Table 1. Literature review of pathogen reduction efficiencies for crop, pasture, urban, and septic BMPs.
| Best management practice1 | Loading reduction efficiency (%) | Average fecal coliform and E. Coli (FIB)2 efficiency (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crop practices | |||
| Forest buffers | Fecal coliform: 43–57 | 50 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Grass buffers |
E. coli: 58–99 Fecal coliform: 28–100 |
71 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2009) and Peterson et al. (2012b) |
| Land retirement | 90–93 | 92 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) and Peterson et al. (2012b) |
| Water control structures | Detention structures: 67 | 67 | Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) |
| Wetland restoration |
E. coli: 40 Fecal coliform: 30 |
35 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Non-urban stream reduction | No estimate | Not included | |
| Pasture practices | |||
| Barnyard runoff control | Fecal coliform: 81 | 81 | U.S. Geological Survey (1998) |
| Forest buffers | Fecal coliform: 43–57 | 50 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Grass buffers |
E. coli: 58–99 Fecal coliform: 28–100 |
71 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2009) and Peterson et al. (2012b) |
| Horse pasture management | E. coli: 72 | 72 | Peterson et al. (2012a) |
| Loafing lot management | Fecal coliform: 50 | 50 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Pasture alternative watering |
E. coli: 85–95 Fecal coliform: 51–94 |
82 | Sheffield et al. (1997) and Byers et al. (2005) |
| Precision intensive rotational grazing | Fecal coliform: 90 | 90 | Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2009) |
| Prescribed grazing |
E. coli: 66–72 Fecal coliform: 90–96 |
80 | Peterson, Redmon & McFarland (2011b) |
| Stream access control with fencing |
E. coli: 37–46 Fecal coliform: 30–94 |
52 | Schaetzle (2005) and Peterson, Redmon & McFarland (2011a) |
| Ammonia emission reductions | No estimate | Not included | |
| Conservation tillage with continuous no till | No estimate: heavily dependent on if and when animal manure has been applied | Not included | Ramirez et al. (2009) |
| Dairy precision feeding | No estimate | Not included | |
| Livestock mortality composting | No estimate | Not included | |
| Livestock waste management systems |
E. coli: 97–99 Fecal coliform: 44–99 |
Not included | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) and Redmon, Wagner & Peterson (2012) |
| Manure transport inside CBWS | No estimate | Not included | |
| Manure transport outside CBWS | Assumed to be 99 | Not included | |
| Non-urban stream restoration | Fecal coliform: 30 | Not included | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Poultry phytase | No estimate | Not included | |
| Poultry waste management systems | Fecal coliform: 75 E. coli: 96 | Not included | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) and Redmon, Wagner & Peterson (2012) |
| Urban practices | |||
| BioRetention | E. coli: 71 | 71 | Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) |
| Bioswale | Fecal coliform: −53 E. coli: −6 |
−6 | Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) |
| Dry ponds | Fecal coliform: 80 | 80 | Tilman, Plevan & Conrad (2011) |
| Erosion and sediment control | Assumed average of all urban stormwater practices: Fecal coliform: 53 E. coli: 60 |
57 | |
| Filtering practices | Fecal coliform: 60 E. coli: 99 |
80 | Clary et al. (2008) |
| Forest buffers | Fecal coliform: 43–57 | 50 | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Impervious surface reduction | Assumed average of all urban stormwater practices: Fecal coliform: 53 E. coli: 60 |
57 | |
| Infiltration practices | Assumed to be equivalent to Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) retention ponds: E. coli: 95 Fecal coliform: 65 |
80 | Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) |
| Retrofit Stormwater management | Assumed average of all urban stormwater practices: Fecal coliform: 53 E. coli: 60 |
57 | |
| Wet ponds & wetlands | Fecal coliform: 53 E. coli: 43–68 |
48 | Leisenring, Clary & Hobson (2012) and Knox et al. (2008) |
| Abandoned mine reclamation | No estimate | Not included | |
| Street sweeping | Fecal coliform: 1.4–4.3 | Not included | Zarriello, Breault & Weiskel (2003) |
| Tree planting | No estimate | Not included | |
| Urban stream restoration | No estimate | Not included | |
| Septic practices | |||
| Combined sewer overflow elimination | Fecal coliform: 99 | Not included | City of Grand Rapids (2011) |
| Septic connections | Fecal coliform: 99 | Not included | Vann et al. (2002) and Petersen, Rifai & Stein (2009) |
| Septic denitrification | No estimate obtained | Not included | |
| Septic pumping | Fecal coliform: 5 | Not included | Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (2003) |
| Treatment plant upgrades | No estimate: heavily dependent on type of upgrade and technology implemented | Not included | |
Notes:
1
No comprehensive set of definitions of the BMPs used in the WIPs was available; however, definitions for these agricultural practices can be found here: http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/WIPCountyDocs/bmpdef_pg.pdf. Summaries of the types of practices used in the urban BMPs can be found here: http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/swc/wa/Documents/ChesapeakePhaseIIWIP/Final_Phase2_CBWIP_03302012A.pdf.
2
FIB, or fecal indicator bacteria, reduction efficiency is represented by the average reduction efficiencies of E. coli and fecal coliform for the purposes of this analysis.
3
Negative removal efficiencies indicate that the concentrations of pathogens increased as a result of the BMP implementation.