HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 Massachusetts Estuaries Project_2014012310594423132003
Massachusetts Department
of
Environmental Protection
The Massachusetts Estuaries Project
Embayment Restoration and Guidance for
Implementation Strategies
acknowledgements 2
Massachusetts Department
of
Environmental Protection
Massachusetts
Estuaries Project
Bureau of Resource Protection
CONTENTS
appendices 41
a. glossary 42
b. resources and regulations 48
c. embayments in the massachusetts estuaries project 51
d. massachusetts surface water quality standards 55
e. massachusetts ground water quality standards 59
f. linked model approach to calculating nitrogen thresholds 62
g. legal framework for management districts 68
h. examples of management districts in massachusetts 75
i. nutrient trading: background and case studies 77
approaches to nitrogen reduction 15
integrated water resources management planning and funding sources 15
tidal flushing 17
stormwater control 19
attenuation via wetlands and ponds 22
wastewater treatment 25
water conservation and reuse 31
management districts 33
land use planning 38
nutrient trading 39
background 9
nutrient loading 9
sources of nutrient loading 10
establishing nitrogen thresholds and reducing nitrogen loading 11
introduction 4
the massachusetts estuaries project 4
executive summary 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document is produced by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
Bureau of Resource Protection, Watershed Permitting Program. Printing of this document was funded by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) with a federal 104(b)(3) water quality grant.
Brian Dudley, DEP, Southeast Regional Office, developed the concept for the Guidance and is the
primary author. Other contributing authors from DEP include Richard Lehan, Thomas Maguire, Sharon
Pelosi, Alan Slater, and Tabitha Zierzow. The following individuals reviewed the document and made
important contributions:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Claire Barker
Kevin Brander
Deirdre Desmond
Winifred Donnelly
Dennis Dunn
Cynthia Giles
School of Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
Brian Howes
Michael Rapacz
Roland Samimy
Local Officials
George Heufelder, Barnstable County Department of Health and the Environment
Eduard Eichner, Cape Cod Commission
Some photographs in this report are copyrighted and are not available for general distribution.
Photographic credits: Angela Russo, Russo Photography, www.russophoto.com. Page design and layout:
Sandy Rabb, Department of Environmental Protection
Copies of this document are available to download at the following Web address:
Massachusetts Estuaries Project Web site: www.state.ma.us/dep/smerp/smerp.htm
Copies can also be obtained from:
The Department of Environmental Protection
Watershed Permitting Program
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
DEP’s Web site: www.state.ma.us/dep
This information is available in alternate formats upon request by contacting the ADA Coordinator at 617/574-6872.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Mitt Romney, Governor
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Ellen Roy Herzfelder, Secretary
University of Massachusetts
School of Marine Science and Technology
Brian Rothschild, Director
Department of Environmental Protection
Ed Kunce, Acting Commissioner
Bureau of Resource Protection
Cynthia Giles, Assistant Commissioner
Andrew Gottlieb
Glenn Haas
Russell Isaac
Ron Lyberger
Steven McCurdy
Arthur Screpetis
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection5
INTRODUCTION
2003
Massachusetts
Estuaries Project
The estuaries and embayments of
southeastern Massachusetts stretch from the
Town of Duxbury south and include Cape Cod,
Buzzards Bay, the Islands, and Mt. Hope Bay.
They are ecosystems that provide not only
recreational opportunities but also habitat for
shellfish and sea grasses and breeding grounds
for important marine fisheries.1 Protection of
these coastal water resources has increasingly
become a priority for Massachusetts oceanfront
communities.
Many estuaries are at risk of, or are already
experiencing, degraded water quality and
habitat due to increases in nitrogen discharges
within their watersheds. With local communities
dependent on a high quality of water for fishing,
shellfishing, and tourism, degradation of
these resources has serious economic results:
reductions in property values, local commerce,
and tax revenues. Given the synergy among
these interests, embayment protection and
restoration is of paramount importance to the
Commonwealth and its coastal communities.
The Massachusetts Estuaries Project
(MEP) began in order to address the problems
caused by excess nitrogen loading in 89
estuaries in southeastern Massachusetts
(see Appendix C for a complete listing of MEP
estuaries). The MEP is a collaborative effort
among coastal communities, the Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP), the School
of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at
the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth,
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA), and the Cape Cod Commission.
The MEP will provide technical data on
sources of nitrogen and the maximum amount of
nitrogen (nitrogen threshold) that each estuary
can tolerate without adversely changing its
character and use. In other words, the MEP will
set the target to be achieved in order to protect
and restore the health of estuaries.
There are a variety of pathways that can
be taken to reach the final target of a healthy
estuary. The challenge for coastal communities
will be to determine which pathways are
appropriate in their particular watersheds.
Specific tasks will include assessing nutrient
sources, developing an integrated approach
to nutrient planning and management, and
implementing a plan to avoid continued
degradation of estuarine systems.
MEP communities will participate in these
tasks in several important ways. They will be
asked to contribute approximately 40% of the
overall cost of assessment of estuaries. They
will need to establish local groups of officials
and citizens to interface with SMAST and DEP
staff throughout the project, and they may need
to assist with filling gaps in data on estuaries.
Eventually, communities will take the lead in
finalizing and carrying out their implementation
plan for nitrogen reduction. Fortunately, many
MEP communities are already aware of the
impact of nitrogen loading and are taking steps
1 Estuaries are areas formed when the sea extends inland and meets the mouth of a river or stream. Embayments are the bodies of water beyond
the mouth of rivers or streams, partially enclosed by land but with wide openings to larger bays or the ocean. These two terms are used
interchangeably in this document.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection4 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection5
introduction
to address it. Citizen monitoring groups, regional
planning and environmental organizations, and
local agencies, e.g., Boards of Health (BoH)and
Departments of Public Works (DPW), will bring
to the table important planning, funding, and
regulatory capabilities.
To assist in addressing this challenge, DEP
will provide communities with information, tools,
and regulatory input. This Guidance is the first
of the tools designed to assist communities in
the implementation phase of the MEP. It is an
introduction for local officials and community
members to the issue of excess nitrogen loading
and the technical and management approaches
available to restore the health of estuaries and
embayments. The Guidance presents a menu of
traditional and innovative strategies available
to communities as they manage nitrogen and
coastal water quality issues. Readers should
keep in mind that not all the options described
here will be necessary, or even appropriate, for
every situation.
The Executive Summary on the following
pages is a very condensed summary of topics
covered in the Guidance. The remaining chapters
of the full Guidance are organized as follows:
Background: Nutrient loading, sources
of nitrogen loading, establishing nitrogen
thresholds, and the state and federal regulatory
framework for nitrogen management.
Approaches: Technology and
management approaches to address sources
of nitrogen loading. Additional resources and
relevant state and federal regulations are listed
at the end of each topic. Regulatory citations
are intended to alert readers to regulations
that should be consulted before a particular
approach is adopted, rather than as notice that
particular permits are required. The additional
resources and all state and federal regulations
listed throughout the Guidance are compiled
in Appendix B. Most of these publications
are available through the Internet. Official
copies of DEP regulations are available at the
Massachusetts State Bookstore.
Appendices: In order to keep the body of
the Guidance to a manageable size, a great deal
of information has been put into Appendices.
Appendix A is a glossary of terms and acronyms;
those included are printed in bold type the first
time they appear in the text.
State
DEP
Bookstore
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)
Resources and Regulations
Home page for the MEP, including
maps and background articles:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/smerp/
smerp.htm
State Bookstore Room 116, State
House Boston, MA 02133
617/727-2834; http://
www.state.ma.us/sec/spr/spridx.htm
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 6 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Although nutrients are essential to
all organisms, excess nutrients can cause
eutrophication, which is the uncontrolled growth
of aquatic vegetation and algae. Eutrophication
can cause the loss of biodiversity. Loss of
eelgrass is often the first sign that the ecological
health of an area is declining. Changes happen
incrementally and by the time the losses are
apparent, the damage can be quite costly and
difficult to mitigate.
The focus of this Guidance is on excess
nitrogen in marine waters. Nitrogen can enter an
estuary from point and nonpoint sources. These
sources present different challenges to nitrogen
reduction efforts. Pollution from point sources
has been greatly reduced through federal and
state permitting programs. Nonpoint sources
are now the primary source of pollution in the
nation’s watersheds.
State and federal regulations mandate
that the Commonwealth and its communities
address water quality impairments created by
nitrogen loading. The MEP will develop nitrogen
thresholds for MEP embayments and provide the
information necessary to ensure that nitrogen
reduction efforts are consistent with federal
and state requirements. The major regulatory
programs associated with the MEP are the
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards for
surface water and ground waters and the federal
Clean Water Act (CWA).
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
is the primary regulatory and technical tool
for addressing nitrogen loading. A TMDL is the
upper limit of ambient nitrogen concentration
that will support a healthy habitat, expressed as
a concentration of nitrogen in the water column,
in parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per liter
(mg/L). SMAST will use a linked-model approach
to calculate the nitrogen threshold for the 89
estuaries in the MEP. The technical report for
each estuary will also model the impact on
nitrogen concentrations resulting from increased
land development, elimination of all human-
caused sources of nitrogen, and improvements
in tidal flushing. The technical reports will help
identify the most promising nitrogen reduction
approaches for each estuary.
Technical reports will be incorporated into
draft TMDL reports, which are subject to public
comment and review by communities, EPA, and
DEP. Eventually, communities will use the TMDL
report for each estuary in order to develop and
implement an appropriate nitrogen reduction
strategy for its protection and restoration.
Approaches to Nitrogen Reduction
This chapter discusses the menu of options
for mitigation of excess nitrogen. Not all options
will be appropriate for every situation. However,
with input from citizens, regulatory bodies, and
consultants, communities will be able to identify
a mix of options that meets local conditions.
Grants and the State Revolving Fund (SRF)
loans are available through DEP for integrated
water resources management planning, which
includes implementation of specific nitrogen
reduction strategies.
Tidal Flushing
Improvements in tidal flushing can reduce
nitrogen mass in an embayment by up to 20%.
Three primary ways to improve tidal flushing are
channel dredging, inlet alteration, and culvert
design improvements.
2003
Massachusetts
Estuaries Project
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection6 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection7
executive summary
Stormwater Control and Treatment
Most nitrogen loading to Massachusetts
embayments is from wastewater. However,
stormwater mitigation can be significant in places
where stormwater affects local resources such as
shellfish beds or public beaches. Most nitrogen
in stormwater comes from illicit interconnections
between stormwater and sanitary drains,
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), failing septic
systems, and fertilizer runoff. Source control
and pollution prevention, CSO remediation,
and treatment are all options that need to be
considered in addressing nitrogen pollution from
stormwater.
CSOs are regulated as point sources
and require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the
federal Clean Water Act and state Surface Water
Discharge Permit Program. CSOs in the MEP
communities of Fall River, New Bedford, and
Taunton are regulated under these programs.
Both DEP and EPA regulate stormwater discharges
in Massachusetts. DEP’s requirements are
specified in its Stormwater Management Policy,
which requires certain new developments and
redevelopments to implement stormwater source
controls, provide treatment and recharge, and
reduce flooding impacts. EPA requirements are
specified in the NPDES regulations, which apply
to both wastewater and stormwater point source
discharges.
Attenuation via Wetlands and Ponds
Wetlands and ponds improve the quality
of water that passes through them by means
of natural physical, biological and chemical
processes. Although natural attenuation can
reduce the impact of nitrogen on an estuary,
it cannot be used as a wastewater treatment
method. It is appropriate only where discharges
have already been treated to very high water
quality standards and where it will not cause a
negative impact on the habitat of the wetlands or
pond.
Constructed wetlands may be designed to
treat wastewater and to use treated wastewater
to restore wetland habitat. The Massachusetts
Wetlands Restoration Program (MWRP) is
a program within the Massachusetts EOEA
that supports voluntary efforts to restore
the Commonwealth’s wetlands and aquatic
ecosystems.
Wastewater
Wastewater can make up to 80% of the
annual nitrogen load in some watersheds, and is
the most expensive source of nitrogen loading to
treat. Wastewater treatment ranges from on-site
treatment and disposal systems for individual
properties to large municipal treatment plants
and sewers.
On-site systems serve homes and other
small facilities with a sewage flow of less than
10,000 gpd. Conventional on-site systems do not
remove significant amounts of nitrogen. Many
innovative/alternative (I/A) on-site systems
have been designed to remove nitrogen using
biological denitrification, but require more
sophisticated management and maintenance
than conventional systems. Cluster systems
are on-site systems configured to serve more
than one residence or facility. They can use
either conventional or innovative/alternative
technologies, and improve system performance
due to more uniform flow.
Community treatment plants usually treat
10,000 to 150,000 gpd. They are appropriate for
areas where a high degree of nitrogen removal
is required. DEP is updating its Guidelines for the
Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance
of Small Sewage Treatment Facilities with Land
Disposal, in order to reflect improvements in
technology and new DEP policies.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection9
Municipal treatment plants can discharge
up to several million gallons of treated effluent
either to ground or surface water. Large plants
with advanced nitrogen treatment are able to
meet the most stringent treatment standards,
down to as low as 2-3 mg/L nitrogen. Large
treatment plants raise complex issues of
planning, design, cost, and siting, and require
active community participation in their planning
and construction.
Water Conservation and Water Reuse
Water conservation can improve the health
of estuaries by ensuring increased ground and
surface water flow. The use of reclaimed water
for situations that do not require potable water
quality can reduce the need to develop new water
supplies and can provide cost-effective disposal
in certain situations. DEP requires a ground water
discharge permit for reuse, and has established
rigorous reuse standards in order to protect
public health.
Management Districts
Management districts are legal, geographic
entities that carry out environmental work
such as funding and building infrastructure
improvements, managing infrastructure or
programs, or providing other environmental
protection services. Districts provide benefits
from their focus, flexibility, and targeted funding
mechanisms. Management districts have only
recently been used in Massachusetts to manage
non-traditional environmental services, such
as management of on-site treatment systems,
decentralized sewers, and stormwater control
and treatment plans. Massachusetts law provides
three mechanisms to establish districts: general
state law, special acts of the Legislature, and
municipal home rule authority (bylaws and
regulations).
Land Use Planning and Controls
Land development has negative impacts
on nutrient loading by increasing human
population growth and reducing the ability of
the land to naturally remediate nitrogen loading.
Through smart growth policies, open space
acquisition, and zoning tools, land use planning
seeks to influence the amount, rate, location,
and character of growth in order to maintain a
community’s long-term sustainability.
Nutrient Trading
Nutrient trading is a regulatory tool
that allows pollutant sources to reallocate
responsibilities for pollution reduction among
themselves and to fund the most cost-effective
reduction methods in order to meet regulatory
requirements. EPA encourages watershed-
based effluent trading, and has published
documents to help states and communities use
them appropriately. Existing Massachusetts
regulations to not expressly authorize nitrogen
trading, although DEP encourages communities
to explore this avenue in developing their
implementation plans for nitrogen reduction.
executive summary
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection8 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection9
BACKGROUND
Nutrient Loading, Eutrophication,
and Habitat Loss
Nutrients are essential for the survival of all
living organisms. However, excess nutrients in
fresh and marine waters can cause uncontrolled
growth of aquatic vegetation and algae, a process
known as eutrophication. When this happens,
water clarity decreases and oxygen levels
essential for marine life can drop dramatically,
causing fish and other aquatic animals to
abandon the habitat or even die.
In marine ecosystems, the nutrient of most
concern is nitrogen. In fresh water, the nutrient
of most concern is phosphorous, meaning that
fresh water can absorb moderate amounts of
nitrogen without inducing algae blooms, just as
marine waters can absorb moderate amounts
of phosphorus without altering water or habitat
quality. Although phosphorus is a concern in
some inland waters of MEP communities and in
many other inland areas of Massachusetts, the
focus of the MEP and this Guidance is nitrogen.
Eutrophication is a process that occurs
naturally and gradually over a period of tens
or hundreds of years. However, human-caused
or anthropogenic sources of nitrogen may be
introduced into ecosystems at an accelerated
rate that cannot be easily assimilated; the
result is a phenomenon known as cultural
eutrophication. In both marine and freshwater
systems, cultural eutrophication results in
degraded water quality, adverse impacts to
ecosystems, and limits on the use of water
resources.
Discussion of the impact of eutrophication
on embayments often focuses on measures of
water quality, for example, high nitrogen levels
and low dissolved oxygen. However, a primary
concern is the negative impact on habitat that
results from water quality degradation. Habitat
quality relates to the amount and variety of
species that can inhabit an ecosystem. The
greater the biodiversity, the more robust the
system and the better able it is to withstand
acute upsets in local surroundings.
Ecosystems stressed by high nitrogen
loadings often have only a limited variety
of plants and animals, and will frequently
experience an increase in invasive species
compared to native species. As a result of excess
nitrogen, what would be considered a minor
upset in a healthy ecosystem may have a major
impact, ranging from nuisance algae blooms to
serious fish kills.
Before an ecosystem becomes totally
degraded, much of its ecological and economic
value has been lost. In many coastal systems, the
beginning of this change is the loss of eelgrass.
Eelgrass provides habitat for shellfish and finfish
spawning, and promotes stability of bottom
sediments. As eelgrass is lost due to nitrogen
over-enrichment, shellfish and finfish habitat is
lost, and sediments are circulated more easily
through the water column. Resulting increases
in turbidity limit the distribution and variety
of aquatic plants, which in turn allows invasive
nuisance species to crowd out native plant
species and proliferate. The decomposition of
the increased biomass depletes the oxygen in the
water column and reduces water clarity, which in
turn may result in fish kills.
2003
Massachusetts
Estuaries Project
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection11
background
There is not necessarily a specific event
that suddenly causes an unhealthy habitat. More
likely there is a gradual downward spiral that
develops over a period of years. The danger
is that incremental changes resulting from
degraded water quality may not be immediately
noticeable. By the time changes are apparent,
they may be very difficult, expensive, and
time-consuming to reverse. With an informed
understanding of the sensitivity of estuarine
waters and the impact of excess nitrogen, as well
as knowledge of appropriate methods to mitigate
them, effective steps can be taken to protect
embayments and estuarine systems. Preventing
further degradation of relatively healthy
embayments is almost certainly less expensive
and disruptive than attempting to restore those
already impaired by nitrogen loading.
Sources of Nitrogen Loading: Point
and Nonpoint Sources
Nitrogen enters estuaries from a wide
variety of sources, each of them presenting
different challenges to a program of nutrient
management. Sources are typically categorized
as point or nonpoint sources. Although the
distinction between point and nonpoint can
differ depending on state or federal regulations
and the path of a discharge, we have categorized
them as follows for purposes of the MEP.
Point sources discharge from a specific
geographical point, often as a discharge from
a pipe or conveyance. Since passage of the
federal Clean Water Act in 1972, pollution from
point sources has been greatly reduced through
a combination of federal and state permitting
programs. Point sources include the following:
Outflows from a wastewater treatment
plant to a river, bay, or ground water.
Indirect discharges from industrial or
commercial connections to a sewer.
Discharges from stormwater collection
and treatment systems or combined sewers that
are piped to a river or embayment.
Nonpoint sources discharge nitrogen across
a less defined geographic area and often cannot
be traced to a single physical location. They
are now the primary source of pollution in the
nation’s watersheds, and only recently have
regulatory programs been developed to address
them. Nonpoint sources include the following:
On-site wastewater treatment systems
(Title 5 systems).
Stormwater: runoff that washes into
estuaries from rain or snow.
Lawns: nitrogen leaching into
groundwater or runoff from excessive use of
fertilizers on lawns.
Agricultural runoff from improperly
managed animal wastes or fertilizers.
Runoff from road and building
construction.
Natural deposition, either as precipitation
(wet) or ash (dry).
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection10 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection11
Establishing Nitrogen Thresholds and
Reducing Nitrogen Loads
State and federal regulations mandate that
the Commonwealth and its communities address
water quality impairments created by nitrogen
loading. Operating under this broad regulatory
umbrella, the MEP will develop nitrogen
thresholds for southeastern Massachusetts
coastal embayments and provide the information
necessary to ensure that nitrogen reduction
efforts are consistent with both federal and state
requirements. The major regulatory programs
associated with the MEP are the Massachusetts
Water Quality Standards for surface water and
ground waters and the federal Clean Water Act.
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality
Standards
The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality
Standards establish quantitative and qualitative
standards for the protection of surface waters
in inland and coastal areas. The MEP is charged
with developing critical nitrogen thresholds that
will meet these water quality standards.
The anti-degradation provisions in the
standards require that water quality goals be
based on the designated uses for water bodies,
and that the water quality necessary to sustain
these uses be maintained for all surface waters
in the Commonwealth. The standards further
require that certain high-quality and significant
resource waters be protected beyond the
minimum national criteria, especially where
their character and value cannot be adequately
described or protected by traditional water
quality criteria. Federal and state statutes also
require the protection of all navigable waters,
which includes coastal embayments and
estuaries.
The standards also address eutrophication.
Regulations prohibit new point source
discharges of nutrients to lakes and ponds, and
require the use of highest and best practical
treatment to control nutrients in existing point
source discharges. Nutrient control of nonpoint
sources is required through best management
practices (BMPs). In addition, the standards
require that nutrients not exceed a nitrogen
threshold developed for a specific estuary.
The standards define three classes - SA, SB,
and SC - of coastal and marine waters, based
upon the water quality goal for each class (“S”
stands for Saltwater or Saline). Standards are
both quantitative and qualitative, and at a
minimum require that these waters be protected
as habitat for fish and other aquatic life, for
wildlife, and for swimming and boating. They
must also possess “good aesthetic value.”
Both the quantitative nutrient standards
and the qualitative standards for aesthetics,
nutrients, water chemistry, bottom pollution,
and alteration must be considered in addressing
nitrogen loadings. Appendix D provides detailed
standards for the parameters that define SA, SB,
and SC waters.
Quantitative water quality standards are
typically measured in concentration levels
of specific pollutants, and are supported by
scientific research and consensus. For example,
public health concerns are the rationale for
quantitative water quality measures of bacteria
and nitrates in drinking water supplies. In
the Surface Water Quality Standards, both
quantitative and qualitative standards are used
background
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection13
as indicators of ecological health and habitat
quality. Quantitative standards include dissolved
oxygen, pH, and temperature.
Qualitative standards such as aesthetics,
taste, odor, color, turbidity, and floating
or suspended solids are also important in
measuring ecological health and habitat quality.
They can be used to determine if the water body
meets its designated uses such as swimming,
fishing, and healthy aquatic habitat. Many
qualitative measures are more subjective and in
some cases have not have been fully developed.
One goal of the MEP is to establish appropriate
criteria or thresholds for standardized indicators
of ecological health in coastal waters.
Massachusetts Ground Water Quality
Standards
Ground water is defined as all water that
exists beneath the land surface in soils or
geologic formations, specifically that part of the
subsurface water in the saturated zone.
Ground water is vitally important to
the health of MEP communities for several
reasons. First, it is the main, and in some cases
the only source of potable water for many
communities in southeastern Massachusetts.
Second, the ground and ground water is the
mechanism used to dispose of pollutants from
wastewater treatment works, including on-site
wastewater treatment systems. Wastewater
disposal facilities need to be located so as not to
degrade either the ground water itself or down
gradient surface waters. Nutrients transported
in the ground water from wastewater treatment
works could both adversely affect the ground
water as a source of drinking water and degrade
the quality of surface waters.
The goal of the Massachusetts Ground
Water Quality Standards is to control the
discharge of pollutants to ground waters to
ensure that they are protected to their highest
potential use. The Massachusetts Ground Water
Quality Standards follow the same concepts
as the Surface Water Quality Standards. They
classify the uses for the ground waters of the
Commonwealth and specify the water quality
criteria necessary to sustain these uses.
All ground waters are assigned to one of
three classes (I, II, and III) based upon the most
sensitive use for which the ground water is to be
maintained. With few exceptions, Massachusetts
ground waters are designated as Class I, meaning
that they are a source for drinking water or could
be used as one in the future. Appendix E outlines
the standards for the three ground water classes.
Any subsurface discharge of treated
wastewater exceeding 10,000 gpd requires a
discharge permit establishing the conditions
necessary to comply with ground water
standards. Each Ground Water Discharge
Permit contains a set of effluent discharge
limits that comply with the Standards and are
meant to protect all classified waters of the
Commonwealth, including surface waters.
Ground water permits require a series of ground
water monitoring wells and a sampling schedule
to determine if the standards are met. A typical
permit will contain an effluent total nitrogen
limit of 10 mg/L in order to protect the ground
water as a potential potable water supply. As our
knowledge of the sensitivity of receiving waters
increases, it is likely that a more stringent ground
water effluent standard will be required on a case-
by-case basis to protect the quality of ground
waters and surface waters, including estuaries
and embayments.
background
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection12 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection13
Federal Clean Water Act and Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs)
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972
provides a framework for the Commonwealth’s
plan to restore its estuaries to the level required
by state water quality standards. Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act requires that states
develop lists of impaired waters, i.e., water
bodies (both freshwater and marine) that do not
meet the uses designated in each state’s water
quality standards. Impairment may be caused
by many different pollutants, including but
not limited to nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria,
or metals. The MEP will address bacterial
contamination for selected estuaries where
shellfish and recreational resources have been
compromised. However, the major thrust of the
MEP and the major focus of this Guidance is
nitrogen reduction.
A state’s list of impaired waters is known
as its 303(d) list. The Clean Water Act requires
states and communities to take action to restore
their impaired waters, a process which begins
with assessing the condition of impaired waters,
determining the causes of impairment, and
specifying the maximum amount of pollution that
the waterbody can receive and still meet state
standards.
The regulatory and technical tool for this
work is the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A
TMDL for an estuary or embayment is its nitrogen
threshold (also known as a nitrogen limit),
which is the upper limit of ambient nitrogen
concentration that will support a healthy habitat.
The threshold is expressed as a concentration of
nitrogen in parts per million (ppm) or milligrams
per liter (mg/L) in the water column. SMAST
uses a linked-model approach to calculate
these numbers, incorporating hydrodynamics,
water quality modeling, and land use modeling.
See Appendix F for a detailed discussion of
the linked-model approach and how nitrogen
thresholds are calculated.
The technical evaluation of each estuary
done by the MEP team from SMAST will include
four linked-modeling scenarios:
The nitrogen threshold that will support
a healthy ecosystem and appropriate uses of
water resources;
The predicted nitrogen concentrations in
the estuary assuming a build-out scenario based
on current local zoning regulations;
Potential water quality improvements
resulting from the removal of anthropogenic
sources of nitrogen from contributing
watersheds; and
Potential water quality improvements
resulting from physical improvements to
increase flushing, such as dredging, inlet
alterations, and culvert improvements.
The nitrogen threshold set in the TMDL
for each estuary will be incorporated into a
draft TMDL Report by DEP. Each draft TMDL
Report will include some possible nitrogen
reduction strategies for communities to consider
in the implementation phase. The draft TMDL
Reports will be subject to public comment
and input before being finalized and accepted
by communities, EPA, and DEP. Because the
background
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 14 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection15
MEP is evaluating watersheds, the TMDL
Reports will involve both watersheds contained
entirely within a single community and those
encompassing more than one community. TMDLs
will be released for individual estuaries over the
next several years as embayment nutrient loads
are established. The first ones are scheduled for
release in 2003.
The detailed planning and implementation
phase undertaken by communities will be based
on the nitrogen threshold and potential nitrogen
reductions provided in the TMDL Report for
each estuary. As noted earlier, the primary goal
of this Guidance is to introduce communities to
the variety of strategies to consider in crafting an
implementation plan. During the implementation
phase, communities will be able to request
additional modeling work in order to determine
the nitrogen reductions from scenarios not
covered in the original technical evaluations.
Following the integrated water resources
management planning process described in the
chapter “Approaches to Nitrogen Reduction”
of this Guidance, communities will plan and
implement specific capital improvements and
nitrogen management strategies.
Other State and Federal Regulatory
Programs
In addition to the federal Clean Water Act
and the state Water Quality Standards for surface
water and ground water quality, a number of
other regulatory programs will impact nitrogen
reduction efforts. In the chapter “Approaches
to Nitrogen Reduction,” the relevant state
and federal regulations are referenced in
the description of each nitrogen reduction
option. Appendix B compiles in one place all
the resources and regulatory programs listed
throughout the document.
background
Regulating Nitrogen Loads,
Resources and Regulations
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR
4.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314004.pdf
Surface Water Discharge Permit Program, 314
CMR 3.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314cmr3.htm
Ground Water Quality Standards 314 CMR
6.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314006.pdf
Ground Water Discharge Permit Program, 314
CMR 5.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314005.pdf
Total Maximum Daily Load Program:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Regulations, Clean Water
Act, § 402: http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/
cwa.cfm?program_id=6
http://www.epa.gov/region01/npdes
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
State
DEP
Federal
EPA
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection14 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection15
APPROACHES TO
NITROGEN REDUCTION
Effective strategies for nitrogen reduction
will require a mix of tools ranging from
infrastructure changes, which typically involve
traditional engineering design and construction,
to more recently developed management
programs and institutional changes. The
following pages are a primer of basic information
on the broad menu of options for managing
nitrogen loads. Options are presented in the
following categories:
Tidal flushing
Stormwater control and treatment
Attenuation via wetlands and ponds
Wastewater treatment
Water conservation and reuse
Management districts
Land use planning and controls
Nutrient trading
Historically, wastewater treatment has
been the primary approach used for nitrogen
reduction, and it will continue to be important.
At the same time, DEP encourages communities
to think beyond the traditional engineering
approaches to consider all options and
combinations.
Not all of the options presented here will
be applicable to the challenges in a particular
estuary. The technical evaluations coming out
of SMAST will help identify the most promising
approaches.
In addition, many MEP communities have
developed programs to assist in nitrogen
management. Government agencies including
Boards of Health and Departments of Public
Works, regional commissions, and citizen groups
are knowledgeable about planning and funding
strategies to implement coastal water quality
improvements. By evaluating various options
with input from citizens, regulatory bodies,
and consultants, communities can craft an
implementation strategy to manage nitrogen
loads in their watersheds and estuaries.
Integrated Water Resources Management
Planning and Funding Sources
A successful nitrogen management strategy
will be based on the concepts of integrated water
resources management planning. Integrated
water resources management planning includes
consideration of the full range of water resources
needed to support ecological health as well
as meet human needs. It requires extensive
outreach and education in order to develop
an integrated strategy that has community
input and support for the final mix of solutions.
Typically, the result of this planning process is
definition of the scope and nature of wastewater
problems and development of appropriate
wastewater solutions. At the same time, DEP
recognizes that long-term viable solutions to
wastewater problems must consider many
factors, including water supplies and demands
of the community; streamflow and water quality
considerations; ground water as a resource
for existing and potential drinking water and
a source of base flow to rivers and streams;
stormwater management; and the long term
land use and economic development goals of a
community and the watershed within which it is
located.
In the past, communities carried out
integrated water resources management
planning through a Comprehensive Wastewater
Management Plan (CWMP). However, DEP
is promoting a more holistic approach and
is revising the current guidelines to reflect a
watershed-based planning process. National
trends suggest that watershed-based permitting
will help achieve greater levels of resource
protection rather that permitting individual
facilities. The current guidelines are available on
the DEP Web site, but communities that will be
initiating water resources management planning
should consult with DEP to develop a scope that
reflects the more holistic approach.
2003
Massachusetts
Estuaries Project
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 16 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection17
nitrogen reduction
DEP grant and loan programs provide
opportunities to assist communities in integrated
water resources management planning, including
implementation of specific nitrogen reduction
strategies. Programs include the Massachusetts
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
(CWSRF) and federal grant programs.
Massachusetts Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program (CWSRF). The
CWSRF was established to provide a low-cost
funding mechanism to assist communities in
complying with federal and state water quality
requirements. Each year DEP solicits projects
from municipalities and wastewater districts to
be considered for subsidized loans. The current
subsidy is provided via a 2% interest loan. In
recent years the program has financed 50-70
projects annually.
CWSRF money is available for planning
and construction of facilities for wastewater
treatment facilities (new and upgrades), on-site
treatment upgrades, stormwater control and
treatment, nonpoint source mitigation projects,
and CSO remediation. Funds may also be used
for planning projects, e.g., identification of
nonpoint source pollution. DEP issues an annual
solicitation beginning June 1 through August 15,
and develops a list of projects eligible for funding
from submittals from communities.
Grant Programs. DEP awards grants in
a number of areas that support the nitrogen
reduction efforts
of the MEP. The
three major grant
programs consist
of federal funds
from EPA.
604(b) Water Quality Management Planning.
The RFP is issued each October to cities
and towns, regional planning organizations,
conservation districts, and interstate agencies.
Nonpoint source assessment projects are
priorities for this source of funds, including:
Stormwater Best Management Practices
Local Water Quality Protection
Land Use Activities
Environmental Awareness, Activities,
and Concerns
Water Quality Assessment
Water Supply/Quality Source Protection
Planning
Water Supply Development Planning
Wetlands Assessment and Restoration
Planning
104(b)(3) Wetlands and Water Quality. The RFP
is issued in January each year to state agencies
in EOEA. Other organizations can participate with
EOEA agencies in projects. 104(b)(3) goals that
are compatible with goals of MEP include the
following:
Control of point and nonpoint discharges
to surface and ground water
Resources to ensure no net loss of
wetlands
Minimizing degradation of wetlands by
stormwater runoff
Minimizing unpermitted filling or
alteration of wetlands
Discouraging
projects in or next to
wetlands
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection16 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection17
319 Nonpoint Sources. Proposals are
solicited each February from all Massachusetts
public or private organizations. Grants fund
implementation projects that address the
prevention, control, and abatement of nonpoint
source pollution.
DEP’s web site provides additional detail on
DEP’s grant and loan programs. Since priorities,
schedules, and requirements may change over
time, we encourage readers to investigate DEP’s
web site for the latest available information.
DEP staff are also available to consult with
communities on applicability of the programs to
local needs.
Approaches to Nitrogen Reduction,
Resources and Regulations
Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Planning Current guidance (1996):
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/mf/files/
fpintro.htm
New Guidance for Integrated Water Resources
Management Planning is under development.
Contact the Department for more information.
Grant and Loan Programs: Opportunities
for Watershed Protection, Planning and
Implementation, updated November 2002:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/mf/files/
glprgm.pdf
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(CWSRF):
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/mf/cwsrf.htm
State
DEP
Tidal Flushing
Tidal flushing is the flow of water in and
out of an estuary due to rising and falling tides.
Determining flushing rates, or residence times,
is an important component of the linked-model
approach used in the MEP.
The residence time is the average time
required for a particle of water to migrate
out of the estuary from a given point in it.
System residence time refers to the average
time for water to migrate through the entire
system. Local residence time is the average
time for water to migrate from a point in a
sub-embayment to a point outside the sub-
embayment.
Residence times provide a rough
qualitative estimate of water quality. Lower
residence times indicate more efficient flushing
and therefore may indicate higher water quality.
Conversely, higher residence times indicate
less efficient flushing and potentially lower
water quality. However, this rule of thumb must
be tempered with an understanding of the
dynamics of the estuary. For example, efficient
flushing will not promote high water quality if a
nutrient is loaded into an estuary faster than it
can be flushed out.
The dynamics of tidal exchange and
flushing are complex and require a model to
simulate tidal flows and dynamics. The linked
model used in the MEP is able to evaluate the
hydrodynamic properties of an estuary or
embayment system in order to determine if
enhanced flushing can result in higher water
quality. If so, relatively low cost measures may
yield significant improvements in water quality.
For example, improvements in flushing could
reduce the nitrogen mass in an embayment by
20%. Communities will need to carry out an
tidal flushing
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 18 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection19
evaluation of these alternatives as part of the
implementation phase to determine the most
cost-effective approach. The evaluation will also
assess the short- and long-term environmental
impacts to the wetland systems and tidal flows.
There are three primary ways of improving
tidal flushing: channel dredging, inlet alteration,
and culvert design or improvements. The same
federal and state regulations apply to these three
approaches, and are listed in the table below
rather than in individual sections.
Tidal Flushing, Resources and Regulations
Federal
ACOE
State
DEP
MEPA
CZM
Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Permit
Authorization under Section 10, Rivers and
Harbors Act: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/
cespk-co/regulatory/regs/start.html
Waterways License, 310 CMR 9.00, Chapter
91: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/waterway/
ch91regs.htm
Current Dredging Regulations: 401 Water
Quality Certification, 314 CMR 9.00 (Contact
DEP for updated interim procedures on dredging
and management of dredged sediments): http:
//www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/314009.pdf
Notice of Intent, Wetlands Protection Act,
310 CMR 10.00, Section 10.05, #4: http://
www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/files/310cmr10.pdf
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act: MEPA
Certificate, 301 CMR 11.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mepa/thirdlevelpages/
meparegulations/301cmr11.pdf
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Federal
Consistency Review, 301 CMR 21.00: Coastal
Zone Management Program: Federal Consistency
Review Procedures http://www.state.ma.us/czm/
fcr.htm
tidal flushing
Channel Dredging
As navigable channels slowly fill in through
natural or induced sedimentation, tidal flushing
may be restricted. Where feasible, dredging
can improve flushing rates. This option may be
limited to areas below the low tide line, since
dredging between the mean low and mean high
water shorelines may impact shellfish growing
areas. Dredging can also disrupt eelgrass
habitat. In addition, sediments need to be
sampled to determine if dredging will disturb any
contaminated material. Dredging generally must
be repeated periodically in order to be effective.
A community’s evaluation of this approach must
examine a range of years in order to compare the
environmental and economic costs of repeated
dredging and disposal of sediment.
Inlet Alteration
Embayment systems are not static. Natural
coastal processes will alter shoreline profiles
over decades or in some instances even from
year to year. These changes can alter inlets to
embayments and affect flushing. If the present
configuration of an inlet restricts flushing,
alteration of the inlet may significantly improve
water quality in the same way as described in
the channel dredging section. Other potential
impacts that need to be analyzed for this option
are salinity, temperature, turbidity, and erosion
patterns. Sediments need to be sampled to
determine if any contaminated material will be
disturbed.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection18 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection19
Culvert Design and Improvements
In certain instances culverts or bridge
openings can restrict tidal exchange. Increasing
culvert or bridge opening size can improve tidal
exchange by increasing tidal range. Modeling
different culvert sizes can determine optimal
configurations. Culvert alteration will result in
changes in tidal height, which in turn must be
evaluated for potential impacts on surrounding
marshlands. If tidal height is too high, greater
portions of impacted marshes may be inundated
with salt water and the marsh system altered.
Stormwater Control and Treatment
Stormwater transports nutrients,
pathogens and bacteria, metals, suspended
solids, and other constituents into embayments
via point sources (e.g., stormwater outfall
pipes) and nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from
fertilizer). Nitrogen compounds are present
in the stormwater and eventually discharge
into embayments. Impervious surfaces may
accelerate the input of nitrogen into tidal and
inland waters.
Nitrogen compounds flushed into
estuaries by stormwater come both from
natural precipitation (rain and snow) and from
anthropogenic sources. Sources flushed from
the natural background are part of the nitrogen
cycle, in which plant matter decays, nutrients
are absorbed into the ground, and are then taken
up by new plant growth. Anthropogenic sources
carried by stormwater include fertilizers (from
agricultural, suburban, and urban areas), septic
system leachate, farm animal and pet waste,
and atmospheric deposition and precipitation
of nitrogen compounds from power plants and
automobiles. Human activities that attract a
concentration of birds can also cause nitrogen
loading via stormwater.
Both DEP and EPA regulate stormwater
discharges in Massachusetts. DEP’s requirements
are specified in its Stormwater Management
Policy, an umbrella policy adopted under
multiple DEP regulations, including the Wetlands
Protection regulations. The Stormwater
Management Policy requires certain new
developments and redevelopments to implement
stormwater source controls, provide treatment,
recharge, and reduce flooding impacts. EPA’s
requirements are specified in the NPDES
regulations, which apply to both wastewater
and stormwater point source discharges. The
NPDES stormwater requirements apply to
stormwater control
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 20 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection21
industry (including all local DPWs), government
agencies (e.g., the Massachusetts Highway
Department), designated municipalities (72% of
Massachusetts towns have been designated),
and land disturbances of one acre or more (e.g.,
construction activities).
Because the vast majority of nitrogen
loading to embayments in Massachusetts is
from wastewater, reductions in nitrogen from
source control of stormwater, remediation of
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), control of
agricultural land uses, and stormwater treatment
may appear to be a relatively small portion of
the total nitrogen load in a watershed. However,
stormwater mitigation may be necessary in areas
where pollution from stormwater affects local
resources such as shellfish growing areas or
public swimming beaches.
The documents listed in the table below
apply generally to stormwater control and
treatment strategies. Regulations and resources
for specific stormwater issues are listed in each
section.
stormwater control
General Stormwater Control and Treatment,
Resources and Regulations
Federal
EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Regulations,
Clean Water Act, Section 402:http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_
id=6http://www.epa.gov/region01/npdes/
http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/
swphase2.cfm?program_id=6
State
DEP Stormwater Management: Policy (Vol I) and
Technical Handbook (Vol II), 1997.
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/stormwtr/
stormpub.htm
Source Control and Pollution Prevention
Eliminating sources of nitrogen in
stormwater is generally more cost-effective than
end-of-pipe treatment. Monitoring both dry and
wet weather flow at stormwater outlets is usually
necessary to identify point sources of nitrogen. A
land use analysis is usually necessary to identify
nonpoint sources.
The highest fraction of nitrogen
in stormwater is typically from illicit
interconnections between stormwater and
sanitary drains, CSOs, failing septic systems, and
fertilizer runoff. CSO reduction efforts under the
NPDES General Permit for Phase II Stormwater
will address many of these sources. Communities
will be required to locate and eliminate any
illicit interconnections between the sanitary
and stormwater collection systems. Failing
on-site treatment systems that may be impacting
stormwater should be identified and brought into
compliance with current standards. Cracked or
loosely butted stormwater pipes, which allow
entry of subsurface sanitary leachate, should also
be considered for repair.
Although fertilizer application rates vary
with different types of land use, some studies
have indicated that runoff and infiltration from
lawns can comprise more than 10% of the yearly
nitrogen load to inland and tidal embayments.
Reducing use of fertilizers by homeowners,
farmers, or golf-course owners requires an
intensive, long-term public outreach/education
campaign. Small amounts of nitrogen in
stormwater are typically due to pet wastes and
other dry deposition on impervious surfaces
such as parking lots. Programs to reduce pet
waste need to be based on large-scale outreach
and education, since private citizens are key to
reducing this type of nutrient pollution.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection20 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection21
stormwater control
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Remediation
Combined sewer overflows result from
a flow of stormwater to a sanitary sewer, or
from an illegal connection of sanitary flow to a
storm sewer. Eliminating or reducing CSOs by
separating sanitary and stormwater flows, or by
other means such as CSO storage and treatment,
can play a significant role in reducing bacterial
and nutrient loading to specific segments
of embayments and other waterways. It has
been a long-standing goal of the EPA and DEP
to eliminate or reduce CSOs. DEP's Policy for
the Abatement of Pollution from Combined Sewer
Overflows provides detailed information on the
regulatory requirements for CSO control.
The CSO planning process provides for an
assessment of CSO control alternative, their
costs, and water quality benefits. Plans for
controlling nitrogen loading should consider the
technical information in these CSO plans. Some
CSO remediation strategies, such as separating
the flows of wastewater and stormwater, may
result in increased flow and higher nitrogen
loads to the wastewater treatment plant. For
this reason, eliminating or reducing CSOs should
be evaluated in conjunction with treatment
plant upgrades that may be necessary to treat
increased nitrogen loading at the plant.
Permitting to eliminate or reduce the
number of times a CSO discharges sanitary
wastes may include, but is not limited to,
CSO permits, Wetlands Protection Act and
regulations, and 401 Water Quality Certification.
Separating sanitary and storm flows may
also result in additional stormwater flows to
stormwater outfalls rather than to a wastewater
treatment plant. The increase in stormwater
outfall discharges will need to be evaluated
under a wetlands protection review to determine
if peak discharge rates need to be reduced
and whether or not additional treatment is
necessary under the Massachusetts Stormwater
Management Policy.
CSO Remediation, Resources and Regulations
Stormwater Management: Policy (Vol I) and
Technical Handbook (Vol II), 1997:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/stormwtr/
stormpub.htm
401 Water Quality Certification, 314 CMR 9.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314009.pdf
Notice of Intent, Wetlands Protection Act, 310
CMR 10.00: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/
files/310cmr10.pdf
Policy for Abatement of Pollution from Combined
Sewer Overflows (Under Surface Water Section):
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/brppols.htm
State
DEP
Stormwater Treatment
While end-of-pipe treatment solutions
are available to reduce nutrients contained in
stormwater, generally these options are more
expensive than source controls and pollution
prevention measures. However, treatment can
be important in specific areas, if a discharge
impacts areas such as shellfish growing areas or
public swimming beaches.
Portions of many estuaries are designated
as critical resource areas, in which nitrogen
removal is particularly important to maintain
water and habitat quality. For this reason, the
Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy
requires that stormwater treatment technologies
used in critical resource areas be capable of
providing a higher level of treatment. See Volume
II of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management
Technical Handbook and Standard No. 6 of the
Stormwater Management Policy for details.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 22 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection23
Off-line treatment systems are designed
to retain a standing volume of stormwater for
a designated time period, in order to allow for
physical settling of suspended particles and for
biological and chemical treatment to occur (e.g.,
nutrient uptake). Off-line processes that can
reduce nitrogen include constructed wetlands
and filtration systems.
Many innovative stormwater treatment
units operate on-line, by treating stormwater
at a designated flow rate. Their retention times
are very short. While on-line systems do reduce
suspended sediments, typically they do not
remove nitrogen. Innovative on-line treatment
units that have been shown to be capable of
removing nitrogen use filtration and biofiltration
technology. The Massachusetts Strategic
Envirotechnology Partnership (STEP) has
evaluated the performance of some innovative
stormwater treatment technologies.
Notice of Intent, Wetlands Protection Act,
310 CMR 10.00 (when stormwater treatment
impacts areas subject to the Wetlands
Protection Act):
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/files/
310cmr10.pdf
Strategic Envirotechnology Partnership
(STEP) Reports and Fact Sheets on innovative
stormwater treatment systems:
http://www.stepsite.org/progress/reports/
Stormwater Treatment, Resources and Regulations
State
DEP
STEP
Attenuation via Wetlands and Ponds
In seeking innovative ways of managing
nutrients, it is important to consider the ability
of natural systems to retain nitrogen in nutrient
sinks or attenuate it through biologically
mediated denitrification. Natural attenuation
can be an effective option for reducing the impact
of nitrogen on an estuary. However, over the long
term, natural attenuation may present a risk of
wetlands degradation and negative impacts on
water quality and habitat. DEP has addressed
this concern by prohibiting wetlands and ponds
from being considered as a primary means of, or
substitution for, wastewater treatment. Rather,
wetlands and ponds are to be seen as polishing
agents for ground water plumes from sources
already treated to the highest possible standards,
or for attenuating background concentrations in
upstream ground water.
Natural attenuation via wetlands or ponds
is appropriate only if the discharge has already
been treated to Massachusetts Class I Ground
Water Quality Standards and has become part
of ground water flow. In addition, the concept of
natural attenuation does not allow for physical
alteration of wetlands or ponds associated with
them. Proposals of this type fall into the realm of
constructed wetlands and require full compliance
with regulations in the Wetlands Protection Act.
In considering natural attenuation as a
nitrogen reduction tool, it is critical to analyze
the discharge location and the wetland’s or
pond’s ability to assimilate nitrogen. Wetlands or
ponds that currently intercept effluent plumes
from on-site wastewater systems or existing
treatment facilities should be priority candidates
as natural attenuation tools rather than wetlands
or ponds not already impacted by nitrogen in
ground water.
attenuation
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection22 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection23
General Wetlands and Ponds,
Resources and Regulations
Wetlands Program:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/
rpwwhome.htm
Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, 310 CMR
10.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/files/
310cmr10.pdf
Federal
EPA Wetlands Program, Office of Water
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
State
DEP
Wetlands
Wetlands improve the quality of water that
passes through them by means of physical,
biological, and chemical processes. As the
water enters the wetland, it spreads out and
slows down, allowing for physical settling. Soil
particles, organic matter and some nutrients are
filtered out, absorbed, or settled. Communities
of microorganisms are able to grow on the stems
and roots of plants by using the nutrients and
organic material carried in the water entering
the wetland, offering an ideal environment for
bacteria and algae to degrade organic material
and remove chemicals that originate from
upstream.
The actual conversion of nitrogen in this
environment is known as biologically mediated
denitrification. Nitrogen enters the ground
water predominantly as nitrate, which does not
change to any other form of nitrogen unless
the proper conditions exist for some type of
conversion. Salt marsh wetlands fringing an
embayment will generally be good candidates
for this type of conversion: marsh peat and mud
contain the right combination of organic carbon,
naturally occurring denitrifying bacteria, and
anoxic conditions that allow the conversion of
nitrate to nitrogen gas. Nitrogen gas is an inert
form of nitrogen that vents without harm to the
atmosphere, where it makes up approximately
80% of the air we breathe.
If a wastewater treatment facility discharges
to the ground, the treated effluent will leach
to the ground water and move down gradient
with it in a relatively well-defined plume. If the
discharge area can be sited so that the ground
water flow containing the plume is intercepted
by a wetland, additional nitrogen removal may
occur naturally.
Although wetland systems (and ponds)
should not be used in lieu of wastewater
treatment, it is possible to take advantage of
their ability to attenuate nitrogen, thereby
providing a buffer of protection for water
quality. This may result in an overall reduction
of nitrogen loading to an embayment. A
hydrogeologic study must be done to evaluate
hydrogeologic conditions and ground water
flow, in order to ensure that the effluent plume
is intercepted by the wetland system. The
evaluation is also necessary to confirm that the
proper conditions exist for nitrogen removal,
and that other pollutants in the plume (e.g.,
phosphorus or BOD) will not have an adverse
impact on the wetlands.
attenuation
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 24 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection25
As an example, assume an existing
treatment facility that discharges to the ground
and a nitrogen-rich ground water plume that
ultimately empties into an embayment about
a mile away. A salt marsh wetlands surrounds
a portion of the embayment, and it has been
demonstrated that natural attenuation in the
marsh removes about 20% of the nitrogen in the
ground water plume before the plume enters
the embayment. The treatment plant currently
discharges 800,000 gallons per day (gpd) at
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total nitrogen.
However, the MEP linked model indicates that
nitrogen loading in the embayment is over the
allowable threshold. The critical nitrogen limit
can only be achieved by improving the discharge
to 3 mg/L total nitrogen at a flow of 750,000
gpd, not accounting for the marsh attenuation.
If natural attenuation in the marsh can remove
an additional 20% of nitrogen, the flow from the
treatment plant can be increased from 750,000
gpd to 937,500 gpd at a concentration of 3 mg/L.
Ground Water Quality Standards, 314
CMR 6.00: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/
bwp/iww/files/314006.pdf
Groundwater Discharge Permit Program,
314 CMR 5.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314005.pdf
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act:
MEPA Certificate, 301 CMR 11.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mepa/
thirdlevelpages/meparegulations/
301cmr11.pdf
Wetlands, Resources and Regulations
State
DEP
MEPA
Ponds
Ponds can act as nitrogen sinks by retaining
nitrogen in the water column or in sediments.
However, for the same reasons described above
under wetlands systems, any consideration
of a pond for nitrogen attenuation requires a
thorough analysis of its assimilative capacity
with regard to both nitrogen and phosphorus.
The analysis should also evaluate the potential
for other contaminants such as pathogens to be
transported into pond water or ground water.
attenuation
Ground Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR
6.00: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314006.pdf
Ground Water Discharge Permit Program, 314
CMR 5.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314005.pdf
Ponds, Resources and Regulations
State
DEP
MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act: MEPA
Certificate, 301 CMR 11.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mepa/
thirdlevelpages/meparegulations/301cmr11.pdf
Constructed Wetlands and Wetlands
Restoration
The ability of vegetation, soils, and microbial
activity in natural wetlands to treat wastewater
has led to the idea of constructing wetlands
for environmental purposes. Unlike natural
wetlands, constructed wetlands may be designed
both to treat wastewater and to use treated
wastewater to restore wetland habitat. As of
October 2000, the EPA reported that there were
more than 600 active constructed wetlands in the
United States.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection24 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection25
Volume Two of DEP’s Stormwater
Management Handbook (referenced in the
introduction to Stormwater) has detailed
information on the advantages and disadvantages
of constructed wetlands and guidance on their
siting. Although this information is written for
stormwater treatment systems, it can be adapted
to wastewater treatment.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration
Program (MWRP) is a program within the
Massachusetts EOEA that supports voluntary
efforts to restore the Commonwealth’s wetlands
and aquatic ecosystems. MWRP inventories
wetlands restoration sites and facilitates the
implementation of priority restoration projects
through its GROWetlands (Groups Restoring Our
Wetlands) Initiative. In collaboration with its
many federal, corporate, and non-profit partners,
MWRP works with project sponsors to provide or
obtain whatever assistance –financial, technical,
monitoring or other support– is required to
complete the project.
Guidance on Constructed Wetlands
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
watersheds/cwetlands.html
Constructed Wetlands and Wetlands Restoration,
Resources and Regulations
Federal
EPA
State
EOEA
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program:
http://www.state.ma.us/envir/mwrp/index.htm
wastewater
Wastewater Treatment
In a majority of watersheds in
Massachusetts, wastewater is the major source
of nitrogen loading; in some watersheds, it makes
up approximately 80% of the annual nitrogen
load. Wastewater is also the most expensive
source of nitrogen loading to control. Initial
community reaction to wastewater treatment
options may be based on inaccurate perceptions
of their effectiveness and their impact on local
land use patterns.
The most common misperception about
wastewater treatment is that construction
of community or municipal treatment plants
will lead to an increase in development. Local
planning and zoning tools are available to ensure
that the technological options selected to
address nitrogen loading are used in accordance
with local land use goals. In addition, the
integrated water resources management planning
process provides an objective evaluation of
each technical option and public input, thereby
ensuring a plan that has a much greater chance
of being accepted by the community.
On-Site Treatment and Disposal Systems
Conventional on-site treatment and disposal
systems are generally the least expensive and
most passive means of treating sanitary sewage.
They typically serve individual homes and
other facilities with sewage flow of less than
10,000 gallons per day (gpd) and consist of a
septic tank, a distribution system, and a soil
absorption system (SAS).
The septic tank is a pretreatment unit
designed to accept raw sewage and separate
solids and scum from the liquid portion of the
sewage. The septic tank is designed to have a
holding time of at least 48 hours. In addition to
promoting settling of solids and separation of
grease and oils, this holding time allows for some
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 26 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection27
wastewater
decomposition of solid and sludge. Because of
the solid and scum accumulation in the tank,
septic tanks need to be periodically pumped.
Septic tanks also provide a degree of
anaerobic treatment that makes the clarified
effluent more amenable to further treatment in
the soil absorption system. This clarified effluent
is eventually discharged from the septic tank to a
distribution system. Distribution systems consist
of a distribution box for gravity feed or a pump
system where gravity distribution is not possible
or a pressurized system is required. Whatever
the configuration, the purpose of distribution
systems is to deliver septic tank effluent equally
across the soil absorption system.
The soil absorption system (SAS) is where
the majority of treatment takes place in an on-
site system. As the clarified septic tank effluent
enters the SAS, it percolates through the stone
of the SAS and the surrounding soil. A biological
mat forms, consisting of naturally occurring
bacteria that break down the impurities in the
effluent. With a proper depth of unsaturated
soil between the bottom of the SAS and the
ground water, removal of nutrients, pathogenic
organisms, and other pollutants occurs.
In Massachusetts, Title 5 of the State
Environmental Code governs on-site subsurface
sewage treatment and disposal systems up
to 10,000 gpd. Title 5 is a state regulation;
in most instances, the local Board of Health
has permitting and enforcement authority.
Operation and maintenance of the systems is the
responsibility of the property owner.
Properly designed and sited, conventional
systems do an excellent job of removing organic
pollutants, solids, and pathogens. However,
they do not provide significant nitrogen
reduction. Based on performance data from the
Massachusetts Septic System Test Center, overall
nitrogen removal rates in conventional on-site
systems average between 15 and 20%. The
average nitrogen concentration in flows exiting a
conventional system is 35 mg/L.
In addition to prescribing design standards
for conventional systems, Title 5 provides for
the use of innovative/alternative (I/A) systems
that can provide enhanced treatment. Typically,
these systems use biological denitrification to
improve nitrogen removal. Removal of nitrogen
is accomplished by converting the organic
nitrogen and ammonia found in raw sewage to
inert nitrogen gas that harmlessly escapes to the
atmosphere. While the details of unit operations
may differ among the various systems, the basic
principles of a biologically mediated nitrogen
cycle remain the same. Most I/A systems still
require septic tanks and all rely on an SAS for
ultimate disposal.
Systems qualifying for a nitrogen credit
under Title 5 must demonstrate an ability to
reduce nitrogen to 19-25 mg/L total nitrogen,
depending on acreage and flow. When operating
at maximum efficiency, I/A systems can improve
nitrogen reduction by even more, down to a 70%
overall reduction in total nitrogen.
It must be stressed, however, that
consistently high nitrogen removal rates
approaching or exceeding 70% require an
increased level of oversight that may be more
economically and technically feasible within
the context of a watershed or wastewater
management district. Although Title 5 requires
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection26 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection27
that I/A systems be monitored by a certified
operator under a maintenance contract, the
monitoring and testing frequency mandated
may not be sufficient to ensure that the system
is performing with optimal efficiency. National
experience has shown that management districts
improve the reliabilty of I/A systems and their
nitrogen reduction capability by removing the
burden of oversight from home and facility
owners.
Title 5 has special loading limitations
in areas considered particularly sensitive to
nitrogen pollution. Nitrogen Sensitive Areas
are defined as Zone IIs and Interim Wellhead
Protection Areas (IWPAs) of public drinking
water supply wells, as well as nitrogen sensitive
embayments. Residential lots with new
construction served by both a private drinking
water well and an on-site wastewater system are
also areas where nitrogen discharges to ground
water are regulated. In these areas, the design
flow for on-site wastewater systems is 440 gpd
per acre in order to limit nitrogen levels in public
and private drinking water supplies.
The planning goal for nitrogen in public
drinking water supplies is 5 mg/L, and the
Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) is 10 mg/L.
The 440 gpd per acre loading limit from on-site
systems was developed to meet a standard of 10
mg/L (total nitrogen). However, the wastewater
loadings considered to be adequate for drinking
water and ground water protection are not
appropriate for protection of marine systems,
which are typically sensitive to nitrogen
contamination at one to two orders of magnitude
lower than 10 mg/L.
wastewater
Title 5 Program:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/
t5pubs.htm#it
Title 5: Standard Requirements for … On-Site
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and
for the Transport and Disposal of Septage, 310
CMR 15.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/files/
310cmr15.pdf
Certification of Operators of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, 257 CMR 2.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
257cmr2.htm
On-Site Treatment and Disposal Systems,
Resources and Regulations
Federal
NSFC
National Small Flows Clearinghouse:
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/
State
DEP
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 28 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection29
wastewater
Cluster Systems
Title 5 allows shared on-site systems to
serve more than one residence or facility; these
are known as shared or cluster systems, and
are limited to total flows of less than 10,000
gpd. Treatment technologies used in cluster
systems are similar as those allowed for single
on-site systems. By combining flows from several
facilities, design strategies for shared systems
can attenuate daily flow variations, resulting
in improved and more reliable performance.
As with all I/A technologies, the performance
of a nitrogen-reducing cluster system is
highly dependent on proper operation and
maintenance, which must be carried out by a
certified operator. Well-managed cluster systems
using I/A technology in residential settings have
been known to reduce total nitrogen below 10
mg/L.
If permitted individually under Title 5,
cluster systems can only be credited for nitrogen
removal down to 19-25 mg/L total nitrogen.
However, it is possible to incorporate cluster
systems into an overall watershed management
plan regulated under a Ground Water Discharge
Permit, even if flow from the system is less that
10,000 gpd. In these cases, the discharge can
be credited for nitrogen removal down to 10
mg/L total nitrogen or less, depending on the
performance capabilty of the system.
Depending on the density of the area
served, several cluster systems may be required
in order to stay under the 10,000 gpd limit on
flow. In these instances, a cost analysis should
be performed to determine if it may be more
cost-effective to install a community treatment
plant or connect to a larger municipal treatment
facility. Costs of cluster systems to consider are
the capital cost of the required number of cluster
systems, installation of collection systems from
individual properties to the cluster treatment
unit, and operation and maintenance of the
cluster systems, including the treatment unit,
SAS, and any pretreatment units at the treatment
site or on individual properties.
Title 5 Program:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/
t5pubs.htm#it
Title 5: Standard Requirements for … On-Site
Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems and
for the Transport and Disposal of Septage, 310
CMR 15.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/files/
310cmr15.pdf
Certification of Operators of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, 257 CMR 2.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
257cmr2.htm
Cluster Systems with Enhanced Treatment, Resources and Regulations
Federal
NSFC National Small Flows Clearinghouse:
http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/
State
DEP
Community Treatment Plants
Community treatment plants generally
are considered for flows in the 10,000 - 150,000
gpd range, and are appropriate in areas where
a higher degree of nitrogen removal is required
(down to 7 to 10 mg/L total nitrogen) and/or
where cluster systems may not be cost-effective.
In special circumstances, community treatment
plants may be necessary for flows below 10,000
gpd in order to achieve the Class I Ground Water
Quality Standards.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection28 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection29
Community treatment plants are larger
and more complex than cluster systems, and
their requirements for management oversight,
operation, and maintenance are much more
stringent than for cluster or on-site systems.
They require at a minimum a chief operator
(Grade 3 or higher) and an assistant operator
with coverage of at least two hours a day, five
days per week.
There is a greater variety in treatment
processes available for community treatment
plants than for on-site or cluster systems. In
many cases, community treatment plants will
employ the same treatment systems found
in larger municipal treatment plants, such as
activated sludge, rotating biological contactors
(RBC), and sequencing batch reactors (SBR). In
addition to the plant itself, collection systems
will be required to deliver sewage from individual
homes or businesses to the community treatment
plant. Consideration must also be given to the
design and location of disposal systems for these
facilities. Options include open sand infiltration
beds or subsurface disposal systems.
Community treatment systems provide
greater flexibility in treatment options and better
performance than cluster systems or on-site
systems, but they involve a more complex
permitting, siting, and design process. An
economic analysis should be performed to see if
specific circumstances render them more cost-
effective than other options. Performance bonds
or some other acceptable arrangement may be
required to protect against failure of the process
or equipment.
DEP is now updating its Guidelines for the
Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance
of Small Sewage Treatment Facilities with Land
Disposal, last published in 1988. The new
Guidelines will be a technical guide for the
design, construction, and operation of small
wastewater treatment facilities. They also will
outline DEP’s current regulations, policies, and
standards for facilities that discharge to the
ground. Publication is expected during 2003.
The new Guidelines will reflect the following
changes:
Improvements in existing technology as
well as technologies not available before.
Advances in understanding of ground
water flow dynamics and the potential for
impacts on downstream resources.
New DEP policies and initiatives, such
as the reclaimed water guidelines and the
watershed approach, which directly impact the
ground water discharge permit program.
Experience since 1988 in reviewing the
design and operation of wastewater treatment
facilities, and new insights into what is necessary
to construct, operate, and maintain a modern
community treatment facility.
The intent of the new Guidelines is to
supplement the standards and design criteria
found in the New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission document, TR-16:
Guides for the Design of Wastewater Treatment
Works – 1998 Edition. TR-16 will continue to be
the primary design reference for DEP use. The
Guidelines will provide further information and
standards, where necessary, given the particular
design and construction problems faced in
Massachusetts.
wastewater
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 30 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection31
DEP’s policy is to encourage the use of new
and innovative processes and equipment that
have been demonstrated to operate satisfactorily
and achieve the primary objective of protecting
the waters of the Commonwealth. It will not
be possible to cover all recently developed
collection, treatment, and disposal processes in
the new Guidelines. Processes not specifically
referenced in the new Guidelines will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis if they meet the
following conditions:
Thoroughly tested as a pilot
plant operated for a sufficient time under
representative conditions to demonstrate
successful performance and
Demonstrated performance in full-scale
comparable installations under competent
supervision
wastewater
Community Treatment Plants,
Resources and Regulations
Guidelines for the Design, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of Small Sewage
Treatment Facilities with Land Disposal. Contact DEP for a copy of the 1988 Guidelines.
Ground Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 6.0:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314006.pdf
Ground Water Discharge Permit Program, 314 CMR 5.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314005.pdf
Certification of Operators of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, 257 CMR 2.00: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
257cmr2.htm
State
DEP
Other
NEIWPCC New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission: Document TR-
16: Guides for the Design of Wastewater
Treatment Works, 1998 Edition.
http://www.neiwpcc.org/publication.html#16
Municipal Treatment Plants and Sewers
The traditional concept of a municipal
or publicly-owned treatment works (POTW)
is one that serves an entire municipality or
significant portions of it, with a treatment facility
often located remotely from the areas served.
These facilities will discharge up to several
million gallons per day of treated effluent either
to ground water or surface water. In order to
transport sewage over greater distances, an
extensive collection system employing gravity
sewers, vacuum sewers, force mains, or a
combination of these options is required.
Large treatment plants are able to meet very
stringent nitrogen treatment standards. Larger
plants can better assimilate variations in flow and
wastewater characteristics. If run properly by a
trained professional staff, they provide consistent
and reliable results. Data from recently-permitted
POTWs in Massachusetts suggest that well-run
operations can consistently achieve levels
of nitrogen below 5 mg/L, with some plants
achieving levels as low as 2-3 mg/L.
Large plants entail significant capital
costs. Other cost considerations are operation
and maintenance by a full time staff, with a
chief operator and assistant rated at Grade 5
or above. Additionally, these facilities require
significant land area, which may limit site options
or increase costs if land must be purchased.
On the other hand, large plants benefit from
economies of scale, and depending on specific
circumstances, they may be more cost-effective
than several cluster systems or community
treatment plants.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection30 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection31
Large municipal treatment plants present
complex planning, design, cost, and siting
challenges. More than any of the other
wastewater treatment options discussed in
this Guidance, they require active community
involvement in planning and implementation.
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314cmr4.htm
Surface Water Discharge Permit Program, 314
CMR 3.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314cmr3.htm
Ground Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 6.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314006.pdf
Ground Water Discharge Permit Program, 314 CMR 5.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314005.pdf
Certification of Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, 257 CMR 2.00:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
257cmr2.htm
Municipal Treatment Plants and Sewers,
Resources and Regulations
Federal
EPA NPDES Regulation: Clean Water Act, Section
402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes
cwa.cfm?program_id=6
State
DEP
Water Conservation and Reuse
While Massachusetts may be water-
rich in comparison to some sections of the
United States, there are several parts of the
Commonwealth where a combination of rapid
population growth and commercial development
has significantly lowered water tables and
diminished available water resources in aquifers,
rivers, ponds, and wetlands. Drought conditions
over the past few years have exacerbated
these conditions. As a result, a number of
communities have been forced to implement
severe water use restrictions, and in some
instances have curtailed the development of new
public drinking water supply wells or individual
private wells. The rising cost of water and
wastewater treatment, coupled with the difficulty
of identifying and permitting viable ground
water discharge sites, has also created difficult
treatment and disposal issues for communities.
Water conservation and wastewater reuse are
tools that can help communities deal with these
problems.
Water Conservation
Water conservation has an indirect, but
potentially important, impact on nitrogen loading
to estuaries. With the exception of loadings
from lawns, golf courses, and agriculture,
nutrient loading does not drop with most water
conservation efforts, since the amount of
pollution discharged does not change.
However, water conservation can
significantly improve the health of estuaries and
reduce the costs of restoring them. Lower water
withdrawals result in increased ground water
and surface water flow, particularly in upstream
rivers and ponds. The result is less overall stress
on ecosystems and more ability to respond
conservation and reuse
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 32 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection33
to other system upsets. Water conservation
also means lower costs for communities,
both for drinking water source development
and treatment and wastewater treatment and
disposal. In some cases, water conservation
programs have allowed communities to forego
costly construction or expansion projects.
conservation and reuse
Water Conservation,
Resources and Regulations
Water conservation information:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/dws/
conserv.htm
Federal
EPA Water efficiency programs:
http://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/
index.htm
State
DEP
Water Reuse
The use of reclaimed water for situations
that do not require the advanced quality of
potable water can significantly reduce the
pressure to develop new potable water sources
or to overuse existing sources, as well as
provide cost-effective and environmentally
sound options for wastewater disposal.
Applications such as spray irrigation can
also have beneficial impacts on water quality,
by allowing vegetation and soils to treat
contaminants as the water passes through them.
DEP requires a ground water discharge
permit for water reuse. To help communities
and property owners use this option, DEP has
developed Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed
Water. The Guidelines include the following
requirements in order to protect public health:
Rigorous water quality criteria: The
reclaimed water must be virtually pathogen and
contaminant free. The greater the risk of human
exposure, the more stringent the standard.
Demonstrated ability of the wastewater
treatment plant to consistently meet effluent
standards, and an alternate disposal option that
can be employed immediately if reclaimed water
criteria are not met.
Duplicative systems and alternate
sources of power for the treatment plant, so that
treatment capabilities will not be jeopardized
during power outages and repairs.
Best management practices (BMPs) are
aimed at minimizing direct human exposure.
Advanced monitoring program to
determine the effluent quality at the treatment
plant and measure impacts on both surface water
and ground water.
Public acceptability: Regardless of the
technical and environmental soundness of the
reuse program, the public must believe that
wastewater reclamation and reuse is a viable
approach.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection32 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection33
DEP allows the following uses of reclaimed
water:
Golf Course and Nursery Irrigation. These
are reuse options for the summer months, and
require a number of BMPs to minimize direct
human exposure.
Toilet Flushing. A dual plumbing system
is required in order to prevent public access to
the plumbing. Appropriate signage is critical,
to inform the public that reclaimed rather than
potable water is being used.
Artificial Aquifer Recharge. Reclaimed water
discharges into Zone IIs (hydrogeologic zones
of contribution to a public water supply well),
are allowed if they result in a net environmental
improvement within the watershed and do
not adversely impact ground water uses in the
Zone II. Due to pathogen transport concerns,
discharges that would take less than two years
to travel to any public water supply are not
normally allowed. A discharge may be permitted
within the two-year time of travel under
exceptional circumstances deemed by DEP to be
extraordinary and critical with no other feasible
siting alternatives, and provided an advanced
level of treatment and monitoring is included.
As knowledge and experience in the use of
reclaimed water increases in Massachusetts, DEP
may allow other uses. DEP has already received
inquiries on using reclaimed water to irrigate
ball fields and outdoor areas at office parks and
public facilities, as cooling water, and for use in
car wash facilities. Several of these uses, e.g., drip
irrigation of landscape planting, have already
been approved on a pilot basis to determine
their feasibility, necessary treatment standards,
and operational restrictions. DEP is presently
conducting a review of the interim reclaimed
water guidance, including the potential addition
of new uses and revised treatment standards
consistent with national practice. The review will
be complete and new guidelines available in the
near future.
Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/files/
reuse.pdf
Ground Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR
6.0: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/files/
314006.pdf
Ground Water Discharge Permit Program, 314
CMR 5.00: http://www.state.ma.us/dep/bwp/iww/
files/314005.pdf
Water Reuse, Resources and Regulations
State
DEP
Management Districts
Management districts are legal, geographic
entities established in order to carry out
environmental work such as funding and
building infrastructure improvements, managing
infrastructure or programs, or providing other
environmental protection services. This section
of the Guidance introduces the concept of
management districts, summarizes the legal
mechanisms available to establish them, and
notes advantages and disadvantages of different
district approaches. Appendix G provides more
detail on legal mechanisms for establishment of
management districts. DEP also plans to develop
more comprehensive guidance on management
districts for use by municipalities.
management districts
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 34 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection35
Districts are used throughout the United
States to protect many different types of
environmental resources, but they are less
common in Massachusetts given our tradition
of strong local government. However, districts
have been used here to provide traditional
environmental protection and utility services,
most commonly for water delivery and
wastewater or septage treatment in geographic
areas that cross municipal boundaries.
More recently, a few Massachusetts local
governments have established districts and
management programs to provide non-traditional
environmental services or to manage activities
that have historically been the responsibility
of individual property owners, for example,
management of on-site treatment systems,
construction and management of decentralized
sewers, and operation of stormwater treatment
systems. Appendix H lists some of the newer
management districts and programs in use in
Massachusetts.
Benefits of the District Approach
Districts are an important approach for
dealing with nutrient pollution, particularly
when a problem is difficult or expensive to
address with conventional municipal services
or management mechanisms, or where the
environmental impact of individual activity
requires a higher degree of management. The
benefits of management districts are their focus,
flexibility, and appropriate funding:
Focus: Districts provide a targeted
approach to environmental, resource, or public
health issues specific to a certain geographic
area. They allow the management clarity and
specificity sometimes lacking in the wide
spectrum of activities carried out by local
governments.
management districts
Flexibility: Management districts can be
structured and funded differently depending
upon the services being provided, the geographic
area included, and the available funding.
Examples of flexibility include:
Services for watersheds, lakes, and
estuaries whose boundaries cross municipal
boundaries.
Services that differ from those
traditionally offered by a municipality, such as
management of on-site wastewater systems.
Services based on regulations and
programs of multiple authorities, each with its
own set of requirements, performance criteria,
and involved parties.
A comprehensive range of services,
or a single service. Districts also have
flexibility in providing the services themselves,
contracting with other providers, or establishing
performance standards that district members
must meet.
Funding:
Districts can be designed to generate fees
or levy taxes solely on the individuals benefiting
from the services, without increasing costs to
other taxpayers.
Districts can issue bonds and notes and
raise revenues to carry out their stated purposes.
For services traditionally provided by
individual property owners, such as on-site
wastewater system maintenance, the pooling of
services offered by a district can save money for
individual homeowners.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection34 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection35
management districts
Legal Mechanisms to Establish Districts
Many legal factors go into a municipality’s
decision to form a district and its choice of
the legal mechanism to establish the district.
Discussions with local officials, legal counsel,
and the DEP and EPA are crucial, and it is also
important that local bylaws do not substantively
conflict or interfere with DEP’s regulatory
and permitting authority over wastewater
facilities and discharges. Input from municipal
legal counsel is needed to assess the issues
associated with charging a fee for any municipal
permitting activities.
Massachusetts law provides three
mechanisms to establish districts:
General State Law
Special Act of the Legislature
Municipal Home Rule Authority,
Bylaws, and Regulations.
General State Law
Massachusetts General Laws (MGL) have
three legal options for the establishment of
management districts.
Water Pollution Abatement Districts. Under
the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, DEP is
authorized to propose, and in some cases
mandate, the establishment of water pollution
abatement districts consisting of one or more
cities or towns, or designated parts thereof.
A regional water pollution abatement
district is an independent entity administered by
a district commission, with authority to
Adopt bylaws and regulations;
Acquire, dispose of and encumber real
and personal property, including acquiring real
property by eminent domain;
Construct, operate, and maintain water
pollution abatement facilities; and
Issue bonds and notes, and raise
revenues to carry out the purposes of the
district by means of apportioned assessments on
the member municipalities.
This mechanism allows communities
to work together and with DEP to form a
management district without a special act of the
Legislature. DEP has the authority to mandate
formation of a water pollution abatement
district, but has not exercised it to date. DEP
can also require such a district to implement a
water pollution abatement plan subject to DEP
approval.
Independent Water and Sewer Commissions
and Intermunicipal Agreements. Massachusetts
General Law authorizes municipalities to
establish an independent water and sewer
commission within the boundaries of a
municipality, and to enter into intermunicipal
agreements for the purpose of jointly performing
a service that a municipality is authorized to
do individually or to allow one municipality to
perform a service for another.
Regional Health Districts. Massachusetts
General Law authorizes two or more
municipalities to form a regional health district,
which has powers and duties equivalent to
those exercised by the Boards of Health (BoH)
and health departments of the constituent
municipalities. The primary purpose of a regional
health district does not appear to be pollution
abatement, but the language is broad enough to
encompass the wastewater regulatory powers of
a BoH and, therefore, may be another general law
option worth exploring.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 36 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection37
management districts
Special Act of the Legislature
The Massachusetts Constitution authorizes
municipalities to file home rule petitions with
the Legislature requesting enactment of a special
law. In practice, this is the legal mechanism most
often used to establish a region-wide district. A
special act may also be necessary or appropriate
when a municipality is seeking to manage a
service within its boundaries in a manner that
goes beyond or is inconsistent with applicable
general or special laws.
The municipal legislative body must
approve a home rule petition before it can
be acted on by the Legislature, although
a local vote does not preclude legislative
amendments. In addition to involving the
municipality’s executive, municipal counsel,
and state legislator(s) in discussions about
home rule petitions, it is also important to
consult with EOEA and DEP. Both agencies
will typically comment on the merits of the
proposed legislation, and their support can be an
important factor in securing passage of the bill.
Because of the Legislature’s broad
authority to enact laws consistent with the state
constitution, including the power to exempt
municipalities from otherwise applicable general
laws, the enactment of special legislation can
be the most effective vehicle for establishing
a district encompassing more than one
municipality, an environmentally important
geographic area, or for innovative organization of
district activities.
Municipal Home Rule Authority, Bylaws,
and Regulations.
The Massachusetts Constitution grants
authority to a municipality to exercise any power
or function which the Legislature has the power
to confer on it and which is not inconsistent with
the Constitution or a state law or prohibited by
the municipality’s charter. Municipalities may
adopt zoning or general bylaws to regulate a wide
range of uses and activities within all or a portion
of their boundaries, although the bylaws must be
reviewed and approved by the Commonwealth’s
Attorney General.
Zoning Bylaws. A zoning bylaw typically
imposes restrictions on categories of land uses
located in a defined geographical area. For
example, it may establish an aquifer protection
district that encompasses the boundaries of the
Zone II of contribution to a public water supply
well and prohibit certain new land uses within
that area. However, zoning bylaws must allow
the continuation of nonconforming land uses
within a zoning district, provided the uses were
in place prior to passage of the bylaw. A zoning
bylaw requires a planning board hearing and a
two-thirds vote of town meeting.
General Bylaws. In contrast, a general bylaw
typically applies uniformly to all existing and
new uses or activities subject to the bylaw, and
requires only a majority vote of town meeting.
A common example is a wetlands protection
bylaw that implements a local permit program
with more stringent requirements than the state
Wetlands Protection Act. A general bylaw is
not required by state law to grandfather prior
nonconforming uses.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection36 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection37
management districts
Local Boards of Health. It is worth noting
that a Board of Health has broad authority
to regulate wastewater independently of
general municipal bylaws. Boards of Health
are authorized to promulgate “reasonable”
regulations, including regulations that exceed
the minimum requirements of Title 5, provided
the BoH makes explicit the local conditions that
exist and/or reasons that support more stringent
regulation. For this particular type of authority, a
BoH regulation can be effective, given its existing
jurisdiction in this area, experience, and its
significant penalty authority.
Choosing the Appropriate Legal
Mechanism
Each of these legal approaches has
advantages and disadvantages. Under general
state law, the provisions for establishing a water
and sewer commission and regional health
districts are mechanisms available to establish
districts that can have a regional focus and/or
independent financing and operating authority.
On the other hand, sewer commissions and
regional health districts have not yet been used
to address the wide range of issues related to
nutrient loadings. Water Pollution Abatement
Districts can be structured to meet particular
local needs, but they have not been used to date.
A special act of the Legislature allows one or
more communities to craft a district that meets
their particular needs. However, this approach
requires close work with a large group of
stakeholders. Municipal home rule authority can
be used relatively quickly to establish districts,
and the local departments administering them
are well-known mechanisms. However, districts
formed through local bylaws cannot cover more
than single municipality and they are dependent
on the municipality for their authority and
funding mechanisms.
Communities may opt to provide
management services through their Board
of Health authority because it may be more
expedient and because of confusion about
what constitutes a management district and its
benefits. However, the complexity of watershed-
based nutrient management plans and the
challenges in managing nutrients from sources
such as on-site systems or stormwater are strong
arguments in favor of a more formal district
structure.
How to Create a Stormwater Utility,
1999. http://www.pvpc.org/docs/
landuse/pubs/storm_util.pdf
Management Districts,
Resources and Regulations
Federal
EPA Draft EPA Guidelines for Management
of On-site/Decentralized Wastewater
Systems, September 2000: http:
//www.epa.gov/owmitnet/mtb/decent/
downloads/guidelines.pdf
State
Marine
Studies
Consortium
Pioneer
Valley
Planning
Commission
M.T. Hoover: A Framework for Site
Evaluation, Design, and Engineering
of On-Site Technologies Within a
Management Context, 1997. Executive
Summary:
http://www.brandeis.edu/
marinestudies/risk.html
Entire Report: http://www.state.ma.us/
dep/brp/wwm/files/hoovered.doc
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 38 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection39
Land Use Planning and Controls
Land development leads to increased
nitrogen loading for several reasons. It increases
human population growth and activity, and
also reduces the ability of the land to naturally
remediate nutrients, by increasing impermeable
surface areas, removing vegetation that naturally
recycles nitrogen, and destabilizing soils, thereby
allowing the release of soil-bound nutrients.
Land use planning does not attempt to stop
growth, but does seek to influence its amount,
rate, location, and character, in order to maintain
the community’s long-term viability. Awareness
of the issues raised by growth is increasing, and
tools have been developed to help communities
plan and control the use of land. For example,
the Community Preservation Initiative within
EOEA focuses on preserving and enhancing the
quality of life in Massachusetts communities,
including land and watershed protection,
affordable housing, historic preservation,
economic development, and transportation. It
seeks both to balance these interests and also
to encourage communities to maintain their
unique characteristics and quality of life as they
develop.
Smart Growth
Typically, planning for land developments
requiring state permits for drinking water
sources, wastewater disposal, and stormwater
management does not begin with an evaluation of
the capacity of the natural resources on the site
to accommodate the development. Most often,
DEP is involved only in a final and separate stage,
to consider the impact of the development on
public health and natural resources. A smarter
approach to developing sites requiring multiple
state permits would minimize the competition
between permits and use an integrated approach
to evaluate combined resource needs and
the impact of the development on issues of
watershed quality.
As part of the MEP, DEP is evaluating ways
to integrate issues raised by land development
with the issuance of environmental permits.
The Community Preservation Initiative within
EOEA also provides communities with tools and
programs to support planning. The Metropolitan
District Commission (MDC) has published Growth
Management Tools: A Summary for Planning
Boards in Massachusetts, which summarizes a
number of options available to local boards.
Open Space Acquisition
Although of limited utility in remediating
waterbodies suffering the effects of high
nitrogen loads, open space acquisition remains
an important option in preventing further
degradation by new discharges. Consideration
should be given to acquiring or protecting
additional open space in places that will support
the ecological health of water bodies. For
example, communities may maintain areas of
open space to prevent further nitrogen loading
or to offset more densely developed areas.
Purchasing nitrogen loading land use restrictions
planning and growth
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection38 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection39
instead of a fee acquisition may also provide
a more cost-effective approach to limiting
discharges and nitrogen inputs to the watershed.
Zoning and Related Tools
In addition to state-level permitting, local
zoning bylaws remain an important mechanism
to promote the type and amount of development
compatible with the capacity of local resources.
Frequently there is a disconnect between the
maximum build-out allowable under zoning
bylaws and the capacity of a site to generate
and protect sufficient water supplies and also to
adequately dispose of wastewater discharges and
stormwater runoff.
The Commonwealth’s Rivers Protection
Act establishes riverfront areas and buffer
zones along streams and rivers for which local
Conservation Commissions must review activities
that may impact on wetland resource areas and
water quality. These regulations are helpful to
communities seeking to limit nutrient loading
from riverfront development, for example,
nitrogen and phosphorus loadings from lawn
fertilizing.
Wetlands Protection Act (WPA):
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/files/
310cmr10.pdf
Rivers Protection Act,1996 amendment to
the WPA:
http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/files/
riveract.htm
Land Use Planning and Controls,
Resources and Regulations
State
EOEA
MDC
DEP
Community Preservation Initiative web site:
http://commpres.env.state.ma.us
Growth Management Tools: A Summary for
Planning Boards in Massachusetts, August
2002. http://www.state.ma.us/mdc/MDC%
20Growth%20Management%20Tools.pdf
Nutrient Trading
Nutrient trading is a regulatory tool
that allows pollution sources to reallocate
responsibilities for pollution reduction among
themselves and fund the most cost-effective
reduction measures in order to meet regulatory
requirements. Following is a brief introduction
to watershed-based nitrogen trading, including
issues to consider when evaluating this tool.
The concepts and issues identified here apply to
nitrogen, phosphorus, and other water quality
pollutants; however, nitrogen is the pollutant of
interest for this Guidance.
Pollution trading has been used extensively
in air quality programs in the United States, and
watershed-based trading is an emerging tool for
communities to consider in meeting nitrogen
threshold limits set in TMDLs. EPA promotes the
use of effluent trading in watersheds, and has
issued a Draft Framework for Watershed-Based
Trading to guide communities in its use. EPA
proposed a National Water Quality Trading Policy
in January 2003.
nutrient trading
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 40
Trading offers the following benefits to
communities as a tool for nitrogen management:
Cost-effective pollution reduction and
flexibility on choice of nitrogen reduction
methods, which can provide significant savings
to communities. Nitrogen reduction from
nonpoint sources is usually much less expensive
than from point sources, which makes this type
of trading particularly cost-effective.
Increased incentives to reduce pollution
below regulatory limits. If a source voluntarily
reduces its pollution load, it can sell these
credits to dischargers facing more expensive
pollution reduction costs.
Incentives to develop new and more
cost-effective technologies to prevent or reduce
pollution and monitor results.
In some cases, independent watershed
groups are allowed to purchase pollutant
discharge credits, essentially retiring them. This
also leads to an overall improvement in water
quality, since it reduces the amount of overall
effluent that can be discharged.
Current Massachusetts wastewater
regulations do not expressly authorize nutrient
trading as a wastewater management tool.
However, a small number of treatment plant
permits (NPDES and ground water discharge) in
the state have included nutrient offsets, which
is one form of trading. (See Appendix I for more
information and case studies of nutrient trading in
Massachusetts and other states.)
DEP encourages communities to explore all
approaches to nutrient trading in combination
with other management tools, using EPA’s
publications as guidelines. DEP will work with
communities to evaluate nutrient trading
approaches that meet their needs, and plans to
evaluate the role of nitrogen trading tools within
Massachusetts wastewater regulations.
nutrient trading
Nutrient Trading, Resources and Regulations
Federal
EPA Draft framework and other background
documents: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
watershed/framwork.html
Office of Water: Final Water Quality
Trading Policy, January 13, 2003:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/
trading/finalpolicy2003.html
Environomics: A Summary of U.S.
Effluent Trading and Offset Projects,
November 1999:
http://www.environomics.com/Effluent-
Trading-Summaries_Environomics.pdf
Fertile Ground. Nutrient Trading’s
Potential to Cost-Effectively Improve Water
Quality, 2000 http://www.wri.org/wri/
water/nutrient.html
WRI web site that tracks trades and
provides historical information on past
trades:
http://www.nutrientnet.org/
Other
National
Wildlife
Federation
World
Resources
Institute
(WRI)
Northbridge Environmental: Overview of
Water Pollution Trading in Massachusetts,
June 2001. Printed copies are available
from DEP.
A New Tool for Water Quality. Making
Watershed-Based Trading Work for
You, June 1999: http://www.nwf.org/
watersheds/newtool.html