Description
![Photo Description: Image of compost filter berm](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081111095523im_/http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/images/menuofbmps/compost_filterberm.png) |
Vegetated
compost filter berm. Note sediment on upstream side of berm and clear
water on downstream side.
Source: S. McCoy, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
|
|
A compost filter berm is a dike of compost or a compost product
that is placed perpendicular to sheet flow runoff to control erosion
in disturbed areas and retain sediment. It can be used in place of a
traditional sediment and erosion control tool such as a silt fence.
The compost filter berm, which is trapezoidal in cross section,
provides a three-dimensional filter that retains sediment and other
pollutants (e.g., suspended solids, metals, oil and grease) while
allowing the cleaned water to flow through the berm. Composts used in
filter berms are made from a variety of feedstocks, including
municipal yard trimmings, food residuals, separated municipal solid
waste, biosolids, and manure.
Compost filter berms are generally placed along the perimeter of a
site, or at intervals along a slope, to capture and treat stormwater
that runs off as sheet flow. A filter berm also can be used as a check
dam in small drainage ditches. The berms can be vegetated or
unvegetated. Vegetated filter berms are normally left in place and
provide long-term filtration of stormwater as a post-construction best
management practice (BMP). Unvegetated berms are often broken down
once construction is complete and the compost is spread around the
site as a soil amendment or mulch.
Filter berms, in general, provide an effective physical barrier in
sheet flow conditions; however, the use of compost in the filter berm
provides additional benefits. These benefits include the
following:
- The compost retains a large volume of water, which helps
prevent or reduce rill erosion and aids in establishing vegetation on
the berm.
- The mix of particle sizes in the compost filter material
retains as much or more sediment than traditional perimeter controls,
such as silt fences or hay bale barriers, while allowing a larger
volume of clear water to pass through the berm. Silt fences often
become clogged with sediment and form a dam that retains stormwater,
rather than letting the filtered stormwater pass through.
- In addition to retaining sediment, compost can retain
pollutants, such as heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and
grease, fuel, herbicides, pesticides, and other potentially hazardous
substances, from stormwater.improving water quality downstream
of the berm (USEPA, 1998).
- Nutrients and hydrocarbons adsorbed and/or trapped by the
compost filter can be naturally cycled and decomposed through
bioremediation by microorganisms commonly found in the compost matrix
(USEPA, 1998).
Applicability
Compost filter berms are applicable to construction sites with
relatively small drainage areas, where stormwater runoff occurs as
sheet flow. Common industry practice is to use compost filter berms in
drainage areas that do not exceed 0.25 acre per 100 feet of berm
length and where flow does not typically exceed 1 cubic foot per
second (see Siting and Design Considerations discussion for more
detail). Compost filter berms can be used on steeper slopes with
faster flows if they are spaced more closely or used in combination
with other stormwater BMPs such as compost blankets or silt
fences.
Siting and Design Considerations
Compost Quality: Compost quality
is an important consideration when designing a compost filter berm.
Use of sanitized, mature compost will ensure that the compost filter
berm performs as designed and has no identifiable feedstock
constituents or offensive odors. The compost used in filter berms
should meet all local, state, and Federal quality requirements.
Biosolids compost must meet the Standards for Class A biosolids
outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 503. The U.S.
Composting Council (USCC) certifies compost products under its Seal of
Testing Assurance (STA) Program. Compost producers whose products have
been certified through the STA Program provide customers with a
standard product label that allows comparison between compost
products. The current STA Program requirements and testing methods are
posted on the USCC website.
The nutrient and metal content of some composts are higher than
some topsoils. This, however, does not necessarily translate into
higher metals and nutrient concentrations or loads in stormwater
runoff. A recent study by Glanville, et al. (2003) compared the
stormwater runoff water quality from compost- and topsoil-treated
plots. They found that although the composts used in the study
contained statistically higher metal and nutrient concentrations than
the topsoils used, the total masses of nutrients and metals in the
runoff from the compost-treated plots were significantly less than
plots treated with topsoil. Likewise, Faucette et al. (2005) found
that nitrogen and phosphorus loads from hydroseed and silt fence
treated plots were significantly greater than plots treated with
compost blankets and filter berms. In areas where the receiving waters
contain high nutrient levels, the site operator should choose a
mature, stable compost that is compatible with the nutrient and pH
requirements of the selected vegetation. This will ensure that the
nutrients in the composted material are in organic form and are
therefore less soluble and less likely to migrate into receiving
waters.
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) and many individual state Departments of Transportation
(DOTs) have issued specifications for filter berms (AASHTO, 2003;
USCC, 2001). These specifications describe the quality and particle
size distribution of compost to be used in filter berms, as well as
the size and shape of the berm for different scenarios. The filter
berm media parameters developed for AASHTO specification MP 9-03 are
shown in Table 1 as an example (Alexander, 2003). Research on these
parameters continues to evolve; therefore, the DOT or Department of
Environmental Quality (or similar designation) for the state where the
filter berm will be installed should be contacted to obtain any
applicable specifications or compost testing recommendations.
Design: Filter berms installed
to control erosion and sediment on a slope or near the base of a slope
are trapezoidal in cross section, with the base generally twice the
height of the berm. The height and width of the berm will vary
depending upon the precipitation and the rainfall erosivity index
(EPA, 2001) of the site. Example compost filter berm dimensions for
various rainfall scenarios developed for AASHTO specification MP 9-03
are shown in Table 2 ( Alexander, 2003). Example filter berm
dimensions based on the site slope and slope length developed by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) are shown in Table 3
(ODEQ, 2004).
The compost filter berm dimensions should be modified based on
site-specific conditions, such as soil characteristics, existing
vegetation, site slope, and climate, as well as project-specific
requirements. Coarser compost products are generally used in regions
subject to high rainfall or wind erosion.
Table 1. Example Filter Berm Media Parameters
Parameters1,4 |
Units of Measure
|
Berm to be Vegetated
|
Berm to be left
Unvegetated |
pH2 |
pH units |
5.0.8.5 |
Not applicable |
Soluble salt concentration2
(electrical conductivity) |
dS/m (mmhos/cm) |
Maximum 5 |
Not applicable |
Moisture content |
%, wet weight basis |
30.60 |
30.60 |
Organic matter content |
%, dry weight basis |
25.65 |
25.100 |
Particle size |
% passing a selected mesh size, dry weight
basis |
- 3 in. (75 mm), 100% passing
- 1 in. (25 mm), 90 . 100% passing
- 0.75 in. (19 mm), 70 . 100% passing
- 0.25 in. (6.4 mm), 30 . 75% passing
Maximum particle size length of 6 in (152 mm)
Avoid compost with less than 30% fine particle (1mm) to
achieve optimum reduction of total suspended solids
No more than 60% passing 0.25 in (6.4 mm) in high
rainfall/flow rate situations |
- 3 in. (75 mm), 100% passing
- 1 in. (25 mm), 90 . 100% passing
- 0.75 in. (19 mm), 70 . 100% passing
- 0.25 in. (6.4 mm), 30 . 75% passing
Maximum particle size length of 6 in (152 mm)
Avoid compost with less than 30% fine particle (1mm) to
achieve optimum reduction of total suspended solids
No more than 60% passing 0.25 in (6.4 mm) in high
rainfall/flow rate situations |
Stability3
Carbon dioxide evolution rate |
mg CO2.C per gram of organic
matter per day |
<8 |
Not applicable |
Physical contaminants (manmade inerts)
|
%, dry weight basis |
<1 |
<1 |
Source: Alexander, 2003
1 Recommended test methodologies are
provided in
[Test Methods for the Evaluation of Composting and Compost ].
2 Each plant species requires a specific pH range and
has a salinity tolerance rating.
3 Stability/maturity rating is an area of compost
science that is still evolving, and other test methods should be
considered. Compost quality decisions should be based on more than one
stability/maturity test.
4 Landscape architects and project engineers may modify
the above compost specification ranges based on specific field
conditions and plant requirements.
Table 2. Example Compost Filter Berm Dimensions for
Various Rainfall Scenarios
Annual Rainfall/ Flow
Rate |
Precipitation/year
(Rainfall Erosivity Index)
|
Berm Dimensions
(height x width) |
Low |
1 . 25 in.
(20 . 90) |
1 ft x 2 ft to 1.5 ft x 3 ft
(30 cm x 60 cm to 45 cm x 90 cm) |
Average |
26 . 50 in.
(91 . 200) |
1 ft x 2 ft to 1.5 ft x 3 ft
(30 cm x 60 cm to 45 cm x 90 cm) |
High |
e 51 in.
(e 201) |
1.5 ft x 3 ft to 2 ft x 4 ft
(45 cm x 90 cm to 60 cm x 120 cm) |
Source: Alexander, 2003
Table 3. Example Compost Filter Berm Dimensions Based on
Slope and Slope Length
Slope
|
Slope Length
|
Berm Dimensions
(height x width) |
<50:1 |
250 ft |
1 ft x 2 ft |
50:1 . 10:1 |
125 ft |
1 ft x 2 ft |
10:1 . 5:1 |
100 ft |
1 ft x 2 ft |
3:1 . 2:1 |
50 ft |
1.3 ft x 2.6 ft |
>2:1 |
25 ft |
1.5 ft x 3 ft |
Source: ODEQ, 2004
Siting: For sites in high
rainfall areas or where there are severe grades or long slopes, larger
dimension berms should be used. The project engineer may also consider
placing berms at the top and base of the slope, constructing a series
of berms down the profile of the slope (15 to 25 feet apart), or using
filter berms in conjunction with a compost blanket.
Installation: The compost berm
can be installed by hand; by using a backhoe, bulldozer, or grading
blade; or by using specialized equipment such as a pneumatic blower or
side discharge spreader with a berm attachment. The compost should be
uniformly applied to the soil surface, compacted, and shaped to into a
trapezoid. Compost filter berms can be installed on frozen or rocky
ground. The filter berm may be vegetated by hand, by incorporating
seed into the compost prior to installation (usually done when the
compost is installed using a pneumatic blower or mixing truck with a
side discharge), or by hydraulic seeding following berm construction.
Proper installation of a compost filter berm is the key to effective
sediment control.
Limitations
Compost filter berms can be installed on any type of soil surface;
however, heavy vegetation should be cut down or removed to ensure that
the compost contacts the ground surface. Filter berms are not suitable
for areas where large amounts of concentrated runoff are likely, such
as streams, ditches, or waterways, unless the drainage is small and
the flow rate is relatively low.
Maintenance Considerations
Compost filter berms should be inspected regularly, as well as
after each rainfall event, to ensure that they are intact and the area
behind the berm is not filled with silt. Accumulated sediments should
be removed from behind the berm when the sediments reach approximately
one third the height of the berm. Any areas that have been washed away
should be replaced. If the berm has experienced significant washout, a
filter berm alone may not be the appropriate BMP for this area.
Depending upon the site-specific conditions, the site operator could
remedy the problem by increasing the size of the filter berm or adding
another BMP in this area, such as an additional compost filter berm or
compost filter sock, a compost blanket, or a silt fence.
Effectiveness
Numerous qualitative studies have reported the effectiveness of
compost filter berms in removing settleable solids, total suspended
solids, and various organic and inorganic contaminants from
stormwater. These studies have consistently shown that compost filter
berms are at least as effective as other traditional erosion and
sediment control BMPs in controlling sediment; however, the results of
the studies varied depending upon the site conditions. One
quantitative study conducted in Portland, Oregon (W&H Pacific,
1993) compared the effectiveness of a silt fence and a mixed yard
debris compost filter berm to a control plot during five storm events.
The study found that the filter berm was over 90 percent effective in
removing settleable and total suspended solids when compared to the
control plot and was approximately 66 percent more effective than the
silt fence. Another quantitative study performed by the Snohomish
County, Washington, Department of Planning and Development Services
(Caine, 2001) showed no decrease in turbidity with a silt fence but a
67 percent reduction in turbidity using a compost filter berm.
Cost Considerations
The TCEQ reports that compost filter berms cost $1.90 to $3.00 per
linear foot when used as a perimeter control and $3 to $6 per linear
foot when used as a check dam (McCoy, 2005). The ODEQ reports that
compost filter berms cost approximately 30 percent less to install
than silt fences (Juries, 2004). These costs do not include the cost
of removal and disposal of the silt fence or the cost of dispersing
the compost berm once construction activities are completed. The cost
to install a compost filter berm will vary, depending upon the
availability of the required quality of compost in an area.
References
Alexander, R. 2003. Standard Specifications for Compost for
Erosion/Sediment Control, developed for the Recycled Materials
Resource Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.
Available at [ www.alexassoc.net ].
Alexander, R. 2001. Compost Use on State Highway Applications,
Composting Council Research and Education Fund and U.S.
Composting Council, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
AASHTO. 2003 Standard Specifications for Transportation
materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Designation MP-9,
Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control (Filter Berms), Provisional,
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,
Washington, D.C.
Caine, E. 2001. Quilceda-Allen Watershed Erosion Control
Program, Water Quality Monitoring Report, Snohomish County,
Washington, Department of Planning and Development Services, Building
Division.
EPA. 2001. Stormwater Phase II Final Rule, Fact Sheet 3.1,
Construction Rainfall Erosivity Waiver, EPA 833-F-00-014, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Faucette, et al. 2005. Evaluation of Stormwater from Compost
and Conventional Erosion Control Practices in Construction Activities,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 60:6, 288-297.
Glanville et al. 2003. Impacts of Compost Blankets on Erosion
Control, Revegetation, and Water Quality at Highway Construction Sites
in Iowa, T. Glanville, T. Richard, and R. Persyn,
Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Department, Iowa State
University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Juries, D. 2004. Environmental Protection and Enhancement with
Compost, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest
Region.
McCoy, S. 2005. Presentation at Erosion, Sediment Control and
Stormwater Management with Compost BMPs Workshop, U.S. Composting
Council 13 th Annual Conference and Trade Show, January 2005, San
Antonio, Texas.
ODEQ. 2004. Best Management Practices for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, Guidance for
Eliminating or Reducing Pollutants in Stormwater Discharges,
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Northwest Region.
Risse, M. and B. Faucette. 2001. Compost Utilization for
Erosion Control, University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension
Service, Athens, Georgia.
USCC, 2001. Compost Use on State Highway
Applications, U.S. Composting Council, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental
Remediation Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April
1998.
W&H Pacific. 1993. Demonstration Project Using Yard Debris
Compost for Erosion Control, Final Report, presented to
Metropolitan Service District, Portland, Oregon. |