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

4 Creekside Wetland In 1972, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers placed Josselyn, M., and J.
Park, Marin restoration; dredged spoils on the Creekside Park site in Buchholz. 1984. Marsh
County, conjunction with the dredging of Corte Madera Restoration in San
California Creek. As a result of citizen pressure, a report on Francisco Bay. A
Cordgrass the feasibility of creating a salt marsh was prepared Guide to Design &
and in 1973. In 1975, the site was acquired and a Planning. Technical
pickleweed committee of local citizens initiated a park plan. Report #3. Tiburon
planting Center for
�In 1975, the Corps of Engineers issued a permit Environmental Studies,
for a small marsh plant nursery area to provide San Francisco State
some initial experience in transplanting cordgrass University. 104 pp.
and pickleweed within the future marsh area.
The permit to excavate for the entire marsh
restoration project was issued in 1976.

�The site plan included removing spoil for
channels, grading upland areas for marsh plant
colonization, depositing excess material to create
islands and upland areas, and creation of public
access.

�After the first marsh plantings failed to germinate
in 1977, a second attempt was made using a
number of different species of cordgrass including
seeds from Humboldt Bay and Spartina marina
from England.

�No records were kept of success or
establishment of marsh plants. However, in
1979, Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abbey, the
landscape architect responsible for the project,
was given an Award of Excellence by the
American Society of Landscape Architects for the
restoration plan.
5 Coyote Creek Riparian/ Until March 1988, all vehicles were allowed to USDA, Forest Service.
and Anza- creek travel on the 29-kilometer route of Coyote Canyon, 1989. Proceedings of
Borrego restoration including the riverine routes. The jeep trail passed the Califomia Riparian
Desert State through the three most significant riparian forests of Systems Conference,
Park, San Coyote Creek and by the early 1980s the impacts September 22-24,
Diego of approximately 1000 vehicles on the riparian 1988, Davis, California,
County, system during busy weekends became too great. pp. 149-152.
California An annual seasonal closure of the entire Coyote
Canyon watershed to all persons and vehicles was
enacted. A bypass route now provides permanent
protection to one of the three riparian sections. A
ban on all vehicles that are not street legal,
including dirt bikes, all-terrain cycles, and many
dune buggies, has caused the traffic corridors to
become filled in with thick stands of willow and
tamarisk, which provide additional avian habitat.

7-38 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 fl. Management Measures

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Welland Summary of Observations ---Source

6 Unknown Wetland This paper presents economically efficient policy Shabman, L.A., and
reforms of national wetlands programs that result in S.S. Batie. 1987.
enhanced maintenance of wetland stocks and Mitigating Damages
accommodation of development pressures. The from Coastal Wetlands
authors' suggestions include a fixed wetlands Development: Policy,
development fee for developers building in Economics and
unprotected areas. These development tax Financing. Marine
revenues then would be used to finance a Resource Economics,
nationwide investment program to aid the 4:227-248.
replacement and management of wetlands created
to offset losses to development. Alternatively,
developers may choose to implement their own
mitigation plans. According to the authors, this
approach would offer more assurance that coastal
wetlands damage will be compensated. Included in
this paper are tables of summaries of costs for the
following conditions:

� Wetland creation with dredged material from
maintenance of navigation projects;
� Welland creation with proposed 25,000- cis
controlled sediment diversions; and
� Wetland creation with uncontrolled sediment
0 diversions.
7 Amana Poplar tree This study outlines 2 years of study of Iowa's Licht, L.A., and J.L.
Society Farm, buffer strips riparian corridors by the Leopold Center. Populus Schnoor. 1990. Poplar
eastern Iowa in riparian spp. (poplar) were planted in buffer strips along Tree Buffer Strips
zones creeks to produce a productive crop and a more Grown in Riparian
stable riparian zone ecosystem. Planting Zones for Non-point
techniques were developed so that roots grow deep Source Pollution
enough to intercept the surficial water and dense Control and Biomass
enough to uptake most available nitrogen before it Production. Leopold
leached into the stream. During the two growihg Center for Sustainable
seasons, the deep-rooted poplar removed soil Agriculture.
nitrate and ammonia nitrogen from soil water well
below Maximum Contaminant Limits.

Tables or graphs for the following data can be
found in the paper:

� Tree survival and stem and leaf growth;
� Total Kjheldahl Nitrogen concentrations;
� Nitrate nitrogen concentrations;
� Ammonia nitrogen concentrations; and
� Total organic carbon concentrations.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 7-39

I/. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Welland Summary of Observations Source

8 Sweetwater Construc- Mitigation for lost wetland habitat is being carried Pacific Estuarine
River tion and out by the California Department of Transportation. Research Laboratory.
Wetlands enhance- The mitigation marshes include the Connector 1990. A Manual for
Complex, ment of salt Marsh, which is a hydrologic link between Paradise Assessing Restored
San Diego marsh Creek and the Sweetwater Marsh, and Marisma de and Natural Coastal
Bay, Nacion, a 17-acre marsh excavated from the 'D Wetlands with
California Street fill' in 1990. The assessment study thus far Examples from
has found that: Southern California.
California Sea Grant,
�Concentrations of free sulfide were greater in the La Jolla, California, pp.
natural marsh compared to only trace amounts in 19-34.
the constructed marsh.
�Nitrogen fixation rates were generally twice as
high in the natural salt marsh than in the man-:
made salt marsh.
�There were two to four times more individuals in
a natural marsh at San Diego Bay than in the 4-
year-old man-made marsh. Abundance of
species was up to nine times greater in the
natural marsh. These samplings were taken at
low marsh elevations. At elevations of 0.5 m
above mean sea level, the numbers of species
and individuals were similar for areas with high
cover.
�The preliminary conclusion was that the USFWS
criteria for fish species and abundance have been
met by the constructed marsh.
�An overall comparison indicated that the
constructed marsh was less than 60% functionally
equivalent to the natural reference wetland
(Paradise Creek Marsh) when comparing water
quality, plant biomass, and number of species
and individuals.
�The report contains detailed tables that provide
the following quantitative data:

-Pore water concentrations of free sulfides;
-Rates of nitrogen fixation;
-Total nitrogen and phosphorus in sediment core
samples;
-Biomass of cordgrass;
-Ammonium levels of pore water samples;
-Mean number of individuals per litterbag;
-Mean number of species per litterbag;
-Number of channel invertebrates found at
sampling stations; and
-Sightings of water-associated birds.

7-40 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

9 Connecticut Created and This report compares five 3- to 4-year-old created Confer, S., and W.A.
natural wetland sites with five nearby natural wetlands of Niering. Undated.
wetlands comparable size. Hydrologic, soil, and vegetation Comparison of Created
data were compiled over a 2-year period (1988-89). Freshwater and
Results indicated that: Natural Emergent
Wetlands in
�Only one created site appeared to mimic the Connecticut. Submitted
hydrology of a natural wetland because of its to Wetland Ecology
connection to a natural water source. and Management.
�Typical wetiand soils exhibiting mottling and
organic accumulation were lacking in created
sites.
�Plant cover was higher in the natural sites
because of their greater maturity.
�The created sites exhibited a slightly higher
number of species. This species richness can be
attributed to the rapid rate of species
establishment on mineral soil substrates. The
small sample size also may have contributed to
the high number of species in the created site.
Egleesinitial Floristic Composition concept, a
model of vegetation development, also explains
the difference in species numbers. This model
assumes a large number of species early in the
development process, which may decrease over
time as a result of interspecific competition.
�Based on observations of bird species diversity
and muskrat activity, creation of comparable
wildlife habitat was achieved at more than one
created site.

The authors concluded that the presence of
invasive species threatens the future of the created
wetlands.

10 Wyoming Riparian Along a degraded cold desert stream in Wyoming, Skinner, O.D., M.A.
zones instrearn flow structures (trash collectors), willow, Smith, J.L. Dodd, and
and beaver are being used to reclaim riparian J.D. Rodgers.
habitat. Trash collectors are intended to decrease Undated. Reversing
strearnflow velocity, causing sediment to be Desertification of
deposited as channel bed material. Willows will be Riparian Zones Along
used to stabilize new channel bank deposition. Cold Desert Streams.
Preliminary results have shown that: pp. 1407-1414.

�Trash collectors have survived 1 1/2 years and
are trapping sediment.
�Channel bed material is rising.
�Beaver are using trash collectors as support for
dams.
�Willow plantings have survived 2 years.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-41

11. Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-7. (Continued)

Type of
No. Location Wetland Summary of Observations Source

11 California Riparian Severe storms of 1978 through 1983 caused Shultze, R.F., and G.I.
considerable damage to streams in California. The Wilcox. 1985.
Soil Conservation Service used several mechanical Emergency Measures
and revegetation techniques to stabilize for Streambank
streambanks and reestablish riparian vegetation. Stabilization: An
Results of evaluations of 29 projects are discussed, Evaluation. In Riparian
and recommendations are made to improve Ecosystems and Their
success. Management
Reconciling Conflicting
Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 54-58.

12 Rio Grande Riparian Riparian ar 'eas continue to be drastically altered, Swenson, E.A., and
River, New usually by human activities. Managers have C.L.Mullins. 1985.
Mexico generally been unsuccessful in using conventional Revegetating Riparian
techniques to replace riparian trees. Experiments Trees in Southwestern
with Rio Grande cottonwood, narrowleaf Floodplains. In
cottonwood, and Gooding willow have shown that a Riparian Ecosystems
simple and inexpensive method for their and Their
reestablishment is now available (i.e., placing large, Management.
dormant cuttings into holes predrilled to known Reconciling Conflicting
depth of the growing season water table). Issues. USDA Forest
Service GTR RM- 120,
pp. 135-138.

13 Savannah Wetland Principal factors that affect seedling recruitment in Sharitz, R.R., and L.C.
River, South mature cypress-tupelo forests include seed Lee. 1985. Limits
Carolina production, microsite availability, and hydrologic onregeneration
regime. Studies on the Savannah River floodplain processes in
in South Carolina show that although seed southeastern riverine
production seems adequate, microsite wetlands. In Riparian
characteristics and water level changes limit Ecosystems and Their
regeneration success. Management of water levels Management ,
on regulated streams must account for species Reconciling Conflicting
regeneration requirements to maintain floodplain Issues. USDA Forest
wetland community structure. Service GTR RM-120,
pp. 139-143.
14 Niger, West Riparian A reforestation project in the Majjia Valley, Niger, Ffolliott, P.F., and R.L.
Africa was undertaken to improve the microclimate, to Jemison. 1985. Land
reduce water and wind erosion, and to produce fuel use in Majjia Valley,
wood. Windbreaks were planted, wood lots were Niger, West Africa. In
established, and trees were distributed to the Riparian Ecosystems
inhabitants. The windbreaks were effective in and Their
reducing wind velocities and, at times, retained soil Management
moisture. Water consumption by vegetation in the Reconciling Confficting
windbreaks did not affect soil moisture in the Issues. USDA Forest
agricultural crop rooting zone. Although fuel wood Service GTR RM-120,
has not been harvested, agricultural crop yields in pp. 470-474.
the windbreaks were 125% of those in the control.

7-42 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 7 H. Management Measures

5. Costs for All Practices

(1) A wetlands/riparian restoration project involving a low level of effort.

The items of work would include (a) clearing the site of fallen trees and debris; (b) application of seed
stock or sprigging of nursery-reared plants; (c) application of fertilizer (most typically for marsh
restoration); and (d) a minimal amount of postproject maintenance until the vegetation becomes
established.

A low level of effort could also include minor adjustments to the existing hydrology, such as the
installation of stop-logs to raise water levels, or improvements to the existing drainage patterns undertaken
to lower water levels (e.g., pulling the plug on tile fields).

(2) A wetlands/riparian restoration project involving a high level of effort.

The items of work would include (a) clearing the site of fallen trees and debris; (b) extensive site work
requiring heavy construction equipment; (c) application of seed stock or sprigging of nursery-reared plants;
(d) application of fertilizer (most typically for marsh restoration); and (e) postproject maintenance and
monitoring.

A high level of effort is distinguished from a low level by the amount of site work required. A high level of effort
typically will require heavy construction machinery, including graders, bulldozers, and/or dump trucks. These pieces
of equipment will be used to accomplish several tasks, such as:

0 Adding additional fill material to the site or removing excessive amounts of on-site material;

0 Realigning the existing on-site substrate to appropriate lines and grades as shown on the design plan; and

0 Realigning existing channels or constructing new channels, diversions, basins, or tidal flats as necessary to
restore preexisting surface water flow characteristics.

In addition to the need for heavy construction equipment to perform the work, a restoration project involving a high
level of effort typically requires more extensive analysis and evaluation of the site before work is started. Site
surveys and preparation of formal design drawings and specifications are frequently necessary prior to starting the
work. Periodic site visits am needed to inspect the work in progress. Spot surveys are frequently necessary to check
the lines and grades of new channels and wetlands planting areas as they are being formed with the heavy
construction machinery. Finally, a high-level restoration frequently requires postproject monitoring and adjustment
as water begins to flow through the recrrated surface water systems in the restored wetland.

The costs for items of work associated with either a low level or a high level of effort are reported below from actual
examples of recent projects involving wetlands and riparian area restoration. The cases cited are representative of
the levels of effort that could be undertaken in support of the practices under Management Measure II.B.

Each of the following examples contains a description of costs as they are reported in the source document. For ease
of comparison, these costs are converted to 1990 dollars, using conversion factors published in the Engineering
News-Record. A full explanation of the conversion factors is contained in Table 7-8.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-43

IL Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-8. Construction Cost Index
(Grogan, 1991)
Year Annual Average Year Annual Average

1975 2212 1984 4146

1976 2401 1985 4195

1977 2576 1986 4295

1978 2776 1987 4406

1979 3003 1988 4519

1980 3237 1989 4606

1981 3535 1990 4732

1982 3825 1991 4775

1983 4066 1992 4946

Note: Engineering News Record (ENR) builds the index as follows:

200 hours of common labor at the 20-city average of common labor rates, plus 25 cwt of standard
structural steel shapes at the mill price, plus 22.56 cwt (1.128 tons) portland cement at the 20-city
price, plus 1,088 board-feet of 2X4 lumber at the 20-city price.

Example: To compute a construction cost increase from 1985 to 1990
(a) Divide 1990 index by 1985 index: 4732/4195 = 1.128
(b) Multiply 1985 cost by ratio: 1985 cost X 1. 128 = 1990 cost.

a. Costs for "Low-Level"., Restoration Projects

The two sources of wetland and riparian plants that should be used in restoration projects are seed and nursery-reared
plant stock. Transplantation of wetland plant materials from other natural ecosystems is not recommended, but
transplantation of young trees and shrubs growing in upland areas for riparian area restoration is acceptable, provided
no other suitable source of plant stock is available. Transplantation of wetland plants is not recommended because
digging up existing wetlands for removal of plant material can cause serious disturbance and dislocation of healthy
systems. In addition, pests, disease, and contaminants can be carried along with the transplants and introduced into
the area undergoing restoration. For this reason, even though it is possible to locate citations in the literature for
transplantation costs, they are not included in the list below.

(1) Costs for a 1982 tidal wetlands project in Chesapeake Bay, Maryland, included seeding and fertilizing salt
marsh cordgrass at $204.85 per acre (Earhart and Garbisch, 1983).

Cost in 1990 dollars ................................................ $253.42/acre

7-44 EPA-840-B-602-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 H. Management Measures

(2) Costs reported in 1979 for tidal wetlands restoration in coastal California included seeding and fertilizing
salt marsh cordgrass at $300 to $500 per acre (Jerome, 1979).

Cost in 1990 dollars .............................................. $470 to 780/acre

(3) Costs reported in 1992 for nontidal wetlands included purchasing and installing nursery-reared plant stock
(emergents) at $2,024 to $2,429 per acre (Hammer, 1992).

Cost in 1990 dollars .......................................... $1,936 to 2,323/acre

(4) Costs reported in 1989 for bottorniand forest restoration using direct seeding were $40 to $60 per acre
(National Research Council, 1991).

Cost in 1990 dollars ......................................... $41.20 to $61.80/acre

(5) Costs reported in 1990 for nursery-reared tree seedlings were $212.50 per acre (Illinois Department of
Conservation, 1990).

Cost in 1990 dollars ................................................ $212.50/acre

As this cost information indicates, nursery-reared plant materials used in nontidal wetland restoration projects are
generally more expensive than plants used in restoration of tidal wetlands. This difference seems to be partly due
to the greater ease with which tidal wedand plants can be grown in nurseries in sufficient quantities for commercial
distribution.

The "law of supply and demand" is another factor influencing the price of these two types of items. Mitigation
requirements for tidal wetlands have been imposed in many coastal regions of the United States since the mid-1970s,
and the commercial market has responded by developing the methods to produce adequate quantities of nursery stock
available at the appropriate planting seasons to meet the demand. The requirements for mitigation of nontidal
wetlands have only more recently been enforced. Thus, in certain geographic areas of the United States, the demand
for these kinds of plant materials from nurseries probably exceeds the supply, resulting in higher unit costs.

Two other factors that influence the costs of seed or plant stock are (1) using exotic or hybrid varieties or introduced
species and (2) purchasing plant stock from properly cerfified and inspected nurseries. When considering the use
of seeds or nursery stock for restoration projects, it is best to consider only strong, nonexotic strains of plant
materials. Many nurseries carry exotic strains of common species, introduced species, or hybrid varieties. These
types of plant stock are intended for use in the home watergarden or in landscaping projects. Always check the
genus and species of the plants found in the natural wedand and riparian systems in the locality and insist on
purchasing these same varieties from the nursery. In addition, several States have inspection and certification
programs for nursery-reared plant stock. For example, the State of Maryland's Department of Agriculture publishes
a Directory of Certified Nurseries, Licensed Plant Dealers, Licensed Plant Brokers (Maryland Department of
Agriculture, 1990). Likewise, the Association of Florida Native Nurseries (AFNN) publishes an annual Plant and
Service Locator (AFNN, 1989). In these cases, plants should always be obtained from properly inspected and
certified dealers. In some regions of the United States, more stringent rules and regulations apply to plant stock
purchased for transport across State lines. Such laws exist in part to minimize the potential for the spread of pests
and disease and should be strictly adhered to.

Obtaining strains of plant material identical to those occurring in natural ecosystems, through properly certified and
inspected plant dealers, frequently results in a slightly higher product cost. However, increased benefits in
environmental protection and project performance will generally justify paying the slightly higher price.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 7-45

It. Management Measures Chapter 7

b. Costs for "High-Level" Restoration Projects

Costs for projects involving extensive site work will vary widely based on several factors, including (1) the extent
and complexity of the work shown on the design drawing, (2) the local availability of construction equipment, and
(3) the degree of difficulty involved in gaining access to the site. In addition, as the examples of restoration projects
listed below illustrate, overall project costs can be considerably increased if the land containing the proposed
restoration project must be purchased before any work is undertaken.

In compiling the restoration costs for the examples listed below, the reported costs for riparian work were frequently
presented in units of linear feet of streambank. For ease of comparison with the other examples, these costs were
converted to dollars per acre by assigning a width along the streambank within which work is assumed to have taken
place.

(1) Costs reported for the 1980 restoration of diked tidelands at the Elk River in Humboldt Bay, California,
ranged from $5,000 to $7,000 per acre. The items of work included breaching of dikes to restore
preexisting hydrology, construction of new dikes at a lower elevation, installation of other drainage
controls, and restoration of tidal wedand vegetation (Anderson and Rockel, 1991).

Cost in 1990 dollars ............... I......................... $7,300 to $10,000/acre

(2) Costs reported for the 1986 restoration of tidal wetlands at three California coastal sites averaged $23,700
per acre. The sites included Big Canyon in Upper Newport Bay, Freshwater Slough, and Bracut (both
in Humboldt Bay). Existing fill had to be removed from the sites before wetlands restoration could be
accomplished (Anderson and Rockel, 1991).

Cost in 1990 dollars ................................................ $26,070/acre

(3) Costs reported for restoration of riparian areas in Utah between 1985 and 1988 were used to compute an
average cost of approximately $2,527 per acre, assuming a strearnside width of 100 feet for the work.
The items of work included bank grading, installation of riprap and sediment traps in deep gullies, planting
of juniper trees and willows, and fencing of the site (Nelson and Williams, 1989).

Cost in 1990 dollars ................................................ $2,527/acre

7-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 7 1/. Management Measures

C. Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

Promote the use of engineered vegetated treatment systems such as constructed
wetlands or vegetated filter strips where these systems will serve a significant NPS
pollution abatement function.

1. Applicability

This management measure is intended to be applied by States in cases where engineered systems of wetlands or
vegetated treatment systems can treat NPS pollution. Constructed wetlands and vegetated treatment systems often
serve a significant NPS pollution abatement function. Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
of 1990, States are subject to a number of requirements as they develop coastal NPS programs in conformity with
this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so. The application of management measures by States
is described more fully in Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval
Guidance, published jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2. Description

As discussed in Section LE of this chapter, vegetated treatment systems (VTS), by definition in this guidance, include
vegetated filter strips and constructed wetlands. Although these systems are distinctly different, both are designed
to reduce NPS pollution. They need to be properly designed, correctly installed, and diligently maintained in order
to function properly.

The term NPSpollution abatementfunction refers to the ability of VTS to remove NPS pollutants. Filtering sediment
and sediment-borne nutrients and converting nitrate to nitrogen gas are examples of the important NPS pollution
abatement functions performed by vegetated treatment systems.

a. Vegetated Filter Strips

The purpose of vegetated filter strips (VFS) is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff and wastewater
by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilization, thereby reducing the
amount of pollution entering surface waters (USDA, 1988). Vegetated filter strips are appropriate for use in areas
adjacent to surface water systems that may receive runoff containing sediment, suspended solids, and/or nutrient
runoff. Vegetated filter strips can improve water quality by removing nutrients, sediment, suspended solids, and
pesticides. However, VFS are most effective in, the removal of sediment and other suspended solids.

Vegetated filter strips are designed to be used under conditions in which runoff passes over the vegetation in a
uniform sheet flow. Such a flow is critical to the success of the filter strip. If runoff is allowed to concentrate or
channelize, the vegetated filter strip is easily inundated and will not perform as it was designed to function.

Vegetated filter strips need the following elements to work properly: (1) a device such as a level spreader that
ensures that runoff reaches the vegetated filter strip as a sheet flow (berms can be used for this purpose if they are
placed at a perpendicular angle to the vegetated filter strip area to prevent concentrated flows); (2) a dense
vegetative cover of erosion-resistant plant species; (3) a gentle slope of no more than 5 percent; and (4) a length
at least as long as the adjacent contributing area (Schueler, 1987). If these requirements are met, VFS have been,

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-47

11. Management Measures Chapter 7

shown to remove a high degree of particulate pollutants. The effectiveness of VFS at removing soluble pollutants
is not well documented (Schueler, 1987).

b. Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are typically engineered complexes of saturated substrates, emergent and submergent vegetation,
animal life, and water that simulate wetlands for human use and benefits (Hammer et al., 1989). According to
Hammer and others (1989), constructed wetlands typically have four principal components that may assist in pollutant
removal:

(1) Substrates with various rates of hydraulic conductivity;
(2) Plants adapted to water-saturated anaerobic substrates;
(3) A water column (water flowing through or above the substrate); and
(4) Aerobic and anaerobic microbial populations.

3. Management Measure Selection

This management measure was selected because vegetated treatment systems have been shown to be effective at NPS
pollutant removal. The effectiveness of the two types of VTS is discussed in more detail in separate sections below.

a. Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips

Several studies of VFS (Table 7-9) show that they improve water quality and can be an effective management
practice for the control of nonpoint pollution from silvicultural, urban, construction, and agricultural sources of
sediment, phosphorus, and pathogenic bacteria. The research results reported in Table 7-9 show that VFS are most
effective at sediment removal, with rates generally greater than 70 percent. The published results on the effectiveness
of VFS in nutrient removal are more variable, but nitrogen and phosphorus removal rates are typically greater than
50 percent. The following are nonpoint sources for which VFS may provide some nutrient-removal capability:

(1) Ciropland. The primary function of grass filter strips is to filter sediment from soil erosion and sediment-
borne nutrients. However, filter strips should not be relied on as the sole or primary means of preventing
nutrient movement from cropland (Lanier, 1990).
1

(2) Urban Development. Vegetated filter strips filter and remove sediment, organic material, and trace
metals. According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, VFS have a low to moderate
ability to remove pollutants in urban runoff and have higher efficiency for removal of particulate pollutants
than for removal of soluble pollutants (Schueler, 1987). .

With proper planning and maintenance, VFS can be a beneficial part of a network of NPS pollution control measures
for a particular site. They can help to reduce the polluting effects of agricultural runoff when coupled with either
(1) farming practices that reduce nutrient inputs or minimize soil erosion or (2) detention ponds to collect runoff as
it leaves a vegetated filter strip. Properly planned VFS can add to urban settings by framing small streams, ponds,
or lakes, or by delineating impervious areas. In addition to serving as a pollution control measure, VFS can add
positive improvementsto the urban environment by increasing wildlife and adding beauty to an area.

b. Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands have been considered for use in urban and agricultural settings where some sort of engineered
system is suitable for NPS pollution reduction.

A few studies have also been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial wetlands that were designed and
constructed specifically to remove pollutants from surface water runoff (Table 7-10). Typical removal rates for

7-48 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

0 0

Table 7-9. Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for Pollutant Removal CII

Total Other
Sediment Total Nitrogen Phosphorus Pollutant
Removal Removal Removal Removal
Author Study VFS Length (m) Vegetation M N M N
Dillaha at al., 1988 simulated feedlot 4.6 orchard grass 79 64 58
runoff 9.1 90 74 68
Dillaha at al., 1989a simulated cropland 4.6 orchard grass 63 50 57
runoff 9.1 78 67 74
Magette at al., 1989 simulated cropland 4.6 orchard grass 72 17 41
runoff 9.1 86 72 53
Young at al., 1980 simulated feedlot 35-41 corn 86 92 91 Total Coliform
orchard grass 66 87 88 70
sorghum 82 84 81 53
oats 75 73 70 81
average 79 84 83 70
NA

Dickey and pumped effluent 91 mixed 73 80/86a 78
Vanderholm, 1981 61 fescuetalfalfa 63 NA
152-457 foxtail 78 71/72a NA
89/85 a
Dickey and pumped effluent 229 NA 39 50/41" NA
Vanderholm, 1981 a05 59 61/63a 16
381 56 66/64a 49
533 80 83/83a NA
Schwer and Clausen, milkhouse runoff 26 fescue, ryegrass, 89 76b 78
1989 bluegrass
Overman and Bermuda grass 81 67 39
Schanze, 1985

NA = not available.
'Total Kjoldahl Nitrogen/arnmonia nitrogen.
bTotal Kieldahl Nitrogen.

A Management Measures Chapter 7

Table 7-10. Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for Treatment of Surface Water Runoff

Lake Orange Tampa
Jackson County Office MWTS
Constituent N N N -N
Total
Solids
Suspended 94 83 63 90
Organic 96 89

Nitrogen
Total 76 30 lu 50
Ammonia 37 32 34
Nitrate 70 75 56
Nitrite 75
Organic (TKN) 34 -8 48
Phosphorus
Total 90 37 54 55
Ortho 78 21 63 33

Metals
Lead 81 75
Iron 33
Nickel 21

Sources: Lake Jackson: Touvila at al. 1987. An evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System and Artificial Marsh on
Nutrient and Particulate Removal from Stormwater Runoff.
Orange County: Martin and Smoot Undated. Tampa Office Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment
Tampa Office: Rushton and Dye 1990. Water Quality Effectiveness of a DetentionlWedand Treatment System and Its Effect
on an Urban Lake.
MWTS: Oberts and Osgood 1991. Constituent Load Changes in Urban Stormwater Runoff Routed Through a Detention
Pond-Wedand System in Central Florida.

Notes: Lake Jackson: Constructed wetland system located in Tallahassee, FL. Consists of a detention pond in series with a sand
filter and constructed wetland. Analysis done in 1985.
Orange County: Wetland and detention pond system in Orlando, FL. Constructed in 1980.
Tampa Office: Constructed detention pond and wetland system located in Tampa, FL. Analysis done in 1989.
MWTS: Constructed detention pond and wedand system located in Roseville, MN. Consists of a detention pond in series
with six wetland cells. Constructed and studied in 1986.

suspended solids were greater than 90 percent (Table 7-10). Removal rates for total phosphorus ranged from
50 percent to 90 percent. Nitrogen removal was highly variable and ranged from 10 percent to 76 percent for total
nitrogen.

Like vegetated filter strips, constructed wetlands offer an alternative to other systems that are more structural in
design for NPS pollution control. In some cases, constructed wetland systems can provide limited ecological benefits
in addition to their NPS control functions. In other cases, constructed wetlands offer few, if any, additional
ecological benefits, either because of the type of vegetation installed in the constructed wedand or because of the
quantity and type of pollutants received in runoff. In fact, constructed wetlands that receive water containing large
amounts of metals or pesticides should be fenced or otherwise barricaded to discourage wildlife use.

4. Practices

7-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 A Management Measures

applying one or more management practices appropriate to the source, location, a nd climate. The practices set forth
below have been found by EPA to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied successfully to
achieve the management measure described above.

a. Construct VFS in areas adjacent to waterbodies that may be subject to suspended solids and(or
nutrient runoff.

A survey of the literature on the design, performance, and effectiveness of VFS shows that the following factors need
to be considered on a site-specific basis before designing and constructing a vegetated filter strip:

(1) The effectiveness of VFS varies with topography, vegetative cover, implementation, and use with other
management practices. In addition, different VFS characteristics such as size and type of vegetation can
result in different pollutant loading characteristics, as well as loading reductions. Table 7-9 gives some
removal rates for specific NPS pollutants based on VFS size and vegetation.

(2) Several regional differences are important to note when considering the use of VFS. Climate plays an
important role in the effectiveness of VFS. The amount and duration of rainfall, the seasonal differences
in precipitation patterns, and the type of vegetation suitable for local climatic conditions are examples of
regional variables that can affect the performance of VFS. Soil type and land use practices are also
regional differences that will affect characteristics of surface water runoff and thus of VFS performance.
The sites where published research has been conducted on VFS effectiveness for pollutant removal are
overwhelmingly located in the eastern United States. There is a demonstrated need for more studies
located in different geographic areas in order to better categorize the effects of regional differences on the
effectiveness of VFS.

(3) Vegetated filter strips have been successfully used in a variety of situations where some sort of BNIP was
needed to treat surface water runoff. Typical locations of VFS have included:

Below cropland or other fields;
Above conservation practices such as terraces or diversions;
Between fields;
Alternating between wider bands of row crops;
Adjacent to wetlands, streams, ponds, or lakes;
Along roadways, parking lots, or other impervious areas;
In areas requiring filter strips as part of a waste management system; and
On forested land.

VFS function properly only in situations where they can accept overland sheet flow of runoff and should
be designed accordingly. If existing site conditions include concentrated flows, then BMPs other than
VFS should be used. Contact time between runoff and the vegetation is a critical variable influencing
VFS effectiveness. Pollutant-removal effectiveness increases as the ratio of VFS area to runoff-
contributing area increases.

(4) Key elements to be considered in the design of VFS areas follow:

� Type and Quantity of Pollutant. Sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxics are efficiently
removed by VFS (see Table 7-9). However, removal rates are much lower for soluble nutrients and
toxics.

� Slope. VFS function best on slopes of less than 5 percent; slopes greater than 15 percent render
them ineffective because surface runoff flow will not be sheet-like and uniform. The effectiveness
of VFS is strongly site-dependent. They are ineffective on hilly plots or in terrain that allows
concentrated flows.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-51

/1. Management Measures Chapter 7

Native/Noninvasive Plants. The best species for VFS are those which will produce dense growths
of grasses and legumes resistant to overland flow. Use native or at least noninvasive plants to avoid
negatively impacting adjacent natural areas.

Length. The length of VFS is an important variable influencing VFS effectiveness because contact
time between runoff and vegetation in the VFS increases with increasing VFS length. Some sources
recommend a minimum length of about 50 feet (Dillaha et al., 1989a; Nieswand et al., 1989;
Schueler, 1987). USDA (1988) has prepared design criteria for VFS that take into consideration the
nature of the source area for the runoff and the slope of the terrain. Another suggested design
criterion that can be found in the literature is for the VFS length to be at least as long as the runoff-
contributing area. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines available in the literature for
calculating VFS lengths for specific site conditions. Accordingly, this guidance does not prescribe
either a numeric value for the minimum length for an effective filter strip or a standard method to
be used in the design criteria for computing the length of a VFS.

Detention Time. In the design process for a vegetated filter strip, some consideration should be
given to increasing the detention time of runoff as it passes over the VFS. One possibility is to
design the vegetated filter strip to include small rills that run parallel to the leading edge of the
vegetated filter strip. These rills would serve to trap water as runoff passes through the vegetated
filter strip. Another possibility is to plant crops upslope of the vegetated filter strip in rows running
parallel to the leading edge of the vegetated filter strip. Data from a study by Young and others
(1980), in which com was planted in rows parallel to the leading edge of the filter strip, show an
increase in sediment trapping and nutrient removal.

Monitoring of Performance. The design, placement, and maintenance of VFS are all very critical
to their effectiveness, and concentrated flows should be prevented. Although intentional planting and
naturalization of the vegetation will enhance the effectiveness of a larger filter strip, the strip should
be inspected periodically to determine whether concentrated flows are bypassing or overwhelming
the BM[P, particularly around the perimeter. The vegetated filter strip should also be regularly
inspected to determine whether sediment is accumulating within the vegetated filter strip in quantities
that would reduce its effectiveness (Magette et al., 1989).

Maintenance. For VFS that are relatively short in length, natural vegetative succession is not
intended and the vegetation should be managed like a lawn. It should be mowed two or three times
a year, fertilized, and weeded in an attempt to achieve dense, hearty vegetation. The goal is to
increase vegetation density for maximum filtration. Accumulated sedimentand particulate matter
in a VFS should be removed at regular intervals to prevent inundation during runoff events. The
frequency at which this type of maintenance will be required will depend on the frequency and
volume of runoff flows. Also, if the soil is moderately erodible in the drainage area, additional
precautions should be taken to avoid excessive buildup of sediment in the grassed area (NVPDC,
1987). Development of channels and erosion rills within the VFS must be avoided. To ensure
effectiveiiess, sheet flow must be maintained at all times. The maintenance of VFS located adjacent
to streams is especially important since sediment bypassing a VFS and entering a coastal waterbody
will cause problems for the spawning and early juvenile stages of fish.

Dillaha and others (1989b) showed that many of the VFS installed in Virginia performed poorly because of poor
design and maintenance. Consider including one or more of the following items in a VFS maintenance program to
make the performance of any VFS more efficient:

Adding a stone trench to spread water effectively across the surface of the filter;
Keeping the VFS carefully shaped to ensure sheet flow;
Inspecting for damage following major storm events; and
Removing any accumulation of sediment.

7-52 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januafy 1993

Chapter 7 11. Management Measures

M b. Construct properly engineered systems of wetlands for NPS pollution control. Manage these
systems to avoid negative impacts on surrounding ecosystems or ground water.

Several factors must be considered in the design and construction of an artificial wedand to ensure the maximum
performance of the facility for pollutant removal:

Hydrology. The most important variable in constructed wedand design is hydrology. If the proper hydrologic
conditions are developed, the chemical and biological conditions will, to a degree, respond accordingly (Mitsch and
Gosselink, 1986).

Soils. The underlying soils in a wedand vary in their ability to support vegetation, to prevent percolation of surface
water into the ground water, and to provide active exchange sites for adsorption of constituents like phosphorus and
metals.

Vegetation. The types of vegetation used in constructed wetlands depend on the region and climate of the
constructed wedand (Mitsch, 1977). When possible, use native plant species or nortinvasive species to avoid negative
impacts to nearby natural wedand areas. There are several guides for the selection of wedand plants such as the
Midwestern Guide to Flora (USDA) or the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's list of suggested
wedand species.

Influent Water Quality. Characterization of influent water quality, such as the types and magnitude of the
pollutants, will determine the design characteristics of the constructed wetland.

Geometry. The size and shape of the constructed wetland will influence the detention time of the wedand, the flow
rate of surface water runoff moving through the system, and the pollutant removal effectiveness under "typical"
conditions.

Pretreatment. Constructed wetlands should contain forebays to trap sediment before runoff enters the vegetated
area of the constructed wedand system. Baffles and diversions should be strategically placed to prevent trapped
sediment from becoming resuspended during subsequent storm events prior to cleanout.

Maintenance. Constructed wetlands need to be maintained for optimal performance. Since pollutant removal is
the primary objective of the constructed wedand, vegetation and sediment removal are two of the more important
maintenance considerations. Properly designed constructed wetlands should not need any maintenance of vegetation.
Constructed wetlands must be managed to avoid any negative impacts to wildlife and surrounding areas. For
example, non-native or undesirable plant species must be kept out of adjacent wetlands or riparian areas.
Contamination of sediments due to toxics entering the constructed wedand must also be controlled. The Kesterson
National Wildlife Refuge in California is an excellent example of a case in which selenium contamination in wedand
sediments was found to cause deaths and deformities in visiting waterfowl (Ohlendorf et al., 1986). Forebays and
deep water areas should be inspected periodically, and excess sediment should be removed from the system and
disposed of in an appropriate manner. Other routine maintenance requirements include wildlife management,
mosquito control, and debris and litter removal (Mitsch, 1990; Schueler, 1987). As debris and litter collect in the
detention basins and vegetated areas, they need to be routinely removed to prevent channelization and outflow
blockage from occurring. The area around the constructed wedand should be mowed periodically to keep a healthy
stand of grass or other desirable vegetation growing. Structural repairs and erosion control should also be done when
needed.

Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands

Table 7-10 summarizes the pollutant-removal effectiveness of constructed wetland systems built for treatment of
surface water runoff. In general, constructed wetland systems designed for treatment of NPS pollution in surface
water runoff were effective at removing suspended solids and pollutants that attach to solids and soil particles (refer
to Table 7-10). The constructed wedand systems were not as effective at removing dissolved pollutants and those
pollutants that dissolve under conditions found in the wetland. When the overall effectiveness data are compared

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-53

IL Management Measures Chapter 7

among systems, no discernible trends are apparent. Although attempts to correlate removal effectiveness with an
area or volume ratio have not shown any significant trends, the constructed wetlands listed in Table 7- 10 still served
a valuable role in pollutant removal. Total solids removal ranged from 63 percent to 94 percent among the five
systems. Nitrogen removal was not as effective, with effectiveness ranging from 10 percent to 76 percent.
Phosphorus removal ranged from 37 percent to 90 percent among the constructed wetland systems compared in this
document.

Whether constructed wetlands and VFS are used individually or in series will depend on several factors, including
the quantity and quality of the inflowing runoff, the characteristics of the existing hydrology, and the physical
limitations of the area surrounding the wetland or riparian area to be protected.

A schematic drawing of a system of filter strips and constructed wedand placed in the path of the existing surface
water supply to a stream is shown in Figure 7-2.

5. Costs for All Practices

The use of appropriate practices for pretreatment of runoff and prevention of adverse impacts to wetlands and other
waterbodies involves the design and installation of vegetated treatment systems such as vegetated filter strips or
constructed wetlands, or the use of structures such as detention or retention basins. -These types of systems are
discussed individually elsewhere in this guidance document. Refer to Chapter 4 for a discussion of the costs and
effectiveness of detention and retention basins. The purpose of each of these BMPs is to remove, to the extent
practicable, excessive levels of NPS pollutants and to minimize impacts of hydrologic changes. Each of these BMPs
can function to reduce levels of pollutants in runoff or attenuate runoff volume before the runoff enters a natural
wetland or riparian area or another waterbody.

Several source documents contain information on costs for vegetated treatment systems. Nieswand and others (1989)
published costs for vegetated filter strips employed as part of watershed management strategies for New Jersey.
Costs varied over a wide range depending on whether the method of installation involved seeding, sodding, or
hydroseeding. Another source, of cost information on filter strips is EPA's NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects (1988).

The most comprehensive source of cost data for filter strips was obtained from the USDA ASCS, which provides
cost share reimbursement each year to individual farmers for a variety of practices contained in the National
Handbook of Conservation Practices (1988). Information was obtained from USDX on the costs in each State for
work performed in accordance with Specification No. 393 (Filter Strips) in the National Handbook for the base year,
of 1990. Based on these data, a total of 914 filter strip projects were installed with cost share assistance in 28 States.
The total cost of these projects was $833,87 1.00. The total combined length of all projects was 6,443,800 linear feet.
If an average width of 66 feet is assumed for the filter strip, then.an average cost per acre is calculated at $85.41
per acre, in 1990 dollars.

For constructed wetlands, examples of cost data are as follows:

(1) Lake Jackson, Florida: A cost of $80,769 was reported in 1990 for design and construction of a 9.88-
acre constructed wetland for treatment of urban nonpoint runoff (Mitsch, 1990).

Cost in 1990 dollars ............................................. $ 8,175.00/acre

(2) Greenwood Urban Wetland, Minnesota: A cost of $20,370 was reported in 1990 for design and
construction of a 27.2-acre wetland for treatment of urban nonpoint runoff (Mitsch, 1990).

Cost in 1990 dollars .............................................. $ 748.89/acre

(3) Broward County, Florida: A cost range of $10,000 to $100,000 per acre (1992) was given for
constructing surface water runoff wetlands on sites of new developments. The average cost for

7-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 7 It Management Measures

iarn

transition zone

filter strip

i flow -A

pool outflow

marsh plants

constructed witlifid,

Figure 7-2. Schematic of vegetated treatment system, including a vegetated filter strip and constructed wetland.
(After Schueler, 1992).

constructing a wedand was given as $20,000. The costs represent mucking (depositing organic material
substrate) and planting emergent wetiands plants. Site monitoring adds $10,000 to $12,000 per year for
sites up to 10 acres. (Goldasich, Broward County Office of Natural Resources Protection, personal
communication, July 1992).

Cost in 1990 dollars ............................................... $19,200/acre

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 7-55

A Management Measures Chapter 7

It is important to note that the type of constructed wetland facility described in this guidance is for treatment of urban
or agricultural runoff. To avoid confusion, costs of wetlands constructed for other purposes, particularly for
municipal wastewater treatment, were not considered.

As illustrated by the three examples cited above, the cost per acre of constructed wetlands facilities will vary from
site to site. One reason is that certain items of work have economies of scale that are rather limited. For example,
costs for site surveys, design, gaining access to the site, mobilization of equipment, and installation of sediment and
surface water runoff controls do not necessarily increase in proportion to the size of the project. Other factors that
affect costs are regional variations in suitable plant species, treatment of existing surface water flow patterns, and
detention/retention capacity.

Based on the cost data contained in the source documents, costs are reported below for three realistic hypothetical
scenarios of systems of constructed wetlands and vegetated filter strips.

(1) One filter strip at a cost of ............................................ $ 129.00

0 Includes design and installation of a grass filter strip 1,000 feet long and 66 feet wide.
0 Most effective at trapping sediments and removing phosphorus from surface water runoff.

(2) One constructed wetland at a cost of ..................................... $5,000.00

� Includes design and installation of a constructed wetland whose surface area is 0.25 acre in size.
The constructed wetland is planted with commercially available emergent vegetation.
� Most effective at removing nutrients and at decreasing the rate of inflow of surface water runoff.

(3) One combined filter.strip/constructed wetland ........................... $ 5,129.00

7-56 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 /A Glossaiy

Ill. Glossary

Abiotic: Not biological; not involving or produced by organisms (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Adsorption: The accumulation of substances at the interface between two phases; in water treatment, the interface
is between the liquid and solid surfaces that are artificially provided (Peavy et al., 1985).

Biological assimilation: The conversion of nonliving substances into living protoplasm or cells by using energy to
build up complex compounds of living matter from the simple nutritive compounds obtained from food (Barnhart,
1986).

Biotic: Caused or produced by living beings (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Chelation: The process of binding and stabilizing metallic ions by means of an inert complex compound or ion in
which a metallic atom or ion is bound at two or more points to a molecule or ion so as to form a ring; the increasing
complex stability of coordination compounds caused by an increasing number of attachments (usually to a metal ion)
(Barnhart, 1986; Snoeyink and Jenkins, 1980; Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Chemical decomposition: Separation into elements or simpler compounds; chemical breakdown (Merriam-Webster,
1991).

Complexation: The process by which one substance is converted to another substance in which the constituents are
more intimately associated than in a simple mixture; chelation is one type of complexation (Merriarn-Webster, 1991).

Connectedness: Having the property of being joined or linked together, as in aquatic or riparian habitats.

Constructed wetland: Engineered systems designed to simulate natural wetlands to exploit the water purification
functional value for human use and benefits. Constructed wetlands consist of former upland environments that have
been modified to create poorly drained soils and wetlands flora and fauna for the primary purpose of contaminant
or pollutant removal from wastewaters or runoff. Constructed wetlands are essentially wastewater treatment systems
and are designed and operated as such even though many systems do support other functional values (Hammer,
1992).

Denitrification: The biochemical reduction of nitrate or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular nitrogen or
as an oxide of nitrogen.

Ecosystem: The complex of a community and its environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature; a basic
functional unit of nature comprising both organisms and their nonliving environment, intimately linked by a variety
of biological, chemical, and physical processes (MerTiam-Webster, 1991; Barnhart, 1986).

Filtration: The process of being passed through a filter (as in the physical removal of impurities from water) or the
condition of being filtered (Barnhart, 1986).'

Habitat: The place where an organism naturally lives or grows.

Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian
areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent
waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two land forms; they do not
in all cases have all of the characteristics necessary for them to be classified as wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink,
1986; Lowrance et al., 1988).

Sedimentation: The formation of earth, stones, and other matter deposited by water, wind, or ice (Barnhart, 1986).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-57

/it Glossary Chapter 7

Species diversity: The variations between groups of related organisms that have certain characteristics in common
(Barnhart, 1986; Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Upland: Ground elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Vegetated buffer: Strips of vegetation separating a waterbody from a land use that could act as a nonpoint pollution
source. Vegetated buffers (or simply buffers) are variable in width and can range in function from vegetated filter
strips to wetlands or riparian areas.

Vegetatedfilter strip: Created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and other pollutants from surface
water runoff by filtration, deposition, infiltration, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilization. A vegetated filter
strip is an area that maintains soil aeration as opposed to a wetland, which at times exhibits anaerobic soil conditions
(Dillaha et al., 1989a).

Vegetated treatment system: A system that consists of a vegetated filter strip, a constructed wetland, or a
combination of both.

Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration
to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions; wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (This definition is
consistent with the Federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated December 24, 1980. As amendments are made
to the wedand definition, they will be considered applicable to this guidance.)

7-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 IV. References

IV. REFERENCES

Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sumner. 1990a. Application of the Synoptic Approach to Wetland
Designation: A Case Study in Louisiana, Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.

Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sumner. 1990b. Application of the Synoptic Approach to Wetland
Designation: A Case Study in Washington, Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Seattle, WA.

Association of Florida Native Nurseries (AFNN). 1989. 1989-90 Plant and Service Locator.

Allen R.T., and R.J. Field. 1985. Riparian Zone Protection by TVA: An Overview of Policies and Programs. In
Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April
1985, pp. 23-26. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Anderson, M.T. 1985. Riparian Management of Coastal Pacific Ecosystems. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems
and their Management. Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 364-368. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
GTR RM-120.

Anderson, R., and M. Rockel. 1991. Economic Valuation of Wetlands. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
DC.

Atcheson, J,, E.T. Conrad, S. F*, W. Bailey, and M. Hughes, Jr, 1971. Analysis of Selected Functional
Characteristics of Wetlands. Prepared for the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center.

Azous, A. 1991. An Analysis of Urbanization Effects on Wetland Biological Communities. Master's thesis,
University of Washington. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program.

Barnhart, R.K. 1986. The American Heritage Dictionary of Science. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA-

Bedford, B.L., and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing the Scientific Basis for Assessing Cumulative Effects of
Wetland Loss and Degradation on Landscape Functions: Status, Perspectives, and Prospects. Environmental
Management, 12(5):751-771.

Bradley, W.P. 1988. Riparian Management Practices on Indian Lands. In Proceedings Strearnside Management:
Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions, ed. K. Raedeke, Seattle, WA, 11-13 February 1987, pp. 201-206.
University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. Contribution No. 59.

Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies for Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Wetland Alteration on Water Quality.
Environmental Management, 12(5):655-662.

Brinson, M.M., H.D. Bradshaw, and E.S. Kane. 1984. Nutrient Assimilative Capacity of an Alluvial Floodplain
Swamp. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21:1041-1057.

Burke, D.G., E.J. Meyers: R.W. Tiner, Jr., and H. Groman. 1988. Protecting Nontidal Wetlands. American
Planning Association, Washington, DC. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 412/413.

Calhoun, J.M. 1988. Riparian Management Practices of the Department of Natural Resources. In Proceedings
Strearnside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions, ed. K. Raedeke, Seattle, WA, 11-13 February
1987, pp. 207-211. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. Contribution No. 59.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-59

IV. References Chapter 7

Confer, S., and W.A. Niering. Undated. Comparison of Created Freshwater and Natural Emergent Wetlands in
Connecticut. Submitted to Wetland Ecology and Management.

Cooper, A.B. 1990. Nitrate Depletion in the Riparian Zone and Stream Channel of a Small Headwater Catchment.
Hydrobiologia, 202:13-26.

Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint Pollutants. In
Watershed Research Perspectives, ed. D. Correll, pp. 166-192. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Cooper, J.R., and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus Redistribution from Cultivated Fields into Riparian Areas. Soil
Science Society of America Journal, 51(6):1600-1604.

Cooper, J.R., j.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and W.P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian Areas as Filters for Agriculture
Sediment. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 51(6):417-420.

Corbet, E.S., and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Strearnside Zones on Municipal Watersheds. In Proceedings
Riparian Ecosystems and their Management. Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 187-
190. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Correll, D.L., and D.E. Weller. 1989. Factors Limiting Processes in Freshwater: An Agricultural Primary Stream
Riparian Forest. In Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife, ed. R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons, pp. 9-23. U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology Information, Oak Ridge, TN. DOE Symposium Series
#61.

Dawson, K.J., and G.E. Sutter. 1985. Research Issues in Riparian Landscape Planning. In Proceedings Riparian
Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 408-412.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
CO. GTR RM-120.

Dickey, E.C., and D.H. Vanderholm. 1981. Vegetative Filter Treatment of Livestock Feedlot Runoff. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 10(3): 279-284.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mosttaghimi, and V.0. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of Vegetative Filter
Strips as a Best Management Practice for Feed Lots. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 60(7):1231-
1238.

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Renear, S. Mostaghimi, and D. Lee. 1989a. Vegetative Filter Strips for Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 32(2):513-519.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D.Lee. 1989b. Long-Term Effectiveness of Vegetative Filter Strips. Water
Environment and Technology, November 1989:419-421.
Earhart, H. G. and E.W. Gar@isch, Jr. 1983. Habitat Development Utilizing Dredged Material at Barren Island
Dorchester County Maryland. In Wetlands, 3:108-119.

Faber, P.M., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. M. Massey. 1989. The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the Southern
California Coastal,Region: A Community Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC. Biological Report 85(7.27).

Fail, J.L., Jr., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd. Undated. Riparian Forest Communities and Their Role in Nutrient
Conservation in an Agricultural Watershed. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 11(3):114-120.

7-60 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 IV. References

Fannin, T.E., M. Parker, and T.J. Maret. 1985. Multiple Regression Analysis for Evaluating Non-point Source
Contributions to Water Quality in the Green River, Wyoming. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 201-205. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Federal Register. 1980. 40 CFR 230.3, December 24, 1980.

Ffolliot, P.F., and R.L. Jernison. 1985. Land Use in Ma ia Valley, Niger, West Africa. In Proceedings Riparian
j
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 470-4745.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
CO. GTR RM-120.

Fleischer, S., L. Stibe, and L. Leonardson. 1991. Restoration of Wetlands as a Means of Reducing Nitrogen
Transport to Coastal Waters. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 20(6):271-272.

Groenveld, D.P., and E. Griepentrog. 1985. Interdependence of Groundwater, Riparian Vegetation, and Strearnbank
Stability: A Case Study. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues,
Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 44-48. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Grogan, T. 1991. Cost Index History. Engineering News-Record, 226(12):46-51.

Hammer, D.A. 1992. Designing Constructed Wetlands Systems to Treat Agricultur@l Nonpoint Source Pollution.
Ecological Engineering, 1(1992): 49-82.

Hammer, D.A., B.P. Pullin, and J.T. Watson. 1980. Constructed Wetlands for Livestock Waste Treatment.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN.

Hanson, J.S., G.P. Malanson, and M.P. Armstrong. 1990. Landscape Fragmentation and Dispersal in a Model of
Riparian Forest Dynamics. Ecological Modeling, 49(1990):277-296.

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1990. Forestry Development Cost-Share Program. Illinois Administrative
Code, Title 17, Chapter I, Subi:hapter d, Part 1536.

Jacobs, T.C., and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian Losses of Nitrate from Agricultural Drainage Waters. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 14(4):472-478.

James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and P.H. Gallagher. 1990. Riparian Zone Vegetation Effects on Nitrate Concentrations
in Shallow Groundwater. Submitted for publication in the Proceedings of the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Research
Conference. University of Maryland, Soil Chemistry Laboratory, College Park, MD.

Jerome, L.E. 1979. Marsh Restoration: Economic Rewards of a Healthy Salt Marsh. Oceans, January 1979.

Josselyn, M., and J. Buchholz. 1984. Marsh Restoration in San Francisco, Bay: A Guide to Design & Planning.
Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University. Technical Report No. 3.

Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on Water Quality
and Stream Biota. Ecological Research Series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-
600/3-77-097.

Karr, J.R., and O.T. Gorman. 1975. Effects of Land Treatment on the Aquatic En vironment. In U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Non-Point Source Pollution Seminar, pp. 4-1 to 4-18. Washington, DC. EPA 905/9-75-007.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-61

IV. References Chapter 7

Kiraly, S.J., F.A. Cross, and J.D. Buffington. 1990. Federal Coastal Wetland Mapping Programs. U.S. Department
of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biological Report 90(18).

Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morris, LF. Nix, and J.W. Barko. 1989. Modification of Riverine Water Quality by an Adjacent
Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. In Proceedings Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, FL, 17-
22 September 1989, pp. 429-438. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. TPS 89-3.

Lambou, V.W. 1985. Aquatic Organic Carbon and Nutrient Fluxes, Water Quality, and Aquatic Productivity in the
Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management. Reconciling Conflicting
Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 180-185. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Lanier, A.L. 1990. Database for Evaluating the Water Quality Effectiveness of Best Management Practices. North
Carolina State University, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Chapel Hill, NC.
Lee, K.H. 1991. Wetlaril Detection Methods Investigation. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. EPA/600/4-91/014.

Licht, L.A., and J.L. Schnoor. 1990. Poplar Tree Buffer Strips Grown in Riparian Zones for Non-point Source
Pollution Control and Biomass Production. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen. 1983. Waterbome Nutrient Budgets for the Riparian Zone of an
Agricultural Watershed. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 10:371-384.

Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen. 1984. Nutrient Cycling in an Agricultural Watershed: Phreatic
Movement. Journal of Environmental Quality, 13(l):22-27.

Lowrance, R.R., S. McIntyre, and C. Lance. 1988. Erosion and Deposition in a Field/Forest System Estimated
Using Cesium-137 Activity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 43(2):195-199.

Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and Sediment Removal by Vegetated
Filter Strips. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 32(2):663-667.

Martin, E.H. and J.L. Smoot. Undated. Constituent Load Changes in Urban'Storinwater Runoff Routed Through
a Detention Pond-Wetland System in Central Florida.

Maryland Department of Agriculture. 1990. Directory of Certified Nurseries Licensed Plant Dealers Licensed Plant
Brokers. Annapolis, MD.

Merriam-Webster. 1991. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, MA.

Mitsch, W.J. 1977. Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Nutrient Uptake and Metabolism in a North-Central
Florida Marsh. Archiv. fur Hydrobiologia. 81:188-210.

Mitsch, W.J. 1990. Wetlandsfor the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution: Preliminary Feasibility Studyfor Swan
Creek Watershed of Northwestern Ohio. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH.

Mitsch, W.J. 1992. Landscape Design and the Role of Created, Restored, and Natural Riparian Wetlands in
Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution. Ecological Engineering, 1(1992):27-47.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

Moring, J.R., G.C. Carman, and D.M. Mullen. 1985. The Value of Riparian Zones for Protecting Aquatic Systems:
General Concerns and Recent Studies in Maine. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:

7-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januely 1993

Chapter 7 IV. References

Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-11 April 1111, pp, 111-111* U,S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Nabhan, G.P. 1985. Riparian Vegetation and Indigenous Southwestern Agriculture: Control of Erosion, Pests, and
Microclimate. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,
AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 232-236. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston. 1988. The Potential Importance of Boundaries to Fluvial
Ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7(4):289-306.

National Research Council. 1991. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Nelson, D.R., and R.L. Williams. 1989. Strearnbank Stabilization in Strawberry Valley, Utah. In Practical
Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An Educational Workshop, Billings, MN, 8-11 May 1989, p. 177.
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management.

Nieswand, G.H., B.B. Chavooshian, R.M. Hordon, T. Shelton, S. Blarr, and B. Brodeur. 1989. Buffer Strips to
Protect Water Supply Reservoirs and Surface Water Intakes: A Model and Recommendations. Cook College
Department of Environmental Resources for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Novitzki, R.P. 1979. Hydrologic Characteristics of Wisconsin's Wetlands and their Influence on Floods, Stream
Flow and Sediment. In Wetland Function and Values: The State of Our Understanding, ed. Greeson, Clark, and
Clark, pp. 377-389. American Water Resource Association, Minneapolis, MN.

NVPDC. 1987. BMP Handbookfor the Occoquan Watershed. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission.

Oakely, A.L. 1988. Riparian Management Practices of the Bureau of Land Management. In Proceedings
Strearnside Management: Riparian Wildlife and Forestry Interactions, ed. K. Raedeke, Seattle, WA, 11-13 February
1987, pp. 191-196. University of Washington, Institute, of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA. Contribution No. 59.

Oberts, G.L., and R.A. Osgood. 1991. Water-Quality Effectiveness of a Detention/Wetland Treatment System and
its Effect on an Urban Lake. Environmental Management, 15(l):131-138.

Ohlendorf, H.M., R.L. Hothem, C.M. Bunck, T.W. Aldrich, and J.F. Moore. 1986. Relationships Between Selenium
Concentrations and Avian Reproduction. In Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, pp. 330-342.

Overman, A.R., and.T. Schanze. 1985. Runoff Water Quality from Wastewater Irrigation. Transaction of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 28:1535-1538.

Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory. 1990. A Manualfor Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands with
Examples from Southern California. California Sea Grant, La Jolla, CA.

Peavy, H.S., D.R. Rowe, and G. Tchobanoglous. 1985. Environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, New York, NY.

Peterjohn, W.T., and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural Watershed: Observations on the Role
of a Riparian Forest. Ecology, 65(5):1466-1475.

Phillips, J.D. 1989. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Effectiveness of Riparian Forests Along a Coastal Plain
River. Journal of Hydrology, 110(1989):221-237.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-63

IV. References Chapter 7

Pinay, G., and H. Decamps. 1988. The Role of Riparian Woods in Regulating Nitrogen Fluxes Between the
Alluvial Aquifer and Surface Water: A Conceptual Model. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 2:507-516.

Powers, R.M., and J.F. Spence. 1989. Headwater Restoration: The Key Is Integrated Project Goals. In Proceedings
Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, FL, 17-22 September 1989, pp. 269-279. American
Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. TPS 89-3.

Reinelt, L.E., and R.R. Homer. 1990. Characterization of the Hydrology and Water Quality of Palustrine Wetlands
Affected by Urban Stormwater. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management Research Program.

Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau, D. Greenlee, and D. Brown. 1985. Quantification of Nitrate Uptake by Riparian Forests
and Wetlands in an Undisturbed Headwaters Watershed. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 175-179. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Richardson, C.J. 1988. Freshwater Wetlands: Transformers, Filters, or Sinks? FOREM, 11(2):3-9. School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University.

Richardson, CJ, and J.A. Davis. 1987. Natural and Artificial Wetland Ecosystems: Ecological Opportunities and
Limitations. In Aquatic Plantsfor Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, ed. K.H. Reddy and W.H. Smith, pp.
819-854. Magnolia Publishing Inc.

Richter, K.O., A. Azous, S.S. Cooke, R. Wisseman, and R. Homer. 1991. Effects of Stormwater Runoff on Wetland
Zoology and Wetland Soils Characterization and Analysis. King County Resource Planning Section, Washington
State Department of Ecology.

Rushton, B.T., and C.W. Dye. 1990. Tampa Office Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment. In Annual Reportfor
Stormwater Research Program Fiscal Year 1989-1990, Southwest Florida Water Management District, pp. 39-74.

Schipper, L.A., A.B. Cooper, and W.J. Dyck. 1989. Mitigating Non-Point Source Nitrate Pollution by Riparian
Zone Denitrification. Forest Research Institute, Rotorua, New Zealand.

Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff. A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington DC.

Schueler, T. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments, Washington DC.

Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative Filter Treatment of Dairy Milkhouse Wastewater. Joumal of
Environmental Quality, 18:446-451.

Shabman, L. A., and S. S. Batie. 1987. Mitigating Damages from Coastal Wetlands Development: Policy,
Economics and Financing. Marine Resource Economics, 4:227-248.

Sharitz, R.R., and L.C. Lee. 1985. Limits on Regeneration Processes in Southeastern Riverine Wetlands. In
Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management. Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April
1985, pp. 139-143. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Short, H.L. 1985. Management Goals and Habitat Structure. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 257-262. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM- 120.

7-64 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 7 IV. References

Shultze, R.F., and G.I. Wilcox. 1985.. Emergency Measures for Streambank Stabilization: An Evaluation. In
Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management. Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April
1985, pp. 54-58. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Skinner, Q.D., M.A. Smith, J.L. Dodd, and J.D. Rodgers. Undated. Reversing Desertification of Riparian Zones
along Cold Desert Streams, pp. 1407-1414.

Snoeyink, V.L., and D. Jenkins. 1980. Water Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Stabler, D.F. 1985. Increasing Summer Flow in Small Streams Through Management of Riparian Areas and
Adjacent Vegetation: A Synthesis. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 206-210. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Stewardship Incentive Program. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffer, pp. 29-1 and 29-2.

Stockdale, E.C. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban Stormwater, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: A
Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Stuart, G., and J. Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian Forests in Water Quality on Agricultural Watersheds.

Swank, G.W. 1985. Streamside Management Units in the Pacific Northwest. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 435-438. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
GTR RM-120.

Swenson, E.A., and C.L. Mullins. 1985. Revegetating Riparian Trees in Southwestern Floodplains. In Proceedings
Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 135-
138. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter Strip Widths for Forest Roads in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry, 10(l):27-34.

Szaro, R.C., and L.F. DeBano. 1985. The Effects of Strearnflow Modification on the Development of a Riparian
Ecosystem. In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,
AZ, 16-18 April 1985, pp. 211-215. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Touvila, B.J., T.H. Johengen, P.A. LaRock, J.B. Outland, D.H. Esry, and M. Franklin. 1987. An Evaluation of the
Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System and Artificial Marsh on Nutrient and Particulate Removal from Stormwater
Runoff. In Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.

Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W. Zellweger, and K.E. Bencala. 1990. In Situ Retention-Transport
Response to Nitrate Loading and Storm Discharge in a Third-Order Stream. Journal of North American
Benthological Society, 9(3):229-239.

Tsihrintzis, V.A., G. Vasarhelyi, W. Trott, and J. Lipa. 1990. Stormwater Management and Wetland Restoration:
Ballona Channel Wetlands. In Hydraulic Engineering: Volume 2, Proceedings of the 1990 National Conference, pp.
1122-1127.

USACE. 1990. Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 7-65

IV. References Chapter 7

USDA. 1988. Handbook of Conservation Practices. Supplement. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.

USDA, Forest Service. 1989. Proceedings of the California Riparian Systems Conference, Sept. 22-24, 1988, Davis,
California, pp. 149-152.

USDOI-BLM, New Mexico State Office. 1990. New Mexico Riparian-Wettand 2000. A Management Strategy.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

USEPA. 1988. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report. Status ofAgricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Washington, DC. EPA 506/9-89/002.

Vanderhayden, J. 1985. Managing Multiple Resources in Western Cascades Forest Riparian Areas: An Example.
In Proceedings Riparian Ecosystems and their Management. Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, AZ, 16-18 April
1985, pp. 448-452. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM-120.

Warwick, J., and A.R. Hill. 1988. Nitrate Depletion in the Riparian Zone in a Small Woodland Stream.
Hydrobiologia, 157:231-240.

Watson, J.T., S.C. Reed, R. Kadlec, R.L. Knight, and A.E. Whitehouse. 1988. Performance Expectations and
Loading Rates for Constructed Wetlands. In paper prepared for Intemational Conference on Constructed Wetlands
for Wastewater Treatment, Chattanooga, TN, 13-17 June 1988.

Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of Freshwater Wetlands on Water Quality: A
Landscape Perspective. Environmental Management, 12(5):663-671.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980. Effectiveness of Vegetated Buffer Strips in Controlling
Pollution and Feedlot Runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality, 9(3):483-487.

7-66 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

CHAPTER 8: Monitoring and Tracking
Techniques to Accompany
Management Measures

1. INTRODUCTION

Section 6217(g) calls for a description of any necessary monitoring techniques to accompany the management
measures to assess over time the success of the measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.
This chapter provides:

(1) Guidance for measuring changes in pollution loads and in water quality that may result from the
implementation of management measures and

(2) Guidance for ensuring that management measures are implemented, inspected, and maintained property.

Detailed guidance specific to any particular management measure or practice is contained throughout Chapters 2
through 7 as necessary.

Under section 6217, States will apply management measures to a wide range of sources, including agriculture,
forestry, urban activities, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification. To monitor at minimum cost the
success of these management measures over time, States will need to be creative in the ways that they take advantage
of existing monitoring efforts and craft new or expanded monitoring programs.

Nonpoint source monitoring is generally performed by Federal, State, and local agencies. Universities, nonprofit
groups, and industry also perform nonpoint source monitoring in a range of circumstances. The landowner, however,
rarely performs nonpoint source water quality monitoring.

Section II of this chapter is directed primarily at State agencies, which will be performing or directing the greater
share of water quality monitoring under section 6217. This guidance assumes that the reader has a good
understanding of basic sample collection and sample analysis methods. Section It is heavily weighted toward
discussions of temporal and spatial variability, statistical considerations and techniques, and experimental designs
for the purpose of providing the reader with basic information that has been found to be essential in designing and
conducting a successful nonpoint source monitoring program. The level of detail in this chapter varies by design
to give the reader more or less information on a given subject based on EPA's experience with nonpoint source
monitoring efforts over the past 10-15 years. References are provided for those. who wish to obtain additional
information regarding specific topics.

Section III of this chapter is directed primarily at State and local agencies that are responsible for tracking the
implementation, operation, and maintenance of management measures. This section is not intended to provide
recommendations regarding the operation and maintenance requirements for any given management measure, but is
instead intended to provide "inspectors" with ideas regarding the types of evidence to seek when determining whether
implementation or operation and maintenance are being performed adequately.

By tracking management measures and water quality simultaneously, States will be in a position to evaluate the
performance of those management measures implemented under section 6217. Management measure tracking will
provide the necessary information to determine whether pollution controls have been implemented, operated, and
maintained adequately. Without this information, States will not be able to fully interpret their water quality
monitoring data. For example, States cannot determine whether the management measures have been effective unless
they know the extent to which these controls were implemented, maintained, and operated. Appropriately collected
water quality information can be evaluated with trend analysis to determine whether pollutant loads have been

EPA-840-B-92-LfO2 January 1993 8-1

I. Introduction Chapter 8

reduced or whether water quality has improved. Valid statistical associations drawn between implementation and
water quality data can be used by States to indicate:

(1) Whether management measures have been successful in improving water quality in the coastal zone and

(2) The need for additional management measures to meet water quality objectives in the coastal zone.

8-2 EPA-840-6-92-002 Januaty 1993

Chapter 8 l/. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

11. TECHNIQUES FOR ASSESSING WATER QUALITY AND FOR
ESTIMATING POLLUTION LOADS

Water quality monitoring is the most direct and defensible tool available to evaluate water quality and its response
to management and otherfactors (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). This section describes monitoring methods that can
be used to measure changes in pollutant loads and water quality. Due to the wide range of monitoring needs and
environmental conditions throughout the coastal zone it is not possible to specify detailed monitoring plans that apply
to all areas within the zone. The information in this section is intended merely to guide the development of
monitoring efforts at the State and local levels.

This section begins with a brief discussion of the scope and nature of nonpoint source problems, followed by a
discussion of monitoring objectives as they relate to section 6217. A lengthy discussion of monitoring approaches
is next, with a focus on understanding the watershed to be studied, appropriate experimental designs, sample size
and frequency, site locations, parameter selection, sampling methods, and quality assurance and quality control. The
intent of this discussion is to provide the reader with basic information essential to the development of effective,
tailored monitoring programs that will provide the necessary data for use in statistical tests that are appropriate for
evaluating the success of management measures in reducing pollutant loads and improving water quality.

After a brief discussion of data needs, an overview of statistical considerations is presented. Variability and
uncertainty are described first, followed by a lengthy overview of sampling and sampling designs. This discussion
is at a greater level of detail than others in the section to emphasize the importance of adequate sampling within the
framework of a sound experimental design. Hypothesis testing is described next, including some examples of
hypotheses that may be appropriate for section 6217 monitoring efforts. An overview of data analysis techniques
is given at the end of the section.

A. Nature and Scope of Nonpoint Source Problems

Nonpoint sources may generate both conventional and toxic pollutants, just as point sources do. Although nonpoint
sources may contribute many of the same kinds of pollutants, these pollutants are generated in different volumes,
combinations, and concentrations. Pollutants from nonpoint sources are mobilized primarily during storm events or
snowmelt, but baseflow contributions can be the major source of nonpoint source contaminants in some systems.
Thus, knowledge of the hydrology of a system is critical to the design of successful monitoring programs.

Nonpoint source problems are not just reflected in the chemistry of a water resource. Instead, nonpoint source
problems are often more acutely manifested in the biology and habitat of the aquatic system. Such impacts include
the destruction of spawning areas, impairments to the habitat for shellfish, changes to aquatic community structure,
and fish mortality. Thus, any given nonpoint source monitoring program may have to include a combination of
chemical, physical, and biological components to be effective.

B. Monitoring Objectives

Monitoring is usually performed in support of larger efforts such as nonpoint source pollution control programs
within coastal watersheds. As such, monitoring objectives are generally established in a way that contributes toward
achieving the broader program objectives. For example, program objectives may include restoring an impaired use
or protecting or improving the ecological condition of a water resource. Supporting monitoring objectives, then, might
include assessing trends in use support or in key biological parameters.

The following discussion identifies the overall monitoring objectives of section 1217 and gives some examples of
specific objectives that may be developed at the State or local level in support of those overall objectives. Clearly,
due to the prohibitive expense of monitoring the effectiveness of every management measure applied in the coastal
zone, States will need to develop a strategy for using limited monitoring information to address the broad questions

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-3

I/. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

regarding the effectiveness of section 6217 implementation. A combination of watershed monitoring to track the
cumulative benefits of systems of management measures and demonstrations of selected management measures of
key importance in the State may be one way in which the overall section 6217 monitoring objectives can be met
within the constraints imposed by limited State monitoring budgets.

1. Section 6217 Objectives

The overall management objective of section 6217 is to develop and implement management measures for nonpoint
source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters. The principal monitoring objective under section 6217(g) is
to assess over time the success of the management measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.
A careful reading of this monitoring objective reveals that there are two subobjectives: (1) to assess changes in
pollution loads over time and (2) to assess changes in water quality over time.

A pollutant load is determined by multiplying the total runoff volume times the average concentration of the pollutant
in the runoff. Loads are typically estimated only for chemical and some physical (e.g., total suspended solids)
parameters. Water quality, however, is determined on the basis of the chemical, physical, and biological conditions
of the water resource. Section 6217(g), therefore, calls for a description of pollutant load estimation techniques for
chemical and physical parameters, plus a description of techniques to assess water quality on the basis of chemical,
physical, and biological conditions. This section focuses on those needs.

2. Formulating Monitoring Objectives

A monitoring objective should be narrowly and clearly defined to address a specific problem at an appropriate level
of detail (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Ideally, the monitoring objective specifies the primary parameter(s), location
of monitoring (and perhaps the timing), the degree of causality or other relationship, and the anticipated result of
the management action. The magnitude of the change may also be expressed in the objective. Example monitoring
objectives include:

� To determine the change in trends in the total nitrogen concentration in Beautiful Sound due to the
implementation of nutrient management on cropland in all tributary watersheds.

� To determine the sediment removal efficiency of an urban detention basin in New City.

� To evaluate the effects of improved marina management on metals loadings from the repair and maintenance
areas of Stellar Marina.

� To assess the change in weekly mean total suspended solids concentrations due to forestry harvest activities
in Clean River.

C. Monitoring Approaches

1. General

a. Types of Monitoring

The monitoring program design is the framework for sampling, data analysis, and the interpretation of results (Coffey
and Smolen, 1990). MacDonald (1991) identifies seven types of monitoring:

(1) Trend monitoring;
(2) Baseline monitoring;
(3) Implementation monitoring;
(4) Effectiveness monitoring;
(5) Project monitoring;

8-4 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 11. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

(6) Validation monitoring; and
(7) Compliance monitoring.

Trend, baseline, implementation, effectiveness, and project monitoring all relate to the monitoring objectives of
section 6217. These types of monitoring, in fact, are not mutually exclusive. The distinction between effectiveness
monitoring and project monitoring, for example, is often simply one of scale, with effectiveness monitoring primarily
directed at individual practices and project monitoring directed at entire sets of practices or activities implemented
over a larger area. Since one cannot evaluate the effectiveness of a project or management measure (i.e.,
achievement of the desired effect) without knowing the status of implementation, implementation monitoring is an
essential element of both project and effectiveness monitoring. In addition, a test for trend is typically included in
the evaluation of projects and management measures, and baseline monitoring is performed prior to the
implementation of pollution controls.

Meals (1991a) discussed five major points to consider in developing a monitoring system that would provide a
suitable data base for watershed trend detection: (1) understand the system you want to monitor, (2) design the
monitoring system to meet objectives, (3) pay attention to details at the beginning, (4) monitor source activities, and
(5) build in feedback loops. These five points apply equally to both load estimation and water quality assessment
monitoring efforts.

b. Section 6217 Monitoring Needs

The basic monitoring objective for section 6217 is to assess over time the success of the measures in reducing
pollution loads and improving water quality. This objective would seem to indicate a need for establishing cause-
effect relationships between management measure implementation and water quality. Although desirable, monitoring
to establish such cause-effect relationships is typically beyond the scope of affordable program monitoring activities.

Mosteller and Tukey (1977) identified four criteria that must be met to show cause and effect: association,
consistency, responsiveness, and a mechanism.

� Association is shown by demonstrating a relationship between two parameters (e.g., a correlation between
the extent of management measure implementation and the level of pollutant loading).

� Consistency can be confirmed by observation only and implies that the association holds in different
populations (e.g., management measures were implemented in several areas and pollutant loading was
reduced, depending on the effect of treatment, in each case).

� Responsiveness can be confirmed by an experiment and is shown when the dependent variable (e.g.,
pollutant loading) changes predictably in response to changes in the independent variable (e.g., extent of
management measure implementation).

� A mechanism is a plausible step-by-step explanation of the statistical relationship. For example,
conservation tillage reduced the edge-of-field losses of sediment, thereby removing a known fraction of
pollutant source from the stream or lake. The result was decreased suspended sediment concentration in the
water column.

Clearly, the cost of monitoring needed to establish cause-effect relationships throughout the coastal zone far exceeds
available resources. It may be suitable, however, to document associations between management measure
implementation and trends in pollutant loads or water quality and then account for such associations with a general
description of the primary mechanisms that are believed to come into play.

c. Scale, Local Conditions, and Variability

There are several approaches that can be taken to assess the effectiveness of measures in reducing loads and
improving water quality. There are also several levels of scale that could be selected: individual practices, individual

-OA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-5

It. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

measures, field scale, watershed scale, basin scale, regional scale, etc. With any given monitoring objective, the
specific monitoring approach to use at any specific site is a function of the local conditions (e.g., geography, climate,
water resource type) and the type of management measures implemented.

The detection and estimation of trends is complicated by problems associated with the characteristics of pollution
data (Gilbert, 1987). Physical, chemical, and biological parameters in the receiving water may undergo extreme
changes without the influence of human activity. Understanding and monitoring the factors responsible for variability
in a local system are essential for detecting the improvements expected from the implementation of management
measures.

Simple point estimates taken before and after treatment will not confirm an effect if the natural variability is typically
greater than the changes due to treatment (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Therefore, knowledge of the variability and
the distribution of the parameter is important for statistical testing. Greater variability requires a larger change to
imply that the observed change is not due solely to random events (Spooner et al., 1987b). Examination of a
historical data set can help to identify the magnitude of natural variability and possible sources.

The impact of management actions may not be detectable as a change in a mean value but rather as a change in
variability (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Platts and Nelson (1988) found that a carefully designed study was required
to isolate the -large natural fluctuations in trout populations to distinguish the effects of land use management. They
assumed that normal fluctuation patterns were similar between the control and the treatment area and that treatment-
induced effect could be distinguished as a deviation from the historical pattern.

Meals (1991a) calls for the collection and evaluation of existing data as the first step in a monitoring effort,
recognizing that additional background data may be needed to identify hot spots or fill information gaps. The results
of such initial efforts should include established stage-discharge ratings and an understanding of patterns not
associated with the pollution control effort.

2. Understanding the System to Be Monitored
a. The Water Resource

Options for tracking water quality vary with the type of water resource. For example, a monitoring program for,
ephemeral streams can be different from that for perennial streams or large rivers. Lakes, wetlands, riparian zones,
estuaries, and near-shore coastal waters all present different monitoring considerations. Whereas upstream-
downstream designs work on rivers and streams, they are generally less effective on natural lakes where linear flow
is not so prevalent. Likewise, estuaries present difficulties in monitoring loads because of the shifting flows and
changing salinity caused by the tides. A successful monitoring program recognizes the unique features of the water
resources involved and is structured to either adapt to those features or avoid them.

Strearns. Freshwater streams can be classified on the basis of flow attributes as intermittent or perennial streams.
Intermittent streams do not flow at all times and serve as conveyance systems for runoff. Perennial streams always
flow and usually have significant inputs from ground'water or interflow.

For intermittent streams, seasonal variability is a very significant factor in determining pollutant loads and water
quality. During some periods sampling may be impossible due to no flow. Seasonal flow variability in perennial
streams can be caused by seasonal patterns in precipitation or snowmelt, reservoir discharges, or irrigation practices.

For many streams the greatest concentrations of suspended sediment and other pollutants occur during spring runoff
or snowmelt periods. Concentrations of both particulate and soluble chemical parameters have been shown to vary
throughout the course of a rainfall event in many studies across the Nation. This short-term variability should be
considered in developing monitoring programs for flowing (lotic) waterbodies.

Spatial variability is largely lateral for both intermittent and perennial streams. Vertical variability does exist,
however, and can be very important in both stream types (e.g., during runoff events, in tidal waters, and in deep,

8-6 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 1/. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

slow-moving streams). Intake depth is often a key factor in stream sampling. For example, slow-moving, larger
streams may show considerable water quality variability with depth, particularly for parameters such as suspended
solids, dissolved oxygen, and algal productivity. Suspended sediment samples must be taken with an understanding
of the vertical distribution of both sediment concentration and flow velocity (Brakensiek et al., 1979). When
sampling bed sediment or monitoring biological parameters, it is important to recognize the potential for significant
lateral and vertical variation in the toxicity and contaminant levels of bed sediments (USEPA, 1987).

Lakes. Lakes can be categorized in several ways, but a useful grouping for monitoring guidance is related to the
extent of vertical and lateral mixing of the waterbody. Therefore, lakes are considered to be either mixed or stratified
for the purpose of this guidance. Mixed lakes are those lakes in which water quality (as determined by measurement
of the parameters and attributes of interest) is homogenous throughout, and stratified lakes are considered to be those
lakes which have lateral or vertical water, quality differentials in the lake parameters and attributes of interest.
Totally mixed lakes, if they exist, are certainly few in number, but it may be useful to perform monitoring in selected
homogenous portions of stratified lakes to simplify data interpretation. Similarly, for lakes that exhibit significant
seasonal mixing, it may be beneficial to monitor during a time period in which they are mixed. For some monitoring
objectives, however, it may be best to monitor during periods of peak stratification.

Temporal variability concerns are similar for mixed and stratified lakes. Seasonal changes are often obvious, but
should not be assumed to be similar for all lakes or even the same for different parts of any individual lake. Due
to the importance of factors such as precipitation characteristics, climate, lake basin morphology, and hydraulic
retention characteristics, seasonal variability should be at least qualitatively assessed before any lake monitoring
program is initiated.

Short-term variability is also an inherent characteristic of most still (lentic) waterbodies. Parameters such as pH,
dissolved oxygen, and temperature can vary considerably over the course of a day. Monitoring programs targeted
toward biological parameters should be structured to account for this short-term variability. It is often the case that
small lakes and reservoirs respond rapidly to runoff events. This factor can be very important in cases where lake
water quality will be correlated to land treatment activities or stream water quality.

In stratified lakes spatial variability can be lateral or vertical. The classic stratified lake is one in which there is an
epilimnion and a hypolimnion (Wetzel, 1975). Water quality can vary considerably between the two strata, so
sarnpling depth is an important consideration when monitoring vertically stratified lakes.

Lateral variability is probably as common as vertical variability, particularly in lakes and ponds receiving inflow of
varying quality. Figure 8-1 illustrates the types of factors that contribute to lateral variability in lake water quality.
In reservoir systems, storm plumes can cause significant lateral variability.

Davenport and Kelly (1984) explained the lateral variability in chlorophyll a concentrations in an Illinois lake based
on water depth and the time period that phytoplankters spend in the photic zone. A horizontal gradient of sediment,
nutrient, and chlorophyll P concentrations in St. Albans Bay, Vermont, was related to mixing between Lake
Champlain and the Bay (Clausen, 1985). It is important to note that there frequently exists significant lateral and
vertical variation in the toxicity and contaminant levels of bed sediments (USEPA, 1987).

Despite the distinction made between mixed and stratified lakes, there is considerable gray area between'ihese
groups. For example, thermally stratified lakes may be assumed to be mixed during periods of overturn, and laterally
stratified lakes can sometimes be treated as if the different lateral segments are sublakes. In any case, it is important
that the monitoring team knows what parcel of water is being sampled when the program is implemented. It would
be inappropriate, for example, io assign the attributes of a surface sample to the hypolimnion of a stratified lake due
to the differences in temperature and other parameters between the upper and lower waters.

Estuaries. Estuaries can be very complex systems, particularly large ones such as the Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries
exhibit temporal and spatial variability just as streams and lakes do. Physically, the major differences between
estuaries and fresh waterbodies are related to the mixing of fresh water with salt water and the influence of tides.
These factors increase the complexity of spatial and temporal variability within an estuary.

EPA-840-8-92-002 danualy 1993 8-7

11. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Poflution Loads Chapter 8

A A A
A A

IMIGHWAY CONSTRUCT.0"
E:R-
BAN

VASTEVArER TREATVENT PLANT
e, [ST @PM I N I N G

[-TALL SHADE TRE-E7S

[COAL PILE IEE@ CIRCULATION PATTERNS,

COOLING WATERI
IsrATE PARKI

Figure 8-1. Factors contributing to lateral differences in lake quality.

Short-term variability in estuaries is related directly to the tidal cycles, which can have an effect on both the mixing
of the fresh and saline waters and the positio'n of the fteshwater-saltwater interface (USEPA, 1982a). The same
considerations made for lakesregarding short-term variability of parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,
and pH should also be made for estuaries.

Temperature profiles such as those found in stratified lakes can also change with season in estuaries. The resulting
circulation dynamics must be considered when developing monitoring programs. The effects of season on the
quantity of freshwater runoff to an estuary can be profound. In the Chesapeake Bay, for example, salinity is
generally lower in the spring and higher in the fall due to the changes in freshwater runoff from such sources as
snownielt runoff and rainfall (USEPA, 1982a).

Spatial variability in estuaries has both significant vertical and lateral components. The vertical variability is related
to both temperature and chemical differentials. In the Chesapeake Bay thermal stratification occurs during the
summer, and chemical stratification occurs at all times, but in different areas at different times (USEPA, 1982a).
Chemical stratification can be the result of the saltwater wedge flowing into and under the freshwater outflow or the
accumulation or channeling of freshwater and saltwater flows to opposite shores of the estuary. The latter situation
can be caused by a combination of tributary location, the earth's rotation, and the barometric pressure. In addition,
lateral variability in salinity can be caused by different levels of mixing between saltwater and freshwater inputs.
As noted for streams and lakes, the lateral and vertical variation in the toxicity and contaminant levels of bed
sediments should be considered (EPA, 1987).

8-8 EPA-840-B-92-= Januaty 1993

Chapter 8 H. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Coastal Waters, Researchers and government agencies are collectively devoid of significant experience in
evaluating the effectiveness of nonpoint source pollution control efforts through the monitoring of near-shore and
off-shore coastal waters. Our understanding of the factors to consider when performing such monitoring is therefore
very limited.

As for other waterbody types, it is important to understand the hydrology, chemistry, and biology of the system in
order to develop an effective monitoring program. Of particular importance is the ability to identify discrete
populations to sample from. For trend analysis it is essential that the researcher is able to track over time the
conditions of a clearly identifiable segment or unit of coastal water. This may be accomplished by monitoring a
sernienclosed near-shore embayment or similar system. Knowledge of salinity and circulation patterns should be
useful in identifying such areas.

Secondly, monitoring should be focused on those segments or units of coastal water for which there is a reasonable
likelihood that changes in water quality will result from the implementation of management measures. Segment size,
circulation patterns, and freshwater inflows should be considered when estimating the chances for such water quality
improvements.

Near-shore coastal waters may exhibit salinity gradients similar to those of estuaries due to the mixing of fresh water
with salt water. Currents and circulation patterns can create temperature gradients as well. Farther from shore,
salinity gradients are less likely, but gradients in temperature may occur. In addition, vertical gradients in
temperature and light may be significant. These and other biological, chemical, and physical factors should be
considered in the development of monitoring programs for coastal waters.

b. The Management Measures to Be Implemented

An integral part of the system to be monitored is the set of management measures to be implemented. Management
measures can generally be classified with respect to their modes of control: (1) source reduction, (2) delivery
reduction, or (3) the reduction of direct impacts. For example, source-reduction measures may include nutrient
management, pesticide management, and marine pump-out facilities. These measures all rely on the prevention of
nonpoint source pollution; trapping and treatment mechanisms are not relied upon for control. Delivery-reduction
measures include those that rely on detention basins, filter strips, constructed wetlands, and similar practices for
trapping or treatment prior to release or discharge to receiving waters. Measures that reduce direct impacts include
wetland and riparian area protection, habitat protection, the preservation of natural stream channel characteristics,
the provision of fish passage, and the provision of suitable dissolved oxygen levels below dams.

Delivery Reduction. Delivery-reduction measures lend themselves to inflow-outflow, or process, monitoring to
estimate the effectiveness in reducing loads. The simple experimental approach is to take samples of inflow and
outflow at appropriate time intervals to measure differences in the water quality between the two points. An example
is the analysis of totals suspended solids (TSS) concentrations at the inflow and outflow of a sediment retention basin
to determine the percentage of TSS removed.

Source Reduction. Source-reduction measures generally cannot be monitored using a process design because there
are usually no discrete inflow and outflow points. The effectiveness of these measures will generally be determined
by applying approaches such as paired-watershed studies and upstream-downstream studies.

Reduction of Direct Impacts. The effectiveness of measures intended to prevent direct impacts cannot be
determined through the monitoring of loads since pollutant loads are not generated. Instead, monitoring might
include reference site approaches where the conditions (e.g., habitat or macroinvertebrates) at the affected (or
potentially affected) area are compared over time (as management measures are implemented) versus conditions at
a representative unimpacted site or sites nearby (Ohio EPA, 1988). This approach can be taken to the point of being
a paired-watershed study if the monitoring timing and protocols are the same at the impacted and reference sites.

Combinations of Management Measures. Management measures are systems of practices, technologies, processes,
siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives. Pollution control programs generally consist of systems of

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-9

1/. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

management measures applied over well-defined geographic areas. Combinations of the three types of measures
described above are likely to be found in any given area to be monitored. Monitoring programs, therefore, must
often be directed at measuring the cumulative effectiveness of a range of different measures applied in different areas
at different times within a specified geographic area. Under these conditions, the monitoring approaches for source-
reduction and direct-impact-reduction measures are typically used, while process monitoring is not generally used
other than to track the effectiveness of specific delivery-reduction measures implemented in the area.

c. Point Sources and Other Significant Activities

There is often a need to isolate the effects of other activities that occur independently of the planned implementation
of management measures but that have an effect on the measured parameters. For example, an upgrade from
secondary to tertiary treatment at a wastewater treatment plant in a watershed could have a major effect on the
measured nitrogen levels. An effective monitoring program would isolate the effects of changes in the point source
contributions by measuring the discharge from these sources over time.

3. Experimental Design
a. Types of Experimental Designs

EPA has prescribed monitoring designs for use in watershed projects funded under section 319 of the Clean Water
Act (USEPA, 1991b). The objective in promoting these designs is to document changes in water quality that can
be related to the implementation of nonpoint source control measures in selected watersheds. The designs
recommended by EPA are paired-watershed designs and upstream-downstrearn designs. Single downstream station
designs are not recommended by EPA for section 319 watershed projects (USEPA, 1991b).

Monitoring before implementation is usually required to detect a trend or show causality (Coffey and Smolen, 1990).
Two years of pre-implementation monitoring are typically needed to establish an adequate baseline. Less time may
be needed for studies at the management measure or edge-of-field scale, when hydrologic variability is known to
be less than that of typical agricultural systems, or when a paired-watershed design is used.

Paired-Watershed Design. In the paired-watershed design there is one watershed where the level of implementation
(ideally) does not change (the control watershed) and a second watershed where, implementation occurs (the study
watershed). This design has been shown in agricultural nonpoint source studies to be the most powerful study design
for demonstrating the effectiveness of nonpoint source control practice implementation (Spooner et al., 1985).
Paired-watershed designs have a long history of application in forest hydrology studies. The paired-watershed design
must be implemented properly, however, to generate useful data sets. Some of the considerations to be made in
designing and implementing paired-watershed studies are described below.
In selecting watershed pairs, the watersheds should @e as similar as possible in size, shape, aspect, slope, elevation,
soil type, climate, and vegetative cover (Striffler, 1965). The general procedure for paired-watershed studies is to
monitor the watersheds long enough to establish a statistical relationship between them. A correlation should be
found between the values of the monitored parameters for the two watersheds. For example, the total nitrogen values
in the control watershed should be correlated with the total nitrogen values in the study watershed. A pair of
watersheds may be considered sufficiently calibrated when a parameter for the control watershed can be used to
predict the corresponding value for the study watershed (or vice versa) within an acceptable margin of error.

It is important to note that the calibration period should cover all or the significant portion of the range of conditions
for each of the major water quality determinants in the two watersheds. For example, the full range of hydrologic
conditions should be covered (or nearly covered) during the calibration period. This may be problematic in areas
where rainfall and snowmelt are highly variable from year to year or in areas subject to extended wet periods or
drought. Calibration during a dry year is likely to not be adequate for establishing the relationship between the two
watersheds, particularly if subsequent years include both wet and dry periods.

8-10 EPA-840-8-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 8 H. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Similarly, some agricultural areas of the country use long-term, multiple-crop rotations. The calibration period should
cover not only the range of hydrologic conditions but also the range of cropping patterns that can reasonably be
expected to have an influence on the measured water quality parameters. This is not to say that the calibration period
should take 5 to 10 years, but rather that States should use careful judgment in determining when the calibration
period can be safely ended.

After calibration, the study watershed receives implementation of management measures, and monitoring is continued
in both watersheds. The effects of the management measures are evaluated by testing for a change in the relationship
between the monitored parameters (i.e., a change in the correlation). If treatment is working, then there should be
a greater difference over time between the treated study watershed and the untreated (poorly managed) control
watershed. Alternatively, the calibration period could be used to establish statistical relationships between a fully
treated watershed (control watershed) and an untreated watershed (study watershed). After calibration under this
approach, the study watershed would be treated and monitoring continued. The effects of the management measures
would be evaluated, however, by testing for a change in the correlation that would indicate that the two watersheds
are more similar than before treatment.

It is important to use small watersheds when performing paired-watershed studies since they are more easily managed
and more likely to be uniform (Striffler, 1965). EPA recommends; that paired watersheds be no larger than 5,000
acres (USEPA, 1991b).

Upstream-Downstream Studies. In the upstream-downstream design, there.is one station at a point directly
upstream from the area where implementation of management measures will occur and a second station directly
downstream from that area. Upstream-downstream designs are generally more useful for documenting the magnitude
of a nonpoint source than for documenting the effectiveness of nonpoint source control measures (Spooner et al.,
1985), but they have been used successfully for the latter. This design provides for the opportunity to account for
covariates (e.g., an upstream pollutant concentration that is correlated with a downstream concentration of same
pollutant) in statistical analyses and is therefore the design that EPA recommends in cases where paired watersheds
cannot be established (USEPA, 1991b).

Upstream-downstream designs are needed in cases where project areas are not located in headwaters or where
upstream activities that are expected to confound the analysis of downstream data occur. For example, the effects
of upstream point source discharges, uncontrolled nonpoint source discharges, and upstream flow regulation can be
isolated with upstream-downstream designs.

Inflow-Outflow Design. Inflow-outflow, or process, designs are very similar to upstrearn-downstream designs. The
major differences are scale and the significance of confounding activities. Process designs are generally applied in
studies of individual management measures or practices. For example, sediment loading at the inflow and outflow
of a detention basin may be measured to determine the pollutant removal efficiency of the basin. In general, no
inputs other than the inflow are present, and the only factor affecting outflow is the management measure. As noted
above (see The Management Measures to Be Implemented), process monitoring cannot generally be applied to studies
of source-reduction management measures or measures that prevent direct impacts, but it can be applied successfully
in the evaluation of delivery-reduction management measures.

b. Scale

Management Measure. Monitoring the inflow and outflow of a specific management measure should be the most
sensitive scale since the effects of uncontrollable discharges and uncertainties in treatment mechanisms are
minimized.

Edge of Field. Monitoring pollutant load from a single-field watershed should be the next most sensitive scale since
the direct effects of implementation can be detected without pollutant trapping in a field border or stream channel
(Coffey and Smolen, 1990).

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 8-11

/1. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouefity and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

Subwatershed. Monitoring a subwatershed can be useful to monitor the aggregate effect of implementation on a
group of fields or smaller areas by taking samples close to the treatment (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Subwatershed
monitoring networks measure the aggregate effects of treatment and nontreatment runoff as it enters an upgradient
tributary or the receiving waterbody. Subwatershed monitoring can also be used for targeting critical areas.

Watershed. Monitoring at the watershed scale is appropriate for assessing total project area pollutant load using
a single station (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Depending on station arrangement, both subwatershed and watershed
outlet studies are very useful for water and pollutant budget determinations. Monitoring at the watershed outlet is
the least sensitive of the spatial scales for detecting treatment effect. Sensitivity of the monitoring program decreases
with increased basin size and decreased treatment extent or both (Coffey and Smolen, 1990.

c. Reference Systems and Standards

EPA's rapid bioassessment protocols advocate an integrated assessment, comparing habitat and biological measures
with empirically defined reference conditions (Plafldn et al., 1989). Reference conditions are established through
systematic monitoring of actual sites that represent the natural range of variation in "least disturbed" water chemistry,
habitat, and biological condition. Reference sites can be used in monitoring programs to establish reasonable
expectations for biological, chemistry, and habitat conditions. An example application of this concept is the paired-
watershed design (Coffey and Smolen, 1990).

EPA's ecoregional framework can be used to establish a logical basis for characterizing ranges of ecosystem
conditions or quality that are realistically attainable (Omernik and Gallant, 1986). Ecoregions are defined by EPA
to be regions of relative homogeneity in ecological systems or in relationships between organisms and their
environments. Hughes et al. (1986) have used a relatively small number of minimally impacted regional reference
sites to assess feasible but protective biological goals for an entire region.

Water quality standards can be used to identify criteria that serve as reference values for biological, chemical, or
habitat parameters, depending on the content of the standard. The frequency distribution of observation values can
be tracked against either a water quality standard criterion or a reference value as a method for measuring trends in
water quality or loads (USEPA, 1991b).

4. Site Locations

Within any given budget, site location is a function of water resource type (see The Water Resource), monitoring
objectives (see Monitoring Objectives), experimental design (see Types of Experimental Designs), the parameters
to be monitored (see Parameter Selection), sampling techniques (see Sampling Techniques and Samples and
Sampling), and data analysis plans (see Data Analysis). Additional considerations in site selection are accessibility
and landowner cooperation.

It is recommended that monitoring stations be placed near established gaging stations whenever possible due to the
extreme importance of obtaining accurate discharge measurements. Where gaging stations are not available but
stream discharge measurements are needed, care should be taken to select a suitable site. Brakensiek et al. (1979)
provide excellent guidance regarding runoff measurement, including the following selected recommendations
regarding site selection:

� Field-calibrated gaging stations should be located in straight, uniform reaches of channel having smooth
beds and banks of a permanent nature whenever possible.

� Gaging stations should be located away from sewage outfall, power stations, or other installations causing
flow disturbances.

� Consider the geology and contributions of ground-water flow.

8-12 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 8 A Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Where ice is a potential problem, locate measuring devices in a protected area that receives sunlight most
of the time.

Daily current-meter measurements may be necessary where sand shifts occur.

5. Sampling Frequency and Interval
a. Sample Size and Frequency

It is important to estimate early in a monitoring effort the number and frequency of samples required to meet the
monitoring objectives. Spooner et al. (1991) report that the sampling frequency required at a given monitoring
station is a function of the following:

� Monitoring goals;

� Response of the water resource to changes in pollutant sources;

� Magnitude of the minimum amount of change for which detection with trend analyses is desired (i.e.,
minimum detectable change);

� System variability and accuracy of the sample estimate of reported statistical parameter (e.g., confidence
interval width on a mean or trend estimate);

� Satistical power (i.e., probability of detecting a true trend);

� Autocorrelation (i.e., the extent to which data points taken over time are correlated);

� Monitoring record length;

� Number of monitoring stations; and

� Statistical methods used to analyze the data.

The minimum detectable change (MDQ is the minimum change in a water quality parameter over time that is
considered statistically significant. Knowledge of the MDC can be very useful in the planning of an effective
monitoring program (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). The MDC can be estimated from historical records to aid in
determining the required sampling frequency and to evaluate monitoring feasibility (Spooner et al., 1987a).
MacDonald (1991) discusses the same concept, referring to it as the minimum detectable effect.

The larger the MDC, the greater the change in water quality that is needed to ensure that the change was not just
a random fluctuation. The MDC may be reduced by accounting for covariates, increasing the number of samples
per year, and increasing the number of years of monitoring.

Sherwani and Moreau (1975) stated that the desired frequency of sampling is a function of several considerations
associated with the system to be studied, including:

� Response time of the system;

� Expected variability of the parameter;

� Half-life and response time of constituents;

- Seasonal fluctuation and random effects;

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-13

H. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

� Representativeness under different conditions of flow;

� Short-term pollution events;

� Magnitude of response; and

� Variability of the inputs.

Coastal waters, estuaries, ground water, and lakes will typically have longer response times than streams and rivers.
Thus, sampling frequency will usually be greater for streams and rivers than for other water resource types. Some
parameters such as total suspended solids and fecal coliform. bacteria can be highly variable in stream systems
dominated by nonpoint sources, while nitrate levels may be less volatile in systems driven by baseflow from ground
water. The highly variable parameters would generally require more frequent sampling, but parameter variability
should be evaluated on a site-specific basis rather than by rule of thumb.

In cases where pollution events are relatively brief, sampling periods may also be short. For example, to determine
pollutant loads it may be necessary to sample frequently during a few major storm events and infrequently during
baseflow conditions. Some parameters vary considerably with season, particularly in watersheds impacted primarily
by nonpoint sources. Boating is typically a seasonal activity in northern climates, so intensive seasonal monitoring
may be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of management measures for marinas.

The water quality response to implementation of management measures will vary considerably across the coastal
zone. Pollutant loads from confined livestock operations may decline significantly in response to major
improvements in runoff and nutrient management, while sediment delivery from logging areas may decline only a
little if the level of pollution control prior to section 6217 implementation was already fairly good. Fewer samples
will usually be needed to document water quality improvement in watersheds that are more responsive to pollution
control efforts.

Sherwani and Moreau (1975) state that for a given confidence level and margin of error, the necessary sample size,
and hence sampling frequency, is proportional to the variance. Since the variance of water quality parameters may
differ considerably over time, the frequency requirements of a monitoring program may vary depending on the time
of the year. Sampling frequency will-need to be greater during periods of greater variance.

There are statistical methods for estimating the number of samples required to achieve a desired level of precision
in random sampling (Cochran, 1963), stratified random sampling (Reckhow, 1979), cluster sampling (Cochran, 1977),
multistage sampling (Gilbert, 1987), double sampling (Gilbert, 1987), and systematic sampling (Gilbert, 1987). For
a more detailed discussion of sampling theory and statistics, see Samples and Sampling.

b. Sampling Interval

A method for estimating sampling interval is provided by Sherwani and Moreau (1975). They note that the least
favorable sampling intervpl for parameters that exhibit a periodic structure is equal to the period or an integral
multiple of the period. Such sampling would introduce statistical bias. Reckhow (1979) points out that, for both
random and stratified random sampling, systematic sampling is acceptable only if "there is no bias introduced by
incomplete design, and if there is no periodic variation in the characteristic measured." Gaugush (1986) states that
monthly sampling is usually adequate to detect the annual pattern of changes with time.

c. Some Recommendations

It is generally recommended -that the sampling of plankton, fish, and benthic organisms in estuaries should be
seasonal, with the same season sampled in multiyear studies (USEPA, 1991 a). The aerial coverage and bed density
for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) vary from year to year due to catastrophic storms, exceptionally high
precipitation and turbidity, and other poorly understood natural phenomena (USEPA, 1991 a). For this reason, short-
term SAV monitoring may be more reflective of infrequent impacts and may not be useful for trend assessment.

B-14 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 A Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

In addition, incremental losses in wetland acreage are now within the margin of error for current detection limits.
It is recommended that SAV and wetland sampling be conducted during the period of peak biomass (USEPA, 199 1 a).

The frequency of sediment sampling in estuaries should be related to the expected rate of change in sediment
contaminant concentrations (USEPA, 1991 a). Because tidal and seasonal variability in the distribution and magnitude
of several water column physical characteristics in estuaries is typically observed, these influences should be
accounted for in the development of sampling strategies (USEPA, 1991a).

For monitoring the state of biological variables, the length of the life cycle may determine the sampling interval
(Coffey and Smolen, 1990). EPA (1991b) recommends: a minimum of 20 evenly spaced (e.g., weekly) samples per
year to document trends in chemical constituents in watershed studies lasting 5 to 10 years. The 20 samples should
be taken during the time period (e.g., season) when the benefits of implemented pollution control measures are most
likely to be observed. For benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, EPA recommends at least one sample per year.

6. Load Versus Water Quality Status Monitoring

The choice between monitoring either (a) the status or condition of the water resource or (b) the pollutant load to
the water resource should be made carefully (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Loading is the rate of pollutant transport
to the managed resource via overland, tributary, or ground-water flow. Load monitoring may be used to assess the
change in magnitude of major pollutant sources or to assess the change in pollutant export at a fixed station.
Monitoring water quality status includes measuring a physical attribute, chemical concentration, or biological
condition, and may be used to assess baseline conditions, trends, or the impact of treatment on the managed resource.

Monitoring water quality status may be the most direct route to an answer on the effect of management measure
implementation on designated use, but sensitivity may be low (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). When the likelihood of
detecting a trend in water quality status is low, load monitoring near the source may be necessary. For example,
measuring the effectiveness of nutrient management in one tributary to a large coastal embayment may require
monitoring nitrogen load, since bay monitoring is unlikely to measure the change in the mean nitrogen concentration
or trophic state measures for the bay.

When the basis for a choice between load or water quality status is less obvious (i.e., it is not clear whether
abatement can be detectedlin the receiving resource), a pollutant budget may help to make the decision (Coffey and
Smolen, 1990). The budget should account for mass balance of pollutant input by source, including ground-water
and atmospheric deposition, all output, and changes in storage. The budget may show the magnitude and relative
importance of controlled and uncontrolled sources (e.g., atmospheric deposition, resuspension from sediments,
streambank erosion). Sources of error in the budget should also be evaluated. Where treatment is not likely to
produce measurable change in the waterbody, load monitoring may be required.

a. Pollutant Load Monitoring

Load Monitoring requires a complex, and typically expensive, sampling protocol to measure water discharge and
pollutant concentration (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Both discharge and concentration data are needed to calculate
pollutant loading. I

Given the variability of discharge and pollutant concentrations in watersheds impacted by nonpoint sources, the
consequences of not collecting data from all storm events and baseflow over a range of conditions (e.g., season, land
cover) can be major. For example, equipment failure during a single storm event can result in considerable error
in estimating annual pollutant load. It is typical that data gaps will occur, requiring the application of mathematical
techniques to estimate the discharge and pollutant concentrations for missed events.

Brakensiek et al. (1979) provide a detailed description of methods and equipment needed for discharge monitoring.
Techniques are desciibed for both field and watershed studies.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 B-15

/1. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

b. Water Quality Status Monitoring

Water quality status can be evaluated in a number of ways, including:

� Evaluating designated use attainment;
� Evaluating standards violations;
� Assessing ecological integrity; or
� Monitoring an indicator parameter.

Monitoring for designated use attainment should focus on those parameters or criteria specified in State water quality
standards. Where such parameters or criteria are not specified, critical variables related to use support should be
monitored. If the monitoring objective includes relating water quality improvement to the pollution control activities,
then it is important that monitored parameters can be related to the management measures implemented. For
example, it may be appropriate to monitor nitrogen concentrations if septic system improvements are implemented.

For violations of standards, the choice of variable is specified by the State water quality standard (Coffey and
Smolen, 1990). To assess ecological integrity, the selection of parameters should be based on criteria used to
evaluate such status. For trend detection the indicator parameter must be carefully selected to account for changes
in treatment and system variability (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Additional information regarding appropriate
parameters to monitor can be found under Parameter Selection below.

7. Parameter Sele6tion

Monitoring parameters should be related directly to the identified problems caused by the nonpoint sources that will
be controlled, and to those principal pollutants that will be controlled th,rough the implementation of management
measures. For example, if metal loads are to be determined to be the primary pollutant of concern from marinas,
then appropriate monitoring parameters will include flow and the metals of concern. If the effectiveness of improved
management of repair and maintenance areas is to be determined, then implementation should be tracked as well.
There should also be a mec6nism for relating the management measure to the specific pollutants monitored. For
example, it should be clear that improved management of repair and maintenance areas of a marina will have an
effect on metals loads if such loads are monitored.
a. Relationship to �OurCeS

MacDonald (1991) evaluates the sensitivity of various monitoring parameters to a range of management activities
in forested areas in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Table 8-1 provides examples of parameters that could be
monitored to determine the effectiveness of management measures. Some of the listed parameters (e.g... benthic
macroinvertebrates) can be sampled only in waterbodies, while others (e.g., total suspended solids) can be sampled
at the source or in waterbodies. This table is provided for illustrative purposes only.

b. Implementation Tracking

Land treatment and land use monitoring should relate directly to the pollutants or impacts monitored at the water
quality station (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Land use monitoring should also reflect historical impacts as well as
activities during the project. Since the impact of management measures on water quality may not be immediate or
implementation may not be sustained, information on relevant watershed activities will be essential for the final
analysis.

EPA recommends that the reporting units used to track implementation should be reliable indicators of the extent
to which the pollutant source will be controlled (USEPA, 1991b). For example, the tons of animal waste managed
may be a much more useful parameter to track than the number of confined animal facilities constructed.

8-16 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 8 l/. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Table 8.1. Examples ol MoriltorIng Parameters to Assess Impact's from Selected Source"

Chemical and
Source Physical Biological Habitat

Cropland Sediment, nutrients, Benthic Sediment deposition,
pesticides, macroinvertebrates cover
temperature

Grazing Land Nutrients, sediment, Macroinvertebrates, Streambank stability,
temperature fish, fecal coliform spawning bed
condition,
cover

Urban Construction Total suspended Benthic Streambank stability,
Sites solids, macroinvertebrates channel
temperature characteristics,
cover

Highways Metals, toxics, flow, Benthic Channel
temperature macroinvertebrates characteristics,
cover

Forestry Harvest Sediment, Benthic Large woody debris,
temperature macroinvertebrates cover

Forestry Road Building Sediment, Fish, benthic Channel
and Maintenance intergravel dissolved macroinvertebrates characteristics,
oxygen, embeddedness,
temperature streambank stability,
cover

Marinas Metals, dissolved Fecal coliform Marsh vegetation,
oxygen, substrate
temperature composition,
cover

Channelization Flows, temperature, Fish, benthic Aquatic vegetation,
sediment macroinvertebrates channel sediment
type,
cover

c. Expianatoty Variables

An effective nonpoint source monitoring program accounts for as many sources of variability as possible to increase
the likelihood that the effects of the management measures can be separated from the other sources of variability.
Some of this other variability can be accounted for by tracking the parameters (e.g., precipitation, flow, pH, salinity)
most likely to affect the values of the principal monitored parameters (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). These explanatory
variables are treated as covariates in statistical analyses that isolate the effect of the management measures from the
variability, or noise, in the data caused by natural factors. In paired-watershed and upstream-downstream studies,
EPA recommends that the complete set of parameters (including explanatory variables) are monitored at each
monitoring site, following the same monitoring schedule and protocol (USEPA, 1991b).

8. Sampling Techniques
a. Automated Sampling to Estimate Pollutant Loads

Typical methods for estimating pollutant loads include continuous flow measurements and some form of automated
sampling that is either timed or triggered by some feature of the runoff hydrograph. For example, in the Santa Clara
watershed of San Francisco Bay, flow was continuously monitored at hourly intervals, wet-weather monitoring

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 B-17

IL Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Poilution Loads Chapter 8

included collection of flow-composite samples taken, with automatic samplers, and dry-weather monitoring was
conducted by obtaining quarterly grab samples (Mumley, 1991). Data were used to estimate annual, wet-weather,
and dry-weather copper loads.

In St. Albans Bay, Vermont, continuous flow and composite samples were used to estimate nutrient loads for trend
analysis (Vermont RCWP, 1984). In the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) project in Bellevue,
Washington, catchment area monitoring included continuous gaging and automatic sampling that occurred at a preset
time interval (5 to 50 minutes') once the stage exceeded a preset threshold (USEPA, 1982b).

b. Grab Sampling for Pollutant Loads

Grab sampling with continuous discharge gaging can be used to estimate load in some cases. Grab sampling is
usually much less expensiv@ than automated sampling methods and is typically much simpler to manage. These
significant factors of cost and ease make grab sampling an attractive alternative to automated sampling and therefore
worthy of consideration even for monitoring programs with the objective of estimating pollutant loads.

Grab sampling should be carefully evaluated to determine its applicability for each monitoring situation (Coffey and
Smolen, 1990). Nonpoint source pollutant concentrations generally increase with discharge. For a system with
potentially lower variability in discharge, such as irrigation, grab sampling may be a suitable sampling method for
estimating loads (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Grab sampling may also be appropriate for systems in which the
distribution of annual loading occurs over an extended period of several months, rather than a few events. In
addition, grab sampling may be used to monitor low flows and background concentrations.

For systems exhibiting high variability in discharge or where the majority of the pollutant load is transported by a
few events (such as snowmelt in some northern temperate regions), however, grab sampling is not recommended.

c. Habitat Sampling

EPA recommends a procedure for assessing habitat quality where all of the habitat parameters are related to overall
aquatic life use support and are a potential source of limitation to the aquatic biota (Plafkin et al., 1989). In this
procedure, EPA begins with a survey of physical characteristics and water quality at the site. Such physical factors
as land use, erosion, potential nonpoint sources, stream width, stream depth, stream velocity, channelization, and
canopy cover are addressed. In addition, water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity, stream type, odors, and turbidity are observed.

Then, EPA follows with the habitat assessment, which includes a range of parameters that are weighted to emphasize
the most biologically significant parameters (Plafkin et al., 1989). The procedure includes three levels of habitat
parameters. The primary parameters are those that characterize the stream "microscale" habitat and have the greatest
direct influence on the structure of the indigenous communities. These parameters include characterization of the
bottom substrate and available cover, estimation of ernbeddedness, and estimation of the flow or velocity and depth
regime. Secondary parameters measure the "macroscale" and include such parameters as channel alteration, bottom
scouring and deposition, and stream sinuosity. Tertiary parameters include bank stability, bank vegetation, and
streamside cover.

MacDonald (1991) discusses a wide range of channel characteristics and riparian parameters that can be monitored
to evaluate the effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. MacDonald states that
11 stream channel characteristics may be advantageous for monitoring because their temporal variability is relatively
low, and direct links can be made between observed changes and some key designated uses such as coldwater
fisheries." He notes, however, that "general recommendations are difficult because relatively few studies have used
channel characteristics as the primary parameters for monitoring management impacts on streams."

On the other hand, MacDonald concludes that the documented effects of management activities on the stability and
vegetation of riparian zones, and the established linkages between the riparian zone and various designated uses,
provide the rationale for including the width of riparian canopy opening and riparian vegetation as recommended

8-18 EPA-840-6-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 11. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

monitoring parameters. Riparian canopy opening is measured and tracked through a historical sequence of aerial
photographs (MacDonald, 1991). Riparian vegetation is measured using a range of methods, including qualitative
measures of vegetation type,'visual estimations of vegetation cover, quantitative estimations of vegetation cover using
point- or line-intercept methods, light intensity measurements to estimate forest cover density, stream shading
estimates using a spherical densiometer, and estimates of vegetation density based on plot measurements.

Habitat variables to monitor grazing impacts include areas covered with vegetation and bare soil, stream width,
stream channel and streambank stability, and width and area of the riparian zone (Platts et al., 1987). Ray and
Megahan (1978) developed a procedure for measuring streambank morphology, erosion, and deposition. Detailed
streambank inventories may be recorded and mapped to monitor present conditions or changes in morphology through
time.

To assess the effect of land use changes on streambank stability, Platts et al. (1987) provide methods for evaluating
and rating streambank soil alteration. Their rating system can be used to determine the conditions of streambank
stability that could affect fish. Other measurements that could be important for fisheries habitat evaluations include
streambank undercut, stream shore water depth, and stream channel bank angle.

d. Benthic Organism Sampling

Benthic communities in estuaries are sampled through field surveys, which are typically time-consuming and
expensive (USEPA, 1991a). Sampling devices include trawls, dredges, grabs, and box corers. For more specific
benthic sampling guidance, see KJemrn et al. (1990).

e. Fish Sampling

For estuaries and coastal waters, a survey vessel manned by an experienced crew and specially equipped with gear
to collect organisms is required (USEPA, 1991a). Several types of devices and methods can be used to collect fish
samples, including traps and cages, passive nets, trawls (active nets), and photographic surveys. Since many of these
devices selectively sample specific types of fish, it is not recommended that comparisons be made among data
collected using different devices (USEPA, 1991a).

f. Shellfish Sampling

Pathobiological methods provide information concerning damage to organ systems of fish and shellfish through an
evaluation of their altered structure, activity, and function (USEPA, 1991a). A field survey is required to collect
target organisms, and numerous tissue samples may be required for pathobiological methods. In general,
pathobiological methods are labor-intensive and expensive (USEPA, 1991a).

g. Plankton Sampling

Phytoplankton sampling in coastal waters is frequently accomplished with water bottles placed at a variety of depths
throughout the water column, some above and some below the pycnocline (USEPA, 1991a). A minimum of four
depths should be sampled. Zooplankton sampling methods vary depending on the size of the organisms. Devices
used include water bottles, small mesh nets, and pumps (USEPA, 1991a).

h. Aquatic Vegetation Sampling

Attributes of emergent wetland vegetation can be monitored at regular intervals along a transect (USEPA, 1991a).
Measurements include plant and mulch biomass, and foliar and basal cover. Losses of aquatic vegetation can be
tracked through aerial photography and mapping.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 8-19

A Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 6

1. Water Column Sampling

In estuaries and coastal waters, chemical samples are frequently collected using water bottles and should be taken
at a minimum of four depths in the vertical profile (USEPA, 1991a). Caged organisms have also been used to
monitor the bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals.

Physical sampling of the water column at selected depths in estuaries is done with bottles for temperature, salinity,
and turbidity, or with probes for temperature and salinity (USEPA, 199 1 a). Current meters are used to characterize
circulation patterns.

i. Sediment Sampling

Several types of devices can be used to collect sediment samples, including dredges, grabs, and box corers (USEPA,
1991a). Sampling depth may vary depending on the monitoring objective, but it is recommended that penetration
be well below the desired sampling depth to prevent sample disturbance as the device closes (USEPA, 1991 a). EPA
also recommends the selection of sediment samplers that also sample benthic organisms to cut sampling costs and
to permit better statistical analyses relating sediment quality to benthic organism parameters.

k. Bacterial and Viral Pathogen Sampling

For estuaries and coastal waters it is recommended that samples be taken of both the underlying waters and the thin
microlayer on the surface of the water (USEPA, 1991a). This is recommended, despite the fact that standardized
methods for sampling the microlayer have not been established, because research has shown bacterial levels several
orders of magnitude greater in the microlayer. In no case should a composite sample be collected for bacteriological
examination (USEPA, 1978).

Water samples for bacterial analyses are frequently collected using sterilized plastic bags or screw-cap, wide-mouthed
bottles (USEPA, 1991 a). Several depths may be sampled during one cast, or replicate samples may be collected at
a particular depth by using a Kemmerer or Niskin sampler (USEPA, 1978). Any device that collects water samples
in unsterilized tubes should not be used for collecting bacteriological samples without first obtaining data that support
its use (USEPA, 1991a). Pumps may be used to sample large volumes of the water column (USEPA, 1978).

9. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Effective quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and a clear delineation of QA/QC responsibilities
are essential to ensure the utility of environmental monitoring data (Plafkin et al., 1989). Quality control refers to
the routine application of procedures for obtaining prescribed standards of performance in the monitoring and
measurement process. Quality assurance includes the quality control functions and involves a totally integrated
program for ensuring the reliability of monitoring and measurement data.

EPA's QA/QC program requires that all EPA National Program Offices, EPA Regional Offices, and EPA laboratories
participate in a centrally planned, directed, and coordinated Agency-wide QA/QC program (Brossman, 1988). This
requirement also applies to efforts carried out by the States and interstate agencies that are supported by EPA through
grants, contracts, or other formalized agreements. The EPA QA program is based on EPA order 5360.1, which
describes the policy, objectives, and responsibilities of all EPA Program and Regional Offices (USEPA, 1984).

Each office or laboratory that generates data under EPA's QA/QC program must implement, at a minimum, the
prescribed procedures to ensure that precision, accuracy, completeness, comparability, and representativeness of data
are known and documented. In addition, EPA QA/QC procedures apply throughout the study design, sample
collection, sample custody, laboratory analysis, data review (including data editing and storage), and data analysis
and reporting phases.

6-20 EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 IL Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Specific guidance for QA/QC is provided for EPA's rapid bioassessment protocols (Plafkin et al., 1989) and for
EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation System (USEPA, 199 1 a). Standardized procedures for field sampling and laboratory
methods are an essential element of any monitoring program.

D. Data Needs

Data needs are a direct function of monitoring goals and objectives. Thus, data needs cannot be established until
specific goals and objectives are defined. Furthermore, data analyses should be planned before data types and data
collection protocols are agreed upon. In short, the scientific method, defined as "a method of research in which a
problem is identified, relevant data gathered, an hypothesis formulated, and the hypothesis empirically tested" (Stein,
1980), should be applied to determine data needs.

Types of data generally needed for nonpoint source monitoring programs will include chemical, physical, and
biological water quality data; precipitation data; topographic and morphologic data; soils data; land use data; and laad
treatment data. The specific parameters should be determined based on site-specific needs and the monitoring
objectives that are established.

Under EPA's quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program (see Quality Assurance and Quality Control),
a full assessment of the data quality needed to meet the intended use must be made prior to specification of QA/QC
controls (Brossman, 1988). The determination of data quality is accomplished through the development of data
quality objectives (DQOs), which are qualitative and quantitative statements developed by data users to specify the
quality of data needed to support specific decisions or regulatory actions. Establishment of DQOs involves
interaction of decision makers and the technical staff. EPA has defined a process for developing DQOs (USEPA,
1986).

E. Statistical Considerations

A significant challenge for those perfortning monitoring under section 6217 is. to isolate the changes in loads and
water quality caused by the implementation of management measures from those changes caused by the other sources
of variability. In short, the task is to separate the effect, or "signal," from the noise.

Successful monitoring programs typically resemble research, complete with focused objectives, hypotheses to test,'
statistical analyses, thorough data interpretation, and clear reporting. Statistics are an inherent component of nearly
all water quality monitoring programs (MacDonald, 1991). The capability to plan for and use statistical analyses,
therefore, is essential to the development and implementation of successful monitoring programs. The, following
discussion provides some basic information regarding statistics that should be understood by monitoring professionals.
A qualified statistician should be consulted to review the proposed monitoring design, the plan for statistical analyses,
the application of statistical techniques, and the interpretation of the analytic results.

1. Variability and Uncertainty

Gilbert (1987) identifies five general sources of variability and uncert4inty in environmental studies:

(1) Environmental variability;
(2) Measurement bias, precision, and accuracy;
(3) Statistical bias;
(4) Random sampling errors; and
(5) Gross errors and mistakes.

The author describes environmental variability as "thevariation in true pollution levels from one population unit to
the next." There are multiple sources of environmental variability that could affect pollutant loads and water quality
conditions. These sources include variability in weather patterns within and across years, natural variability in water

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 8-21

/1. Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

resource conditions, variations in biological communities, variability in loadings from point sources and other sources
that may not be addressed under section 6217 programs, and variability in land use. Changing land use brings with
it changes in the level of pollution control possible under section 6217. For example, a conversion from well-
managed agricultural cropland to well-man aged suburban development may cause decreases in nutrient and sediment
loads while possibly causing increases in metal loads and changes in hydrology. Gilbert (1987) notes that existing
information on environmental variability can be used to "design a plan that will estimate population parameters with
greater accuracy and less cost than can otherwise be achieved."

Accuracy is a measure of how close the sample value is to the true population value, whereas precision refers to the
repeatability of sample values. Measurement bias occurs when estimates are consistently higher or lower than the
true population value (Gilbert, 1987). Random sampling errors (e.g., variability in sample means for different
random samples from the same population) are due only to the random selection process and arise from the
environmental variability of population units (Gilbert, 1987). By definition, random sampling error is zero if all
population units are measured.

Statistical bias is "a discrepancy between the expected value of an estimator and the population parameter being
estimated" (Gilbert, 1987). Gilbert (1987) provides examples of estimators that are biased for small sample sizes
but less biased or unbiased for larger samples.

Gross mistakes can occur at any point in the process, beginning with sample collection and ending with the reporting
of study results (Gilbert, 1987). Adherence to accepted sampling and laboratory protocol, combined with thorough
quality control and data screening procedures, will minimize the chances for gross errors.

2. Samples and Sampling
a Samples

A sample is defined as "a small part of anything or one of a number, intended to show the quality, style, or nature
of the whole" (Stein, 1980). Environmental samples are collected for both economic and practical reasons: that is,
researchers cannot afford to inspect the whole and researchers usually have 'neither the time and resources nor the
capability to even try to inspect the whole. Besides, researchers often find that a sample or collection of samples
will provide sufficient information about the whole to allow decisions to be made regarding actions that should or
should not be taken.

In a statistical sampling program, the whole is called the population or target population, and it consists of the set
of population units about which inferences will be made (Gilbert, 1987). As an example, population units could be
defined as macroinvertebrate populations on square-meter sections of river bottom, nitrogen concentrations in I -liter
grab samples, or hourly mean-flow values at a specific gaging station. Gilbert (1987) refers to the sampled
population as the set of population units directly available for measurement.

b. Sampling Objectives

Gaugush (1986) states that "the major objective in sampling program design is to obtain as accurate or unbiased an
estimate as possible, and at the same time to reduce or explain as much of the variability as possible in order to
improve the precision of & estimates." According to Cochran (1977), an estimator is unbiased if its mean value,
taken over all possible samples, is equal to the population statistic that it estimates.

In the real world it is necessary to design sampling programs that meet accuracy and precision requirements while
not placing unreasonable burdens on sampling personnel or sampling budgets. As stated by Gaugush (1986), budget
constraints may force the issue of whether sampling results will produce information sufficient to meet the study
objectives.

Gaugush (1986) describes in some detail specific points to consider in defining study objectives. He notes that
11 sampling is facilitated by slk-cifying the narrowest possible set of objectives which will provide the desired

B-22 EPA-640-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 l/. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

information." First, he recommends that the target population be defined as a key step in limiting the variability
encountered in the sampling program. As an example, in a coastal watershed impacted by nonpoint sources, the
target population could be defined as storm-event, total nitrogen concentrations at the outlets of all tributaries to the
bay, thus eliminating the need to monitor at upstream and in-bay sites and during baseflow conditions. In this
example, the definition of the target population also specifies the water quality parameter of interest (i.e., total
nitrogen concentration). Note that both spatial and temporal limits should be established when defining the target
population. With respect to the example, then, the researcher may more specifically define the population units as
the total nitrogen concentrations in half-hour, composite samples taken during all storms (storms as defined by the
researcher).

The next step, according to Gaugush (1986), is to decide whether parameter estimation or hypothesis testing is the
primary analytic goal. This choice will have an impact on the sampling design. As an example, Gaugush points
out that balanced designs are desirable for hypothesis testing (see Estimation and Hypothesis Testing), whereas
parameter estimation may require unbalanced sample allocations to account for the spatial variability of parameter
levels. Hypothesis testing is likely to. be used in program evaluation (e.g., water quality before and after nonpoint
source management measures are implemented), whereas parameter estimation can be applied in assessments when
determining pollutant loads from various sources.

Finally, Gaugush (1986) recommends that exogenous variables and sampling strata be defined. Exogenous variables@
are used to explain some of the variability in the measured parameter of interest. As an example, total suspended
solids (TSS) is often a covariate of total phosphorus (T?) concentration in watersheds impacted by agricultural
runoff. Measurement of TSS may help increase the precision of TP estimates.

c. Sample Type and Sampling Design

The sampling program should provide representative and sufficient data to support planned analyses. Site location
and sampling frequency are often considered sufficient to describe the, "where" and "when" of sampling programs.
While this is certainly true to a large extent, these two factors alone do not describe fully where and when samples
are collected. Additional considerations include the depth of sampling and the surface-water or ground-water stratum
to which the sampling depth belongs, the origins of the aliquots taken in each sample bottle, and the time frame over
which measurements are made (including specific dates). These additional considerations are factors that characterize
the, type of sample collected. Site location and sampling frequency are components of sampling design.

In order for the data analyst to interpret sampling results appropriately, the sample type, sampling design, and target
population must all be clearly described. It should be clear from these descriptions whether the data collected are
representative of the target population,
I

Examples of sample type classifications include instantaneous and continuous; discrete and composite; surface, soil-
profile, and bottom; time-integrated, depth-integrated, and flow-integrated; and biological, physical, and chemical:
Specific guidance regarding the collection of these various sample types is not presented in this guidance since there
are several existing guidances to address sampling protocols and equipment.

An overview of a range of basic sampling designs is provided below. Users are encouraged to consult basic statistics
textbooks (e.g., Cochran, 1977) and books on applied statistics (e.g., Gilbert, 1987) to obtain additional information
regarding these designs.

Simple Random Sampling. 'In simple random sampling, each unit of the target population has an equal chance of
being selected. For example, if the target population is the macroinvertebrate population found on 100 square meters
of river bottom and the population units are I-square-meter sections of river bottom, then each unit would have a
I percent chance of being sampled under a random sampling program.

Gilbert (1987) and Cochran (1977) both address many aspects of simple random sampling. Included in these texts
are rhethods for estimation of the mean and total for sampling with, and without replacement, equations for

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 1 B-23

U. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

determining the number of samples required for both independent and correlated data, and the impact of measurement
effors.

Stratifled Random Sampling. In stratified random sampling, the target population is divided into separate groups
called strata for the purpose of obtaining a better estimate of the mean or total for the entire population (Gilbert,
19987). Simple random sampling is then used within each stratum.

Stratified random sampling could be used, for example, to monitor water quality in streams below irrigation return
flows. Based on a knowledge of irrigation and precipitation patterns for the watershed, the researcher could divide
the year into two or more homogenous periods. Within each period random samples could be taken to characterize
the average concentration of a particular pollutant. These random samples could take the form of daily, flow-
weighted composite samples, with the sampling dates randomly determined.

Cluster Sampling. In cluster sampling, the total population is divided into a number of relatively small subdivisions,
or clusters, and then some of these subdivisions are randomly selected for sampling (Freund, 1973). For one-stage
cluster sampling these selected clusters are sampled totally, but in two-stage cluster sampling random sampling is
then performed within each cluster (Gaugush, 1986).

Cluster sampling is applied in cases where it is more practical to measure randomly selected groups of individual
units than to measure randomly selected individual units (Gilbert, 1987i. An example of one-stage cluster sampling
is the collection of all macroinvertebrates on randomly selected rocks within a specified sampling area. The stream
bottom may contain hundreds of rocks with thousands of organisms attached to them, thus making it difficult to
sample the organisms as individual units. However, it may be possible to randomly select rocks and then inspect
every organism on each selected rock.

Multi-stage Sampling. Two-stage sampling involves dividing the target population into primary units, randonily
selecting a subset of these primary units, and then taking random samples (subunits) within each of the selected
subsets (Gilbert, 1987). A ;11 of the random samples ft6m the subunits are measured completely. Two-stage cluster
sampling, described above is one form of two-stage sampling. Cochran (1977) describes two-stage sampling in great
detail, and both Gilbert (1'@87) and Cochran (1977) discuss three-stage sampling and compositing.

Double Sampling. Double sampling, or two-phase sampling, involves t ,aking a large preliminary sample to gain
information (e.g., population mean or frequency distribution) about an auxiliary variate (x) in the context of a larger
sampling survey to make estimates for some other variate (y) (Cochran, 1977). This technique can be used for
stratification, ratio estimates, and regression estimates (Cochran, 1977).

Double sampling for stratification requires a first sample to estimate the strata weights (the proportion of samples
to be taken in each stratum) and a second sample to estimate the &trata means (Cochran, 1977). Gilbert (1987)
discusses a use of double sampling in which two techniques are used in initial sampling and subsequent sampling
is performed using only the cheaper or simpler technique. The initial sampling is used to establish a linear regression
between the measurements from the two techniques. This regression is then applied to the subsequent measurements
made with the cheaper technique to predict the measurement result that would have been obtained with the better,
more expensive technique.

Systematic Sampling. A commonly used sampling approach is systematic sampling, which entails taking samples
at a preset interval of time or space, using a randomly selected time or location as the first sampling point (Gilbert,
1987). Systematic sampling is used extensively in water quality monitoring programs usually because it is relatively
easy to do from a management perspective.

Cochran (1977) points out that the difference between systematic sampling and stratified random sampling with one
unit per stratum is that in systematic sampling the sampled unit occurs in the same relative position within each
stratum while in stratified random sampling the relative position is selected randonily. Cochran recommends
systematic sampling for the following situations:

8-24 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

When the ordering of the population is essentially random or it contains at most a mild stratification;

0
When stratification with numerous strata is employed and an independent systematic sample is drawn from
each stratum;

* When subsampling cluster units; and

* When sampling populations with variation of a continuous type, provided that an estimate of the sampling
error is not regularly required.

Sampling for Regression Analysis. Regression analysis is used to pre@lict variable values based on a mathematical
relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables (Gaugush, 1986). Gaugush points
out that regression analysis requires that at least one quantitative independent variable be used, whereas parameter
estimation and hypothesis testing can be performed for groups or classes (i.e., only the variable tested needs to be
quantitative). For example, one could quantify the relationship between sediment levels and flow rates by regressing
the log of total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations (dependent) against flow rates, (independent), which would
require quantitative measurements of both parameters. Alternatively, one could estimate average TSS levels
(parameter estimation) for high, medium, and low flow conditions with quantitative measures of TSS concentrations
and qualitative measures of flow (e.g., visual observation).

Gaugush (1986) discusses sampling to support regression analyses in terms of relating variables to either a spatial
or a temporal gradient, the latter being for trends over time. Some key points made are explained below.

Spatial Gradient Sampling

� The gradient variable is treated as a covariant to the variable of interest.

- If the relationship is linear, only two points need to be sampled; the extreme points are preferred.

� Whenever the relationship is known, relatively few sampling points are needed along the gradient. More
samples may then be used as replicates.

� Whenever the relationship is not known, more sampling points are needed along the gradient. More
replicates are also needed to test the proposed model.

� It is usually acceptable to place sampling points equal distances from each other along the gradient.-
However, the investigator should be careful not to fall in step witb some natural phenomenon, which would
bias any data collected.

Time Sampling

� Time can be used either as a covariate or as a grouping variable (e.g., season). Grouping by time may be
desirable when changes in the variable of interest are either small over time or occur only during short
periods with long periods of little or no change.

� Considerations in using time as a covariate are similar to those above for gradients, but (1) time is usually
only a surrogate for other variables (e.g., implementation of management measures) that truly affect the
variable of interest, and (2) the relationship with time is likely to be complex.

� If time is to be used as a covariate, relatively frequent sampling will be needed, with some replication
within sampling periods. Random sampling within the periods is also recommended.

Comparison of Sampling Designs. Both Gilbert (1987) and Cochran (1977) indicate that systematic sampling is
generally superior to stratified random sampling in estimating the mean. Cochran (1977), however, found that

EPA-840-8-.92-002 January 19,93 B-25

IL Techniques for Assessing Water Quality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

stratified random sampling provides a better estimate of the mean for a population with a linear trend, followed in
order by systematic sampling and simple random sampling. Freund (1973) notes that estimates of the mean that are
based on cluster sampling are generally not as good as those based on simple random samples, but they are better
per unit cost. Table 8-2 summarizes the conditions under which each of'six probabilistic sampling approaches should
be used for estimating means and totals (Gilbert, 1987). Cochran (1977) states that "stratification nearly always
results in a smaller variance for the estimated mean or total than is given by a comparable simple random sample."
Estimates of variance from systematic samples may differ from those determined from random samples, but Cochran
(1977) notes that "on average the two variances are equal," Cochran warns, however, that for any finite population
for which the number of sampling units is small the variance from systematic sampling; is erratic and may be smaller
or larger than the variance from simple random sampling.

d Preliminary Sampling

Preliminary sampling helps to ensure that the population of interest is being sampled and to evaluate its distribution
(Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Preliminary sampling or previous testing helps avoid the problem of collecting large
sets of useless data because of ineffective gear, or improper sample preparation or preservation. The target
population can be easily missed, especially for biological monitoring.

e. Use of Existing Data

Existing data may be used for problem definition, or for a pre-implementation baseline data set if the collection
protocol matches the monitoring objective, design, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) required for the
post-implementation data c9lIection (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Existing data may also be used for assessing
parameter variability and estimating the number of samples or the time period for the monitoring survey based on
the desired level of significan6e and error.

3. Estimation and Hypothesis Testing

There are two major types of statistical inference: estimation and; hypothesis testing (Remington and Schork, 1970).
In estimation it is hoped that sample information can be used to make a :reasonable conclusion regarding the value
of an unknown parameter. For example, the sample mean and standard deviation are used to estimate a range within
which it is likely that the population mean falls. This sort of estimation can be useful in developing baseline
information, developing or verifying models, estimating the nonpoint source contributions in a watershed, or
determining the nitrogen load from a single runoff event.

In hypothesis testing, data are collected for the purpose of accepting or rejecting a statement made about the expected
results of a study or effort. Hypothesis testing can be used to help decide whether management measures have
reduced pollutant loads or improved water quality. Because of this, hypothesis testing is a recommended element
of monitoring programs under section 6217.

The null hypothesis (H.) is the root of hypothesis testing. Traditionally, null hypotheses are statements of "no
change," but Remington and Schork (1970) prefer the term "tested hypothesis" since these hypotheses can take the
form of expected changes, effects, or differences. The alternate hypothesis (H,) is the counter to the null hypothesis,
traditionally being a statement of change, effect, or difference. That is, upon rejection of an H. stating no change
one would accept the Ha of change. One could, however, state an ff. of the type "change of at least 10 percent,"
with an H, of the type "no change of at least 10 percent." The choice is left to the researcher.

If the monitoring design is sound and statistical testing shows the null hypothes is to be false, then a change can be
inferred (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). Otherwise, the monitoring survey should conclude that the objective was not
met or that detection of change was overcome by extreme variability. In either case, with a sound objective, well-
formulated hypothesis, and carehil design, the monitoring survey may be expected to produce valuable information.

8-26 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 IL Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads

Table 8-2. Applications of Six Probability Sampling Designs to Estimate, Means and Totals
(after Gilbert, 1987)

Sampling Design Conditions for Application

Simple Random Sampling Population does not contain major trends, cycles, or
patterns of contamination.

Stratified Random Sampling Useful when a heterogeneous population can be broken
down into parts that are internally homogenous.
Multistage Sampling Needed when measurements are made on subsamples or
aliquots of the field sample.
Cluster Sampling Useful when population units cluster together and every
unit in each randomly selected cluster can be measured.

Systematic Sampling Usually the method of choice when estimating trends or
patterns of contamination over space. Also useful for
estimating the mean when trends and patterns in
concentrations are not present, or they are known a priori,
or when strictly random methods are impractical.
Double Sampling Useful when there is a strong linear relationship between
the variable of interest and a less expensive or more
easily measured variable.

The following are examples of hypotheses that could be developed for section 6217 monitoring programs.

Implementation of nutrient management on cropland in all tributary watersheds will not reduce mean total
nitrogen concentrations in Beautiful Sound by at least 20 percent,

� Urban detention basins in New City will not remove 80 percent of sediment delivered to the basins.

� Improved marina management will not reduce metals loadings from the repair and maintenance areas of
Stellar Marina.

� Forestry harvest activities have not increased weekly mean total suspended solids concentrations in Clean
River.

F. Data Analysis

A detailed preliminary analysis using scatter plots and statistical tests of assumptions and the properties of the data
set such as the distribution, homogeneity in variance, bias, independence, etc. precede formal hypothesis testing and
statistical analysis (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). From the objective and the properties of the data set, the appropriate
statistical test may be chosen to determine a trend, impact, or causality.

Simple scatter plots can often reveal much about the data set. For example, a scatter plot of nitrate concentrations
versus depth collected at 106 monitoring wells in South Dakota (Figure 8-2) clearly shows that (Goodman et al.,
1992):

With few exceptions, nitrate concentrations above 5 parts per million (ppm) were not detected at depths
greater than 20 feet below the water table;

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-27

11. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

10-

ON INIMIRWINW7-
Lin C_
.:7- M C3
..... LJ
U-1 BLAIS
CJ
-10
7-9-90
CM LK-18
Cib 4CI=) 20 feet below the water table 6-27-90
ra
-20

cc -30

-40
.mo- 5 ppm nitrate as nitrogen

-50 1 1 -T__
0 10 20 ab 4b 50 60 70
N03-N Concentrations (ppm)

I
Figure 8-2. Scatter plot of nitrate concentration versus depth below water table (Goodman et al., 1992).

0 Nitrate concentrations greater than 0.2 ppm were not observed at depths greater than 30 feet below the water
table; and

Nitrate concentrations exceeded 50 ppm only twice.

For trend detection some of the appropriate tests include Student's Mest, linear regression, time series, and
nonparametric trend tests (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). For an assessment of impact and causality, a careful tracking
of treatment is required and the two-sample Student's west, linear regression, and intervention time series are
appropriate statistical tests (Spooner, 1990). Evidence from experimental plot studies, edge-of-field pollutant runoff
monitoring, and modeling studies may be used to support the conclusion of causality (Coffey and Smolen, 1990).

A comparison of regression lines for data collected before best management practices (BMPs) were implemented
(pre-BMP) and for data collected after BMPs were implemented (post-BNW) can be used to explore the presence
of trends in a paired-watershed study. The example in Figure 8-3 (Meals, 1991b) shows a downward shift of the
post-BMP regression line, suggesting a significant decrease in total phosphorus (TP) export from the treated (study)
watershed (WS 4). In this study, pre-BMP data were collected for 3 years for calibration (see Types of Experimental
Designs) of the two watersheds (control and study), followed by a post-BMOP monitoring period of 5 years. Meals
(1991b) explains the plot by noting that a 5-pound-per-week (lb/wk) export of TP from the control watershed (WS 3)
corresponded to an 8.25-lb/wk export from the study watershed (WS 4) before BM? implementati,on. After BMP
implementation, the same 5-lb/wk export from the control watershed corresponded to a 6-lb/wk export from the study
watershed.

Lietman (1992) used cluster analysis to establish eight different storm groups based on total storm precipitation,
I

antecedent soil-moisture conditions, precipitation duration, precipitation intensity, and crop cover. The results of
analyses performed using the following clusters will be presented:

8-28 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 A Techniques for Assessing Water OuaW and for Estimating Pollution Loads

WS 4 TP LOAD
Pre-BMP vs Post-BMP

WS 4 TP LOAD (lb/wk)

100

10
2. 0.74
r
1 2. 0.75..*,***,***,,***"*'**
0.1

0.01
0.05 0.5 5 50
WS 3 TP LOAD 0b/Wk)

...... Pre-BMP - Post-BMP

Figure &3. Paired regression lines of pre-BMP and post-BMP total phosphorus loads, LaPlatte River, Verrnont (Meals,
1991 b).

� Cluster 1: Summer showers on moist soil with crop cover.

� Cluster 3: Typical spring and fall all-day storms generally with 0.2 to 0.6 inch of precipitation on soil with
little crop coverage.

� Cluster 6: Thunderstorms occurring predominantly in the summer on soil with cover crop.

� Cluster 7: Very small storms throughout the year on dry soil; most storms occurring on soil with little crop
cover.

� Cluster 8: Typical spring and fall all-day storms generally with 0.8 to 1.6 inches of precipitation on soil
with littlexrop cover.

These clusters were then used to group data for testing for significant differences between Ore-BM[P (Period 1, 1983-
1984) and post-BM[P (Period 3, 1987-1988; after terraces were installed) median runoff volume, mean suspended
sediment concentrations, and mean nutrient concentrations at a 22. I-acre field site in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
Cluster 3 had a very small number of storms producing runoff in Period 3, indicating that terracing increased the
threshold at which runoff occurred (Lietman, 1992). Other results, summarized in Figure 8-4 (Lietman, 1992),
indicate that terracing caused mean storm suspended sediment concentrations in runoff to decrease for storms in
clusters 6, 7, and 8. Terraces also appeared to increase mean nitrate (Clusters 1, 6, 7, and 8) and mean total nitrogen
concentrations (Clusters I and 8).

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-29

/I. Techniques for Assessing Water Ouality and for Estimating Pollution Loads Chapter 8

Mann-Whitney test results comparing within clusters total storm runoff and mean storm suspended
sediment and nutrient concentrations between Period 1 0 983-84) and Period 3 (1987-88); storms on
frozen ground excluded. t = statistically significant increase; 4 = statistically significant decrease;
= no statistically different change; (90) = significant at the 90 percent confidence interval; (95)
significant at the 95 percent interval; n = number of storms; mg/L = milligrams per liter; fl?/s = cubic
foot per second; ft'/acre = cubic foot per acre; and lb/acre = pound per acre.

CLUSTERI CLUSTER 6 CLUSTER 7 CLUSTER I

PERIOD I/PIERIOO 3 PERIOD I/PERIOD 3 PERIOD I/PEAIOD 3 PERIOD I/PERIOD 3

ALL STORMS'
Total storm runoff (0/acre) Change 1 (90) - J(95) -
median 85/0 54/400 0/0 205/260
n 31/21 18/10 67f73 15/12

STORMS THAT PRODUCED RUNOFF
Total storm runoff (ft 3/ acre) Change t (90) - - -
median 1201240 102(740 24180 2W26O
n 21/7 13/9 26/10 13/12
Mean suspended sediment Change 4(95) 4(95) J(95)
concentrations (mg/L) median 2,870/2.030 9,040/1.850 3.530(725 1,930470
n 1917 9/8 22/6 7110
mean total phosphorus Change - - -
concentration (mg/L as P) median 2.6t2.7 4.1/3.4 3.113.4 3.114.3
n 12/7 817 17/3 6(7
Mean total nitrogen Change -(90) - t (90)
concentration (mg1L as N) median 3.4/6.1 5.4/6.2 5.2f7.4 4.1/7.2
n 12f7 8/7 17/3 6(7

Mean ammonia + organic Change - - - -
nitrogen concentration median 2.714.2 4.6/4.2 4.114.2 3.6/4.8
(mg/L as N) n 12f7 Sf7 17/3 6/7
Mean nitrate + nitrite Change ? (95) t(95) t(95) 05)
concentration (mg/L as N) median .5611.7 .5V1.8 .5914.1 @4313.0
n 1217 W7 67

'Total and mean discharge Set equal to zero if no measurable runoff occurred.

Figure 8-4. Results of analysis of clustered pre-BMP and post-BMP data from Conestoga Headwaters, Pennsylvania
(Lietman, 1992).

Failure to observe improvement may mean that the problem is not careful.1y documented, management action is not
directed properly, the strength of the treatment is inadequate, or the monitoring program is not sensitive enough to
detect change (Coffey and Smolen, 1990). A mid-course evaluation, if conducted early enough, provides an
opportunity for modifications in project goals or monitoring design.

Clear reporting of the results of statistical analyses is essential to. effective communication with managers. Graphical
techniques and simple narrative interpretations of statistical findings generally help managers obtain the level of detail
they need to make decisions regarding subsequent actions. For example, Figure 8-5 illustrates the use of box-and-
whisker plots to summarize fecal coliform data at the beach on St. Albans Bay, Vermont (Meals et al., 1991). The
graphic clearly shows a general decline in bacteria counts in 1987-1989, as well as the fact that the water quality
standard has been met during those same years. A graphic summary of trends is inustrated in Figure 8-6, also taken
from the St. Albans Bay project (Meals, 1992). This simple graphic is particuMy easy for managers to interpret.

8-30 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

ch4pter a H. Techniques for Assessing Water Ousilily and for Estimating Pollution Loads

FECAL COLIFORM SUMMARY
BEACH (Sta. 13)
ST. ALBANS BAY

FC COUNT (#/100ml)
1000 1
100 @WO STANDARD

0.1
al 82 83 84 @15 Be 87 as 89
PROJECT YEAR

MEDIAN

Figure 9-5. Summary of fecal coliform at the beach on St. Albans Bay, Vermont (Meals et al., 199 1).

Stlition TRB TSS VSS TP SRP TKN N&N CHLa S.D_
Off-Bridge (14) V V 0 V V V A 0
Inner Bay (12) V V A A A V
Outer Bay (11) 0 A A A A A V

0 =No significant trend
AV Increasing or decreasing trend by some but not all statistical tests (P.S 0.10)
AV Increasing or decreasing trend by all statistical tests (P < 0.10)

TRB a turbidity; TSS - total suspended solids; VSS = volatile suspended solids; TP a total
phosphorus; SRP = soluble reactive phosphorus; TKN = total Kjeldahl nitrogen; NH3-N
ammonia nitrogen; CHL a a chlorophyll a; S.D. = Secchl disk.

Figure 8-6. Trends in St. Albans Say water quality, 1981-1990 (Meals, 1992).

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993 8-31

N. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

III. TECHNIOUES AND PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING
IMPLEMENTATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
MANAGEMENT MEASURES

A. Overview

As discussed in the introduction to this chapter, States will not be able to fully interpret their water quality
monitoring data without information regarding the adequacy of management measure implementation, operation, and
maintenance. Section 11 of this chapter provides an overview of techniques for assessing water quality and estimating
pollution loads. The information presented in this section is intended to complement that provided in Section 11 to
give State and local field personnel the basic information they need to develop sound programs for assessing over
time the success of management measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

Successful management measures designed to control, nonpoint source pollutants require proper planning, design and
implementation, and operation and maintenance. This section presents a general discussion of the procedures
involved in ensuring the successful design and implementation of various management measures, but is not intended
to provide recommendations regarding the operation and maintenance requirements for any given management
measure. Instead, this section is intended to provide "inspectors" with ideas regarding the types of evidence to seek
when determining whether implementation or operation and maintenance are being performed adequately.

B. Techniques
1. Implementation

Proper planning is an essential step in implementing management measures effectively and developing procedures
that ensure that the measures are achieved. During the planning stage, the optimal selection of management practices
for a specific discipline, such as forestry, is made following an evaluation of several factors. Some of these factors
include site conditions, the water quality goals to be achieved, and the need to meet additional objectives established
by the user. In some cases, local and state measures may directly require the use of certain practices or effectively
dictate the use of certain practices through the establishment of limits (e.g., application rates for fertilizers and
pesticides, annual erosion rates, land use controls, or setback distances from environmentally sensitive areas). The
key components of the planning stage include:

� Site investigations by qualified personnel such as soil scientists, biologists, wetlands scientists, hydrologists,
and engineers;

� Collection of pertinent data relative to the source category;

Identification of water quality goals;

Identification of land user objectives;

Identification of relevant State and local regulations;

Coordination with regulatory (and at times funding) agencies as necessary; and

Identification of an appropriate series of practices that achieve both the stated objectives and the applicable
management measures.

Once the appropriate series of practices has been identified for use, it is essential that each practice be properly
designed and implemented for the measures to be successftil. 11is requires that design and installation be conducted
by qualified and experienced personnel. Design of the management practices should be done in accordance with

8-32 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 /11. Techniques/Procedures for Assessing Impiernentation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

existing design guidelines and standards outlined in technical guides, including those developed by States and the
Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These standards include specific design criteria
and specifications that, when followed, will ensure the proper design of a practice. The technical guides also include
construction and implementation specifications that provide detailed guidance to the installer. It is always desirable
to have a qualified person such as the designer present at certain stages during installation to ensure that the designs
are being interpreted correctly and installed as specified.

2. Operation and Maintenance

A critical step in ensuring success of a management measure is proper operation and maintenance (O&M) of each
practice. Once a series of practices has been designed and installed, it is crucial that the individual practices be
operated and maintained to ensure that they function as intended. During the design process, an operation and
maintenance plan that identifies continual procedures, schedules, and responsibility for operating and maintaining
the practices should be drafted.

Examples of procedures and techniques to ensure the successful achievement of operation and maintenance are
identified in the following subsections. These procedures are generally applied by the landowner cr nperator
responsible for implementing the management measures. The examples provided below are "ot mmdatory but rather
are presented as illustrations of effective operation and maintenance practices. States may wish to develop progiarns;
that ensure that O&M is perfprmed by the responsible individuals or entities.

a. Agriculture

Chapter 2 of this guidance identifies six major categories of agricultural nonpoint pollution sources that affect coastal
waters: erosion from cropland, confined animal facilities, application of nutrients to cropland, application of
pesticides to cropland, land used for grazing, and irrigation of cropland. Table 8-3 presents examples of general
O&M procedures to ensure the performance of these measures.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-33

N TechniquesAProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance Of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-3. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures
for Agricultural Management Measures

Typical Operation and
Management Measures Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Erosion and Sediment Control Structural and Vegetative Practices - Inspections are performed
periodically and after large
Terraces, diversions, sediment storm events to check for
basins, drainage structures, failure and loss of vegetative
vegetative cover establishment and cover. Revegetation and
improvement, field borders, filter replacement or repair of
strips, critical area planting, grassed structures are performed as
waterways, tree and shrub planting, needed. Tree and shrub
and mulching growth is removed from
constructed channels and
diversions unless needed for
maintaining habitat.

Inspections and removal of
accumulated sediments are
performed periodically and
after large storm events.

Vegetative practices are
inspected periodically, and
mulch and crop residues are
applied for vegetation loss,
erosion, and channelization
resulting from runoff. Eroded
channels are regraded,
revegetated, and treated with
mulch as needed.

Nonstructural Practices - Practice implemented is
compared versus specifications
Conservation tillage, conservation in design standards, and
cropping sequence, delayed operational procedures are
seedbed operation, strip-cropping, closely followed.
and crop rotations

B-34 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 /A TechniquestProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures
Table 8-3. (Continued) Typical Operation and
Management Measures Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Confined Animal Facility Structural and Vegetative Practices - Inspections are performed
Management periodically and after large
Terraces, diversions, heavy use storm events to check for
area protection, drainage structures, failure and loss of vegetative
dikes, grassed waterways, waste cover. Revegetation and
storage ponds and structures, waste replacement or repair of
treatment lagoons, composting structures are performed as
facilities, and vegetative cover needed. Tree and shrub
establishment growth is removed from
constructed channels and
diversions unless needed for
maintaining habitat.

- Waste storage structures,are
inspected for cracks and leaks
after each use cycle.

- All drainage structures
including downspouts and
gutters are annually inspected
and repaired as needed.

- Established grades for lot
surfaces and conveyance
channels are maintained at all
times.

Holding ponds and lagoons are
drawn down to design storm
capacity within 14 days of a
runoff event.

Solids are removed from the
solid separation system after a
runoff event to maintain design
capacity and prevent solids
from entering runoff holding
facilities.

Nonstructural Practices Manure transport and
application equipment is
Waste utilization, application of cleaned with fresh water after
manure and runoff to agricultural each use in an environmentally
land safe area.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-35

1/1. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8
Table 8-3. (Continued) Typical Operation and
Management Measures Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Nutrient Management Nonstructural Practices Operational procedures in
management plan are adhered
Nutrient management plan to.

Periodic testing of soil and
plant tissue is conducted to
determine nutrient needs
during early growth stages, and
manure sludges and irrigation
water are tested if used.

The nutrient management plan
is updated whenever crop
rotation or nutrient source is
changed. Nutrient needs and
application rates and methods
are redetermined if needed.

Records of nutrient use and
sources are maintained along
with production records for
each field.

Application equipment is
periodically inspected and
calibrated, with repairs made
as needed.

The management plan is
reviewed at least every 3 years
and updated if needed.

Vegetative Practices Periodically and after large
storm events cover crops are
Vegetative cover establishment inspected for loss of
vegetation, erosion, and
channelization. Area is
regraded and revegetated as
needed. A thick, thriving cover
crop is maintained.

8-36 EPA-840-8-92-002 January 199J

Chapter 8 /11. Techniques/Procedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-3. (Continued)

Management Practices Typical Operation and
Management Measures Maintenance Procedures
Pesticide Management Nonstructural Practices Operational procedures anId
methods, such as use of
Pesticide management proper application methods and
rates, are adhered to.

Scouting for pests is conducted
periodically, and spot spraying
is used when needed.

Pesticide management actions
are updated whenever crop
rotation is changed or pesticide
source is changed.

Application equipment is
inspected and calibrated prior
to use.

Pesticide use is tracked along
with production records for
each field.

Pesticide management
approach is reviewed each
year and updated as needed.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 B-37

/I/. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8
Table 8-3. (Continued) Typical Operation and
Management Measures Management Practices Maintenance Procedures
Grazing Management Structural and Vegetative Practices All structures are periodically
inspected, including tanks,
Pipelines, ponds, tanks and troughs, pipelines, wells, ponds, and
fencing, wells, pasture and hayland fencing to ensure that they are
planting, seeding, mulching, and structurally sound and
critical area planting functioning as designed.
Replacement and repair are
performed as needed.

Periodically and after large
storm events all vegetative and
mulching practices are
inspected for vegetation loss,
erosion, and channelization.
Regrading, revegetation, and
treatment with mulch are
conducted as needed.

Range land is periodically
inspected on foot to identify
area of erosion, channelization,
and loss of vegetation.

Grazing Management Procedures outlined in
standards on grazing
Deferred grazing, planned grazing management practices are
system, proper grazing use, and adhered to.
livestock exclusion
- Appropriate plant residue or
grazing height is maintained to
protect grazing soil from
erosion.

- Livestock herding is provided
as needed to protect sensitive
areas from excessive use at
critical times.

- A flexible grazing system is
maintained to adjust for
unexpected environmental
problems.

8-38 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 11L TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-3. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measures Management Practices Procedures
Irrigation Water Management Structural and Vegetative Practices All irrigation system
components, such as gate
All surface and subsurface irrigation weirs, valves, pipes, meters,
systems; irrigation ditches, canal and ditches, are annually
and channel lining, pipelines, water inspected and maintained to
control structures, water meters, function as designed.
irrigation land leveling, and filter
strips Established grades for lots and
conveyance channels are
maintained at all times.

- Vegetative cover is inspected
periodically and after all large
rain events for loss of
vegetation, erosion, and
channelization. Regrading and
revegetation are conducted as
needed.

Nonstructural Practices - Crop needs and volume of
water delivered are measured
Irrigation water management for each irrigation event, and
water is applied uniformly.

b. Foresby

Forestry-related activities such as road construction, timber harvesting, mechanical site preparation, prescribed
burning, and fertilizer and pesticide application contribute to nonpoint source pollution. These operations can change
water quality characteristics in waterbodies receiving drainage from forest lands. Activities such as timber
harvesting, mechanical site preparation, and prescribed burning can accelerate erosion, resulting in increased sediment
concentrations.

There are O&M techniques that minimize hydrological impacts, temperature elevations, the amount of sediment
production, and the transport of sediment, nutrients, pesticides, and other pollutants from forest lands into
waterbodies. These procedures typically. involve periodic inspection and repair of the roadways, strearnside
management areas, and drainage structures (particularly after storm events); containment and proper use of chemicals
used during forestry activities; and revegetation of the disturbed areas. A more detailed description of typical O&M
procedures to ensure adequate performance of forestry management measures is presented in Table 8-4.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 B-39

/11. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8.4. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Forestry Management Measures

Typical Operation and
Management Measure Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Preharvest Planning Develop a State process (or use an - Procedures outlined through
existing process) that ensures harvesting planning process
implementation of all forestry are followed.
management measures. Such a
process should include appropriate - Preharvest planning process
notification mechanisms for forestry is updated every year based
activities with potential NIPS on the results of new studies
impacts. and Federal and State
regulations.

Streamside Management Areas Establish streamside management - The SMA width is maintained
(SMAs) zone. with respect to each State's
special management criteria.

- Low-level aerial photos are
used to determine whether
any changes are occurring in
the SMA.

- Periodic soil sampling is
conducted for the presence of
pesticides and fertilizers.

Maintain necessary canopy species - Shade cover is tracked
for shade, bank stability, and large throughout the harvesting
woody debris. activity, and clumping and
clustering of leave trees is
used if a blowdown threat
exists.

Road Construction and Install proper drainage/erosion Roadways are checked for
Reconstruction control devices. Size to regional flooding during storms.
flood frequency (e.g., 25- or 50-
year storms). Culverts and drainage devices
are inspected and cleaned
during fall and spring of each
year and after major storm
events. Drainage devices ar
repaired as needed.

Install appropriate sediment control - Sediment barriers and hay
structures. bales are inspected
periodically and after a major
storm event.

- Erosion, channelization, and
any short-circuiting in the filter
strips are repaired.

- Diversions, terraces, and
berms are inspected and
repaired.

8-40 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 111. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-4. (Continued)

Typical Operation and
Management Measure Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Road Construction and Stream crossing Waterways are kept clear of
Reconstruction (continued) debris not needed for habitat.

- Stream crossings are
stabilized and maintained.

Road Management Road maintenance - Roads are inspected for
structural soundness and
erosion after extreme
weather.

- Surface condition is
inspected.

- Design grades of roadways
are maintained.

- Roads are regraded and ruts
are filled as needed.

- Turnouts, dips, and waterbars
are installed if needed.

- Drainage structures are
inspected, cleared, and
repaired as needed.

Proper closure and maintenance of - All restricted access roads are
abandoned roads. maintained and repaired.

Remaining stream-crossing
structures are periodically
inspected and maintained.

- Where stream crossings have
failed, crossing structures are
removed and streambank is
returned to grade.

- Vegetation is established on
remaining disturbed areas.

Indigenous plant species are
selected for replanting.
Timber Harvesting Landing (Practices have Drain age/erosion control
operational and post-operational structures are periodically
phases where different O&M inspected and repaired, and
procedures may be needed) vegetation is established on
remaining disturbed areas.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-41

//1. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8.4. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practices Procedures

Timber Harvesting (continued) Skidding (Practices have operational - Water bar is maintained on
and post-operational phases where skid trails.
different O&M procedures may be
needed) - Trails and stream channels are
revegetated.

Petroleum management - Spill prevention and
containment procedures are
followed.

Petroleum products are stored
away from watercourses. in
sealed containers.

- Equipment is serviced away
from watercourses.

- Waste disposal containers are
inspected for leaks.

Site Preparation and Forest Site preparation - Mechanical site preparation is
Regeneration not applied on slopes greater
than 30 percent and is not
conducted in SMAs.

- Slash is kept from natural
drainages.

- Windrows and piles are placed
away from drainages.

Regeneration - Seedlings are distributed
evenly across the site.

- Planting machines are
operated along the contour.
Fire Management Prescribed fire - Extensive blading of fire lines
by heavy equipment is
avoided.

Intense prescribed fire is kept
away from SMAs, strearnside
vegetation for small ephemeral
drainages, and very steep
slopes with high sedimentation
potential.

B-42 EPA-840-B-92-002 January I

Chapter 8 fil. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-4. (Continued)

Typical Operation and
Management Measure Management Practices Maintenance Procedures

Fire Management (continued) Wildfire suppression and Bladed firelines are plowed on
rehabilitation contour or stabilized with
waterbars and/or other needed
techniques to prevent erosion
of the fireline.

Use of fire-rbtardant chemicals
in SMAs and over
watercourses is avoided where
possible.

Revegetation of Disturbed Areas Revegetate disturbed areas, Growth is inspected until
especially high erosion areas established and replaced as
needed.

Mulches are inspected
periodically and after
rainstorms.

- Vegetation is limed and
fertilized if needed.

Forest Chemical Management Apply fertilizer and pesticides - Instructions and State
according to label instructions. Use regulations for fertilizer and
a buffer area for chemical pesticide application are
applications. followed.

Follow spill prevention and - In case of spill, spill
containment procedures to prevent containment procedures are
products from entering the followed.
watercourses.

Store the fertilizer and pesticides - Fertilizer and pesticide storage
away from watercourses. containers are inspected for
leaks. I

Dispose of wastes properly, with no - Waste disposal containers are
applications directly to water. periodically inspected for leaks.

Workers are informed about
the correct method of disposal
and the harmful effects on the
environment if the waste is not
disposed of correctly.

Consider weather and wind The National Weather Bureau
conditions before application. and local weather information
centers are contacted for the
weather and wind conditions.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-43

I//. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-4. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practices Procedures
Forest Chemical Management Use a licensed applicator with - The qualifications of the
(continued) properly calibrated equipment. applicator are checked, and
proof of the equipment
calibration is inspected.
Analyze soil and foliage prior to - Samples are collected prior to
application of fertilizer. application.
Wetlands Forest Management Road design and construction Temporary roads are used in
forested wetlands unless
permanent roads are needed
to serve large and frequently
used areas.

- Fill roads are constructed only
when absolutely necessary.

- Adequate cross-drainage is
provided to maintain the
natural surface and subsurface
flow of the wetland.

Harvesting - When groundskidding, low-
ground-pressure tires or
tracked machines are used,
and skidding is concentrated
along a few primary trails.

Groundskidding is suspended
when soils become saturated.

c. Urban Sources

Pollutants from urban sources include suspended solids, nutrients, pathogens, metals, petroleum products, and various
toxics. Generally, urban nonpoint source control measures consist of nonstructural, and vegetative practices, all of
which must be properly mai 'ntained to ensure pollutant removal. All of these practices should be periodically
inspected. In the case of structural practices and vegetative practices, inspections are conducted to locate any
structural defects and to perform cleaning operations. Nonstructural practices should be reviewed periodically as
guidelines are updated or to determine the level of compliance with the guidelines. These issues are summarized
in Table 8-5.

8-44 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy 1993

Chapter 8 11L Techniq ueslProcedums for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8,5, Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Urban Managen"n, Measures

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Category Management Measure Procedures

New Development, Redevelopment, 1. By design or performance: Selected practices known to
and New and Relocated Roads, achieve 80% TSS removal are
Highways, and Bridges (a) the postclevelopment designed and installed.
equivalent of at least 80
percent of the average, annual - Selected practices are
total suspended solids loading Inspected and maintained to
is removed, or ensure operational efficiency.
(b) postclevelopment loadings
of TSS are less than or equal - Structural practices are
to predevelopment loadings; inspected after major storms.
and

2. To the greatest extent
practicable, postdevelopment
volume and peak runoff rates
are similar to predevelopment
levels.

Watershed Protection for Now Develop a watershed protection Legislative authorities establish
Development or Redevelopment program to: local planning and zoning
Including New and Relocated controls.
Roads, Highways, and Bridges 1. Avoid conversion, to the extent
practicable, of areas that are Opportunity for community
particularly susceptible to group and local organization
erosion and sediment loss; Involvement Is built Into
approval mechanisms.
2. Preserve areas that provide
water quality benefits and/or
am necessary to maintain
riparian and aquatic biota; and

3. Site development, including
roads, highways, and bridges,
to protect, to the extent
practicable, the natural integrity
of waterbodies and natural
drainage systems.

EPA,840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-45

Ill. TachniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 0-5. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Category Management Measure Procedures

Site Development, Including Roads, Plan, design, and develop sites to: - Erosion and sediment control
Highways, and Bridges plans are reviewed.
1. Protect areas that provide
important water quality benefits - Site plans are reviewed for
and/or are particularly approval to ensure appropriate
susceptible to erosion and practices are included.
sediment loss;

2. Limit increases of impervious
areas except where necessary;

3. Limit land disturbance activities
such as clearing and grading,
and cut and fill to reduce
erosion and sediment loss; and

4. Limit disturbance of natural
drainage features and
vegetation.
Construction Site Erosion and 1. Reduce erosion and, to the Site vegetation and structural
Sediment Control extent practicable, retain practices are periodically
sediment onsite during and inspected.
after construction and
Area exposed to development
2. Prior to land disturbance, is limited and stabilized in a
prepare and implement an reasonable period of time.
approved erosion and sediment
control plan or similar - Post-storm inspections are
administrative document that conducted.
contains erosion and sediment
control provisions.
Construction Site Chemical Control 1 . Limit application, generation, - Toxic and nutrient
and migration of toxic management programs and
substances; plans, including spill prevention
and control, are developed and
2. Ensure the proper storage and implemented.
disposal of toxic materials; and
Proper facilities for storage of
3. Apply nutrients at rates construction equipment and
necessary to establish and machinery are maintained.
maintain vegetation without
causing significant nutrient
runoff to surface waters.
Onsite Disposal Systems New Onsite Disposal Systems Postconstruction inspection is
performed to ensure proper
installation.

B-46 EPA-840-B-92-002 Janualy 1993

Chapter 8 Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-5. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Category Management Measure Procedures

Onsite Disposal Systems (continued) Operating Onsite Disposal Systems - Failing systems are inspected
and repaired or replaced
before property is to be sold.

- The septic tank is regularly
pumped (at least once every
5 years).
Runoff from Existing Development Develop and implement watershed - Structural practices are
management programs to reduce inspected and maintained
runoff pollutant concentrations and annually or more frequently.
volumes from existing development. Accumulated sediment and
debris are removed annually or
1 . Identify priority local and/or more often if necessary.
regional watershed pollutant
reduction opportunities, e.g., The structural integrity of
improvements to existing urban practices is inspected.
runoff control structures;
The tops of infiltration facilities
2. Contain a schedule for are raked or removed and
implementing appropriate replaced annually or more
controls; often H needed to prevent
clogging of soil pores.
3. Limit destruction of natural
conveyance systems; and Vegetative practices are
mowed as needed.
4. Where appropriate, preserve,
enhance, or establish buffers
along surface waterbodies and
their tributaries.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 8-47

Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-5. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Category Management Measure Procedures

Pollution Prevention Implement pollution prevention and The success of public
education programs to reduce education and level of
nonpoint source pollutants participation are reviewed
generated from the following annually.
activities, where applicable:
Program is improved and
1. Household hazardous waste; expanded into additional areas.

2. Lawn and garden activities;

3. Turf management on golf
courses, parks, and
recreational areas;

4. Improper operation and
maintenance of onsite disposal
systems;

5. Discharge of pollutants into
storm drains;

6. Commercial areas not under
NPDES purview, and

7. Pet waste disposal.
Roads, Highways, and Bridges Plan, site, and develop roads and Selected practices known to
highways to: achieve 80% TSS removal are
designed and installed at post-
1. Protect areas that provide development.
important water quality benefits
or are particularly susceptible - Site plans are reviewed to
to erosion or sediment loss; ensure appropriate practices
are included.
2. Limit land disturbance to
reduce erosion and sediment - Erosion and sediment control
loss; and plan is implemented.

3. Limit disturbance of natural
drainage features and
vegetation.
Site, design, and maintain bridge - Drainage systems are
structures so that sensitive and inspected to ensure operational
valuable aquatic ecosystems ar)d efficiency.
areas providing important water
quality benefits are protected from - Entry of paint chips, abrasives,
adverse effects. and solvents to waters during
bridge maintenance is
minimized.

8-4e EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaiy i993

Chapter 8 N. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures
Table 8-5. (Continued) Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Category Management Measure Procedures

Roads, Highways, and Bridges 1. Reduce erosion and, to the - Vegetation is inspected
(continued) extent practicable, retain regularly and mowed as
sediment onsite during and needed.
after construction; and
- Slope cut-and-fill areas are
2. Prior to land disturbance, inspected to ensure stability.
prepare and implement an
approved erosion control plan - Retrofit practices are installed
or similar administrative where needed.
document that contains erosion
and sediment control
provisions.

1. Umh the application, Instructions and State
generation, and migration of regulations for fertilizer and
toxic substances; pesticide application are
followed.
2. Ensure the proper storage and
disposal of toxic materials; and Spill prevention, containment,
and cleanup plans are
3. Apply nutrients at rates implemented for toxics and
necessary to establish and hazardous substances.
maintain vegetation without
causing significant nutrient Workers are informed of the
runoff to surface water. correct methods of storage and
disposal and of the harmful
effects to the environment if
storage and disposal are not
done correctly.
Incorporate pollution prevention Road, highway, and bridge
procedures Into the operation and operation and maintenance
maintenance of roads, highways, guidelines are reviewed.
and bridges to reduce pollutant
loadings to surface waters. - An inspection program is
implemented to ensure that
operation and maintenance
guidelines are fully
implemented.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 8-49

Iff TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8
Table 8-5. (Continued) Typical Operation and
Management Measure Category Management Measure Maintenance Procedures
Roads, Highways, and Bridges Develop and implement runoff Structural practices are
(continued) management systems for existing inspected and
roads, highways, and bridges to accumulated sediment and
reduce runoff pollutant concentrations debris are removed
and volumes entering surface waters. annually or more often if
necessary.
1. Identify priority and watershed
pollutant reduction opportunities - Structural integrity of
(e.g., improvements to existing practices is inspected.
urban runoff control structures)
and - Infiltration facilities are
inspected and cleaned
2. Establish schedules for annually to prevent
implementing appropriate clogging of soil pores.
controls.
- Vegetative practices are
mowed as needed, but not
within 50-100 feet of
waterways with steep
banks.

d. Marinas and Recreational Boating

Potential adverse effects of recreational boating include degradation of water quality, degradation of sediment quality,
destruction of habitat, increased turbidity, and shoreline and shallow area erosion. Proper.design and operation of
marinas can result in reductions in these adverse impacts to the environment. However, poorly designed or managed
marinas can pose additional environmental hazards including dissolved oxygen deficiencies; concentration of
pollutants from boat maintenance, operation, and repair; transport of runoff from impervious surfaces into coastal
waters; and destruction pf coastal habitat areas.

Management practices typically used to ensure proper operation and maintenance of marinas and boats include both
the development of regular schedules for inspecting, cleaning, and repairing facilities and the implementation of
education programs for boaters and marina owners and operators. Examples of O&M procedures and techniques
for marinas and recreational boating management measures are presented in Table 8-6.

8-50 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table 8-6. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Marinas
and Recreational Boating Management Measures

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Shoreline Stabilization Structural practices - Structures are periodically
inspected, and repaired or
replaced as necessary.

Vegetative practices - Growth is inspected
periodically and after major
storm events, with replanting
as needed.

Decrease Turbidity and Physical Exclude motorized vessels from - Condition of signs to advise
Destruction of Shallow-Water Habitat areas that contain important shallow- boaters against damaging
Resulting from Boating Activities water habitat. habitat is inspected periodically
during boating seasonj

Establish and enforce no-wake - Location of speed zone signs
zones to decrease turbidity. are reviewed for potential to
prevent damage to habitat.

Storm Water Runoff Treat runoff from hull maintenance - Practices are inspected
areas to remove at least 80 percent frequently and appropriate
of the average annual total maintenance is provided.
suspended solids. Sand filters and
wet ponds are among the practice
options.

Prevent generation of pollutants Hull maintenance areas are
from hull maintenance areas through inspected regularly and
use of sanders with vacuum swept/vacuumed as required.
attachments, use of tarpaulins, and
other practices.

Prevent organic compounds frpm Boats with inboard engines
boats from entering coastal waters. have oil absorbing materials
placed in bilge areas. These
materials are examined for
replacement at least once per
year. Used-pad containers are
checked for presence of used
pads.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-51

Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-6. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Storm Water Runoff (continued) Minimize boat cleaners, solvents, In-water hull cleaning and the
and paint from entering the coastal use of cleaners and solvents
waters. on boats in the water are
minimized. Water only or
phosphate-free detergents are
used to clean boats. Use of
detergents containing
ammonia, sodium hypochlorite,
chlorinated solvents, petroleum
distillates, or lye is
discouraged.
Institute public education, outreach, Promotional material and
and training programs for boaters instructional signs are used to
and marina owners and operators spread messages.
on proper disposal methods. Presentations, workshops, and
seminars on pollution
prevention are provided at local
marinas.

Sewage Facility for Now and Pumpout facilities, dump stations for Pumpout facilities, dump
Expanding Marinas portabie stations, and restroom stations, and restrooms are
facilities inspected, serviced, and
maintained on a regular
schedule. Repairs are made
as, needed.

Dye tablets can be placed in
holding tanks to discourage
illegal disposal.
Solid Waste from the Operation, Waste disposal facilities for marina - Waste disposal facilities are
Cleaning, Maintenance, and Repair customers inspected and maintained
of Boats routinely.

- Hazardous waste containers
are inspected periodically for
leaks.

Provide facilities for recycling. - Use of recycling facilities is
routinely inspected for
appropriate separation of
materials.

Receipts from pickup of
materials are retained for
inspection.

8-52 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993

Chapter 8 A TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures
Table 8-6. (Continued) Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Liquid Material Marinas should provide appropriate Containers are checked to
facilities for the storage, transfer, see whether they are clearly
containment, and disposal of liquid marked and available for
by-products from maintenance, customer use at all times.
repair, and operation of boats.
Separate containers for waste
oil, waste gasoline, used
antifreeze (where recycling is
-available), and other
chemicals are provided.
Encourage recycling. Marina educational materials
are reviewed for information
regarding recycling.

Site is inspected for the
availability of recycling
facilities.

e. Hydromod1ficatlon

Operation and maintenance procedures for hydromodification management measures typically involve periodic
inspection of structures and features (particularly after storm events), clearing of debris not needed for habitat, and
repair or replacement of structures and features as required. Examples of procedures to ensure adequate operation
and maintenance of management measures during hydromodification are presented in Table 8-7.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-53

I/L TechniqueslProcedure$ for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-7. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures
for Hydramodification Management Measures

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Instrearn and Riparian Habitat Use modelstmethodologies to Model limitations, applicability,
Restoration for Channelization evaluate the effects of proposed and accuracy and precision are
and Channel Modification channelization and channel reviewed prior to use. Model
modification projects on habitat. inputs are developed and
modeling is performed under an
approved quality
assurance/quality control
program.
Identify and evaluate appropriate BMP systems are developed
BMPs for use in the design of that include an appropriate mix
proposed channelization or of streambank protection, levee
channel modification projects or in protection, channel stabilization
the operation and maintenance and flow restrictors, check dam
program of existing projects. systems, grade control
structures, vegetative cover,
instrearn sediment load control,
noneroding roadways, setback
levees, and flood walls.
Cumulative beneficial impacts of
the BMPs are evaluated.

Physical and Chemical Use models/methodologies to Model limitations, applicability,
Characteristics of Surface Waters evaluate the effects of proposed and accuracy and precision are
(Channelization and Channel channelization and channel reviewed prior to use. Model
Modification) modification projects. inputs are developed and
modeling is performed under an
approved quality
assurancatquality control
program.
Identify and evaluate appropriate BMP systems are developed
BMPs for use in the design of that include an appropriate mix
proposed channelization or of streambank protection, levee
channel modification projects or in protection, channel stabilization
the operation and maintenance and flow restrictors, check dam
programs of existing projects. systems, grade control
structures, vegetative cover,
Instrearn sediment load control,
noneroding roadways, setback
levees, and flood walls.
Cumulative beneficial impacts of
the BMPs are evaluated.

8-54 EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1990

Chapter 8 it/. TechniqueelProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

f. Dams

Examples of typical O&M procedures for ensuring adequate performance of management measures for dams are
presented in Table 8-8.

Table 8-8. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management Measures for Dams

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Erosion and Sediment Control Soil bioengineering, grading and Periodic inspections are
During and After Construction sediment control practices, performed to determine
streambank and streambed erosion whether disturbed areas are
controls stabilized.

- Features are repaired and
replaced as needed.

- Grassed waterways are
mowed as needed.

Waterways are cleared of
debris not needed for habitat.

Fertilizer and lime are applied
only as needed.
Prior to land disturbance, prepare Plan is reviewed for inclusion
and implement an approved erosion of provisions to preserve
and sediment control plan or similar existing vegetation where
administrative document. possible and control sediment
in runoff from the construction
area.
Protection of Surface Water Quality Turbine venting, surface water Back-up power supply is
and instrearn and Riparian Habitat pumps, high purity oxygen injection, provided and periodically
During Dam Operation diffused aeration, and/or tested.
oxygenation to aerate reservoir
waters and releases Oxygen tanks are replaced as
needed.

Optimal location(s) of aeration
or oxygenation are determined
based on water quality
monitoring.
Re-regulation weir, small turbines, Site-specific O&M procedures
frequent pulsing, sluice modification, are followed and adjusted as
spillway modification to improve needed.
oxygen levels in tailwaters
- Debris not needed for habitat
are cleared.

- Periodic inspections are
performed.

EPA-840-8-92-002 January 1993 8-55

N. TechniquesvProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-8. (Continued)

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Protection of Surface Water Quality Selective withdrawal Release water temperature is
and Instrearn and Riparian Habitat monitored to determine
During Dam Operation (continued) effectiveness of selective
withdrawal.

Watershed protection Watershed modeling is
conducted.

Periodic inspections of
watershed land use and
management practices are
performed. Adjustments to
control practices are made on
a site-specific basis as
needed.

Flow augmentation Minimum flows are
maintained to support
downstream habitat.

Gates and channels are
cleared of debris not needed
for habitat.

Reduce flow fluctuations - Flow fluctuations are
evaluated and adjusted as
needed.

Fish ladders, screens and barriers - Gates, channels, and weirs
to prevent fish from entering water are cleared of debris not
pumps and turbines needed for habitat.
Chem ical/Pollutant Control During Spill containment procedures - An emergency spill
and After Construction containment plan is prepared
and evaluated.

- Periodic inspections are
conducted to see whether
items necessary for spill
containment are on-hand.

Treatment or detention of concrete - Treatment or detention
washout facilities are periodically
inspected and maintained.

B-56 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 8 Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

g. Shoreline Erosion

In shoreline and streambank areas requiring erosion protection from water flow and wave action, shoreline structures
such as breakwaters, jetties, groins, bulkheads, and revetments are often constructed. In addition, nonstructural
measures (e.g., marsh creation and vegetative bank stabilization) are often used in protecting shorelines and
strearnbanks from erosive forces. Typical O&M procedures for ensuring adequate performance of these measures
against erosion include monitoring for erosion, making structural or nonstructural modifications as needed,
performing periodic inspection of the erosion control systems, and performing repair and replacement as required.
Table 9-9 presents examples of typical O&M procedures for shoreline erosion management measures.

h. Protection of Existing Wetlands and Riparian Zones

Wetlands provide many beneficial uses including habitat, flood attenuation, water quality improvement, shoreline
stabilization, and ground-water recharge. Wetlands can play a critical role in reducing nonpoint source pollution
problems in open bodies of water by trapping or transforming pollutants before releasing them to adjacent waters.
Their role in water quality includes processing, removing, transforming, and storing such pollutants as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides, and certain heavy metals.

The loss of wetland and riparian areas as buffers between uplands and the parent waterbody allows for more direct
contribution of nonpoint source pollutants to the aquatic ecosystem. Often, loss of these areas occurs at the same
time as the alteration of land features, which increases the amount of surface water runoff. As a result, excessive
fresh water, nutrients, sediments, pesticides, oils, greases, and heavy metals from nearby land use activities may be
carried in runoff from storm events and discharged to surface and ground water. Without wetlands these nonpoint
source pollutants travel downstream to coastal waters without the benefits of filtration and attenuation that would
normally occur in the wetland or riparian area.

Wetland and riparian areas also provide important habitat functions. Protection of wetlands and riparian zones
provides both nonpoint source control and other corollary benefits of these natural aquatic systems although adverse
impacts on wetlands from nonpoint source pollutants can occur. Such impacts can be minimized through
pretreatment with stormwater management practices. Land managers should, therefore, use proper management
techniques to protect and restore the multiple benefits of these systems. Examples of typical O&M procedures
for ensuring adequate performance of measures to protect existing wetlands and riparian areas are provided in Table
8-10.

i. Restoration of Wetland and Riparian Areas

Restoration of wetlands refers to reestablishing a wetland and its range of functions where one previously existed
by reestablishing the hydrology, vegetation, and other habitat characteristics. Restoration of wetlands and riparian
areas in the watershed have been shown to result in nonpoint source control benefits.

A combination of practices may be implemented to restore preexisting functions in damaged and destroyed wetlands
and riparian systems in areas where they could serve a nonpoint source control function. Examples of typical O&M
procedures for ensuring adequate performance of measures to restore wetlands and riparian areas are provided in
Table 8-11.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-57

It/. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

Table 8-9. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for
Shoreline Erosion Management Measures

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Management Measure for Eroding Protect naturally occurring features. Changes in natural conditions
Streambanks (Coastal Rivers and resulting from installed
Creeks) and Shorelines (Coastal shoreline structures are
Bays) regularly evaluated.

Structures and operations are
modified as necessary if
detrimental changes to naturally
occurring features are found.

Biostabilization and marsh creation to Vegetation is limed and
restore habitat fertilized only as needed.

Growth is inspected periodically
and after major storm events,
with replanting as needed.

Shore revetment or bulkheads Structures are periodically
inspected and repaired or
replaced as needed.

Minimize or prevent transfer of Changes in natural conditions
erosion energy. resulting from installed
shoreline structures are
regularty evaluated.

Structures and operations are
modified as necessary if
detrimental changes to naturally
occurdng features are found.

Energy-dissipating structures
are inspected and repaired or
replaced as needed

Return walls for bulkheads or - The structural integrity of tie-
revetments backs is periodically,inspected.
Repairs as needed.

Minimize erosion from boat wakes. - Erosion is monitored -and
boating speed zone -
designations are revised as
needed.

B-58 EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty-19A3

Chapter 8 Ill. TechniqueslProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, Maintenance of Measures

Table B-10. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management Measure
for Protection of Existing Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Protect from adverse effects Identify existing functions of those Existing functions of wetland
wetlands and riparian areas that wetlands and riparian areas with are maintained by limiting
are serving a significant NIPS NPS control potential when activities in and around
abatement function and maintain implementing NPS management wetland and riparian areas.
this function while protecting the practices. Do not alter these
other existing functions of these systems to improve their water Periodic assessments of the
wetlands and riparian areas. quality function at the expense of wetland are conducted to
other functions as U.S. waters. document any changes in
function.

Conduct permitting, licensing, Not available.
certification, and nonregulatory
NPS activities to protect existing
beneficial uses and meet water
quality standards.

Table 8-11. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Promote restoration of preexisting Provide a hydrologic regime similar The maintenance or restoration
functions in damaged and destroyed to that of the type of wetland or of NPS function and beneficial
wetlands and riparian systems in riparian area being restored. uses is assessed by monitoring
areas where they will serve a such factors as water quality,
significant NIPS pollution abatement Restore native plant species through vegetative cover, and structural
function. either natural succession or changes.
selective planting.
When possible, plan restoration of The effectiveness of restoration
wetlands and riparian areas as part is monitored by assessing the
of naturally occurring aquatic ecological health of the
ecosystems. Factor in ecological community and the habitat use
principles such as seeking high by wildlife species.
habitat diversity and high
productivity. Maximize
connectedness between different
habitat types. Provide refuge or
migration corridors.

EPA-840-B-92-002 Januaty 1993 8-59

/I/. TechniquesolProcedures for Assessing Implementation, Operation, maintenance of Measures Chapter 8

1. Vegetated Treatment Systems

Runoff water quality management methods, referred to as biofiltration methods, have been shown to provide
significant reductions in pollutant delivery. These include vegetated filter strips, grassed swales or vegetated
channels, and created wetlands. When properly installed and maintained, biofiltration methods have been shown to
effectively prevent the entry of sediment and sediment-bound pollutants, nutrients, and oxygen-consuming substances
into waterbodies.

A combination of practices can be used to manage vegetated treatment systems. Examples of typical O&M
procedures for ensuring adequate performance of these systems are provided in Table 8-12.

Table 8-12. Typical Operation and Maintenance Procedures for Management
Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

Typical Operation and Maintenance
Management Measure Management Practice Procedures

Promote the use of engineered Construct properly engineered Vegetation is harvested
vegetated treatment systems such systems of wetlands for NPS periodically and disposed of
as constructed wetlands or pollution control. Manage these properly; forbays and deep
vegetated filter strips where these systems to avoid negative impacts water are'inspected to
systems will serve a significant NPS on surrounding ecosystems or determine sediment loading
pollution. ground water. rate; and if sediment levels
abatement function. exceed design limits, excess
sediment is removed from the
system and disposed of
appropriately. Other
maintenance includes wildlife
management, mosquito control,
and litter and debris removal.

Construct vegetated filter strips in Vegetation is mowed
areas adjacent to waterbodies that periodically and residue
may be subject to sediment, harvested; filter strips are
suspended solids, and/or nutrient inspected periodically to
runoff. determine whether
concentrated flows are
bypassing or overwhelming the
device; accumulated sediment
and particulate matter are
removed at regular intervals to
prevent inundation; and all
traffic is limited.

B-60 EPA-840-8-92-002 Januaty 19093

Chapter 8 IV. References

IV. REFERENCES'

Brakensiek, D.L., H.B. Osborn, and W.J. Rawls, coordinators. 1979. Field Manual for Research in Agricultural
Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Agricultural Handbook 224.

Brossman, M.W. 1988. The EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Clausen, J.C. 1985. The St. Albans Bay Watershed RCWP: A Cast Study of Monitoring and Assessment. In
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, Proceedings of a National Conference, May 19-22, 1985, Kansas City,
MO. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-85-001.

Cochran, W.G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Coffey, S.W., and M.D. Smolen. 1990. The Nonpoint Source Manager's Guide to Water Quality Monitoring - Draft.
Developed under EPA Grant Number T-9010662. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Management
Division, Region 7, Kansas City, MO.

Davenport, T.E., and M.H. Kelly. 1984. Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport Dynamics in Blue Creek Watershed,
Pike County, Illinois. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Planning Section, Water Pollution Control,
Springfield, IL. IEPA/WPC/83-004.

Freund, J.E. 1973. Modem Elementary Statistics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methodsfor Environmental Pollution Monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Goodman, J., J.M. Collins, and K.B. Rapp. 1992. Nitrate and Pesticide Occurrence in Shallow Groundwater During
the Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett RCWP Project. In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, 10 Years of
Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, Seminar Publication. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/625/R-92/006.

Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. 1986. Regional Reference Sites: A Method for Assessing Stream
Potentials. Environmental Management, 10:629-635.

Klemm, D., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for
Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/600/4-90/030.

Lietman, P.L. 1992. Effects of Pipe-Outlet Terracing on Runoff Water Quantity and Quality at an Agricultural Field
Site, Conestoga River Headwaters, Pennsylvania. In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, 10 Years
of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, Seminar Publication. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA/625/R-92/006.

MacDonald, L.H. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Nonpoint Source Section, Seattle, WA.
EPA/910/9-91-001.

eals, D.W. 199 Ia. Developing NPS Monitoring Systems for Rural Surface Waters: Watershed Trends. In Nonpoint
Source Watershed Workshop, Nonpoint Source Solutions, Seminar Publication. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/625/4-91/027.
M

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 8-61

IV. References Chapter 8

Meals, D.W. 1991b. Surface Water Trends and Land-use Treatment. In Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop,
Nonpoint Source Solutions, Seminar Publication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Devtlopment and Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/625/4-91/027.

Meals, D.W. 1992. Water Quality Trends in the St. Albans Bay, Vermont, Watershed Following RCWP Land
Treatment. In The National Rural Clean Water Program Symposium, 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, Seminar Publication. U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency, Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/625/R-92/006.

Meals, D.W., D. Lester, and J. Clausen. 1991. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program Final Report 1991,
Section 7.2. Water Resources Research Institute, Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, University of Vermont,
Burlington.

Mosteller, F., and J. W. Tukey. 1977. Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.

Murnley, T.E. 1991. Monitoring Program Development in an Urban Watershed. In Nonpoint Source Watershed
Workshop, Nonpoint Source Solutions, Seminar Publication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/625/4-91/027.

Ohio EPA. 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II. Users Manual for Biological
Field Assessment of Ohio Sirface Waters. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality
Planning and Assessment, Columbus, OH.

Omemik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1986. Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-86/033.

Plafldn, J.L. M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/444/4-89-001.

Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, P. Cuplin, S.Jensen, G.W. Lienkaemper, G.W.
Minshall, S.B. Monsen, R.L. Nelson, and J.S. Tully. 1987. Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with
Applications to Management. General Technical Report INT-221. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Platts, W.S., and R.L. Nelson. 1988. Fluctuations in Trout Populations and Their Implications for Land-use
Evaluation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 8:333-345.

Ray., G.A., and W.F. Megahan. 1978. Measuring Cross Sections Using A Sag Tape: a Generalized Procedure.
General Technical Report INT-47. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.

Reckhow, K.H. 1979. Sampling Designs for Lake Phosphorus Budgets. In Establishment of Water Quality Monitoring
Programs, Proceedings of a Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 12-14 June 1978, ed. L.G. Everett and K.D. Schmidt.
American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, MN.

Remington, R.D., and M.A. Schork. 1970. Statistics with Applications to the Biological and Health Sciences.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Sherwani, J.K., and D.H. Moreau. 1975. Strategiesfor Water Quality Monitoring. Report No. 107. Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.

B-62 EPA-840-B-92-002 danualy 1993

Chapter 8 IV. References

Spooner, J. 1990. Determining an d Increasing the Statistical Sensitivity of Nonpoint Source Control Grab Sample Monitoring
Programs. Ph.D. diss., North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1985. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water
Quality Improvements from Agncultural Nonpoint Source Programs. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Pollution. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-85-001.

Spooner, J., C.J. Jamieson, R.P. Maw, and M.D. SmolerL 1987a. Determining Statistically Significant Changes in Water
Pollutant Concentrations. Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management, 3:195-201.

Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, and C.A. Jamieson. 1987b. Inaming the Sensitivity of Nonpoint Source Control
Monitoring Program. In Symposium on Monitoring, Modeling, and Mediating Water Quality, May 1987, pp. 242-257.
American Water Resources Association, Minneapolis, NIN.

Spooner, J., S.W. Coffey, J.A. Gale, AL. Lanier, S.L Brichford, and M.D. Smolen. 1991. NWQEP Report. Water Quality
Monitoring ReportforAgncultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects - Methods and Findingsfrom the Rural Clean
Water Program. North Carolina State University, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, Raleigh.

Stein, J., ed 1980. The Random House College Dictionary. Random House, Inc., New York.

Striffler, W.D. 1965. The Selection of Experimental Watersheds and Methods in Disturbed Forest Awas. In Publication No.
66 of the IA.S.H. Symposium of Budapest.

USACE. 1986. Statistical Methodsfor Reservoir Water Quality Investigations, technical ed. R.F. Gaugush. Instruction Report
E,86-2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

USEPA. 1978. Microbiological Methodsfor Monitoring the Environment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Rmarch and Developrnen@ Cincinnati, OH. EPA-600/8-7"17.

USEPA. 1982a. Chesapeake Bay. Introduction to an Ecosystem. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Annapolis, MD.

USEPA. 1982b. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runqff Program, Volume H - Appendices. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1984. Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the Quality Assurance Program. EPA Order 5360. 1. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1986. Development of Data Quality Objectives. EPA Quality Assurance Management Staff, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 1987. An Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, Chicago IL. EPA-905/9-88-002.

USEPA. 199 1 a. Monitoring Guidance for the National Emwry Program, Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-503/8-91-W2.

USEPA. 1991b. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Progratri Projects. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee. 1984. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Progrmn Summary Report, 1984. U.S.
Departrwnt of Agriculium and Vermont Water Resources Research Center, Burliington, VT

Wetzel, R.G. 1975. Lmnology. Saunders College Publishers, Philadelphia, PA.

EPA-840-B-92-002 January 1993 *U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993 - 717-391/W979 8-63

. IIIIIIIIIIIIN
3 6668 14105 7002