United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
January 1992
v>EPA Managing Nonpoint
Source Pollution
}•<$?
' & *v
K .•
^tinted
Final Report to CongressjpjjSbction 319
of the Clean W%t0^&fi989)
:-U.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
PB93-20089?
Report Nos: none
Title; Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution. Final Report to Congress on Section 319
of the Clean Hater Act (1989).
Date; Jan 92
Performing, Organization: Invironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of
the Assistant Administrator for Water.
NTIS Field/Group Codes: 68D, 43F, 9lA
Price: PC A10/MF A03
Availabi1ity: Available from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA. 22161
Number of Pages; 206p
Keywords: *Water pollution control, *Nonpoint sources, ^Environmental impact
assessments, *Pollution regulations, Surface waters, livers, Lakes, Wetlands,
Ground water, Runoff, Mining, Waste disposal, Construction, Land use, State
government, Local government, Clean Water Act, Regional programs, Habitat
modification.
Abstract: The report focuses on the state of the national effort to control
nonpoint source pollution as of October 1, 1989. Included are the findings of the
state nonpoint source assessments; state programs for addressing problems
identified in the assessments; related activities of EPA, other federal agencies,
and others; and achievements to date on controlling nonpoint source pollution. The
report does not discuss implementation activities funded with Fiscal Year 1990
grants and thus may understate the current level of state nonpoint source control
activities.
-------
p
Managing Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Final Report to Congress
on Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act (1989)
January 1992
-------
t
Prepared by JT&A, inc. and Dynamac Corporation under contract 68-033538 for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or
of any other organization represented in this document.
TO OBTAIN COPIES, CONTACT:
Ann Beier
Office of Water (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Preface
Clearly, the nation is realizing the toll nonpoint source pollution has
taken — and continues to exact from our lakes, streams, rivers, and
coastal waters. States are preparing to control nonpoint source
pollution with techniques that vary according to geography, human activities,
climate, and other factors.
Federal agencies and their regional offices support state efforts in
accordance with their missions. Both state and federal efforts are described in
this report, with the assessments data collected by states appearing in
Appendix A.
Perhaps most important in the long term, however, is the growing
participation at the local level, as demonstrated by the organizations whose
statements appear in this report. These groups represent the interests of the
farmer, the water resource user, the citizen who lives in an urban condo — the
whole gamut of American society. The Final Report to Congress, then,
encompasses a truly national perspective.
iii
Preceding page blank
-------
Contents
Preface iii
Executive Summary 1
I. Introduction 5
II. Assessments 13
National Summary . 13
Databases Used . 13
Methodology 14
Detailed Summaries by Waterbody Type 15
Rivers 15
Lakes ............ 19
Great Lakes 23
Wetlands . 23
Coastal Waters 25
Estuaries 27
Groundwater 29
III. Management Programs 31
IV. Regional Activities and State Programs . 41
Region I 43
Region II 55
Region III 61
Region IV . 71
Region V 81
Region VI 89
Region VII 93
Region VIII 99
Region IX 115
RegionX . . ' 123
V. Related EPA Programs 129
Ground-water Protection Programs 131
Drinking Water Programs 132
Pesticides Programs 133
Clean Lakes Program 134
V
Preceding page blank
-------
Marine and Estuarine Protection Programs 136
Research and Development Programs 138
Solid Waste Programs 141
Wetlands Protection Programs 142
Water Enforcement and Permits Programs 144
Municipal Pollution Control Programs 146
VL Related Federal Programs , 149
Tennessee Valley Authority 151
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture . . 153
Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 155
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 157
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior 159
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior 160
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior 162
. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce . . . 165
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . , , . . . 168
EPA's Efforts to Coordinate Nonpoint Source Programs and Activities 169
VII. Other Organizations 171
Izaak Walton League of America 173
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission .........175
North American Lake Management Society 177
National Association of Conservation Districts . 178
Conservation Technology Information Center . 180
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ..........181
Chesapeake Bay Program: Nutrient Reduction 183
VIII. Selected Nonpoint Source Problems and Solutions 185
Nonpoint Source Water Quality Problems from Livestock: Animal Waste and
Grazing Impacts 187
Low-input Sustainable Agriculture 191
Composting 192
Water Quality Problems Associated with Irrigated Agriculture 193
Using Market Incentives to Promote Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention
and Control 195
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Table 1.—Leading sources, pollutants, and state-designated use impacts related to nonpoint source
pollution 2
Table 2.—Nonpoint source (319) grant awards status as of September 13,1990 . .11
Table 3.—Designated uses and support levels 14
Table 4,—Source category codes used by states to identify nonpoint source impairments . IS
TableS.—Pollutants/causes codes 15
Table 6.—Management program status as of January 4,1990 33
Table 7.—Existing sources of nonpoint source funding identified in state management programs 34
Table 8.—Management program activities associated with identified problems as reported in
assessments 37
Figures
Figure 1.—Nonpoint source impacts to rivers as percentage of all river mileage (40 states reporting) 1
Figure 2.—Nonpoint source impacts to lakes as percentage of all lake acreage (33 states reporting) 2
Figure 3.—Nonpoint source impacts to estuaries as percentage of all estuary area (13 states reporting) ... ,2
Figure 4.—Nonpoint source impacts to coastal waters as percentage of all coastal area (7 states
reporting) 3
Figure 5.—Nonpoint source impacts to Great Lakes as percentage of all Great Lakes area (2 states
reporting—Indiana and New York). Note: Indiana's total area estimated as 350 mi2 3
Figure 6.—Nonpoint source impacts to wetlands as percentage of all wetland area (3 states reporting) .... 4
Figure 7.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in the nation's rivers (40 states reporting) ..... 16
Figure 8.—Designated river uses impacted by nonpoint sources (20 states reporting) 16
Figure 9.—Pollutants impacting use support in rivers (33 states reporting) 16
Figure 10.—Fraction of river impacts caused by siltation (34 states reporting) 16
Figure 11.—Fraction of river impacts caused by nutrients (34 states reporting) 17
Figure 12.—Sources impacting use support in rivers 17
Figure 13.—Fraction of river impacts caused by agriculture 17
Figure 14.—Total acres impacted by nonpoint sources 20
Figure 15.—Designated lake uses impacted by nonpoint sources (18 states reporting) . 20
Figure 16.—Pollutants impacting use support in lakes (25 states reporting) 20
Figure 17.—Fraction of lake impacts caused by nutrients (25 states reporting) 20
Figure 18.—Fraction of lake impacts caused by siltation (25 states reporting) 21
Figure 19.—Sources impacting use support in lakes 21
Figure 20,—Fraction of lake impacts caused by agriculture 22
Figure 21.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in the nation's wetlands (3 states reporting) .... 24
Figure 22.—Designated wetlands uses impacted by nonpoint sources (3 states reporting) 24
Figure 23.—Pollutants impacting use support in wetlands (3 states reporting) 24
Figure 24.—Sources impacting use support in wetlands (3 states reporting) 25
vii
-------
Figure 25.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in the nation's coastal waters (4 states
reporting) 25
Figure 26.—Designated coastal waters uses impacted by nonpoint sources (4 states reporting) 26
Figure 27.—Pollutants impacting use support in coastal waters (5 states reporting) 26
Figure 28.—Sources impacting use support in coastal waters (7 states reporting) 26
Figure 29.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in the nation's coastal waters (13 states
reporting) 27
Figure 30.—Designated estuarine uses impacted by nonpoint sources (13 states reporting) ........ 27
Figure 31.—Pollutants impacting use support in estuaries {11 states reporting) 28
Figure 32.—Sources impacting use support in estuaries (13 states reporting) 28
Figure 33.—Summary of state management program milestones 34
Figure 34.—Sources addressed by activities proposed in management programs 35
Figure 35.—Ground water nonpoint source activities (distribution by source) 35
Figure 36.—Types of nonpoint source control activities contained in milestones ............. 35
Figure 37.—National summary of existing nonpoint source regulations by source . 39
Figure 38.—National summary of existing nonpoint source regulations by source 39
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Assessment Data A-l
Appendix B: Methodology for Summarizing State Assessment Data B-l
Appendix C: Comparison of Methodologies of Sections 3QS(b) and 319 Reports C-l
Appendix D: Management Program Methodology . D-l
Appendix E: Relating Assessments and Management Programs — Methodology and Results . . E-l
Appendix F: Summary of Federal Programs that States will Review for Consistency with
Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Programs F-l
Appendix G; Section 319 Statute G-l
The following generally-recognized abbreviations are used throughout this report:
ACP Agricultural Conservation Practice (administered by USDA)
ASCS Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (a USDA agency)
BLM Bureau of Land Management (Department of the Interior)
BMPs Best management practices
CRP Conservation Reserve Program (administered by USDA)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GIS Geographical Information Systems
MOAsor
MOUs Memorandum of Agreement — or Understanding (formal agreements between government agencies)
SCS Soil Conservation Service (a USDA agency)
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
vifi
-------
Executive Summary
During Fiscal Year 1989 and early 1990 the
states and the Environmental Protection
Agency took significant steps toward im-
plementing the national nonpoint source program
under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The
states continued to take the lead in developing and
submitting to EPA approvable assessment reports
and management programs.
All states now have approved assessments. EPA
has fully approved 44 management programs and
has approved portions of all the remaining states'
management programs.
EPA has awarded to the states and territories
(hereafter referred to as the states) approximately
$37 million in section 319 grant funds appropriated
by Congress in Fiscal Year 1990. EPA is currently in
the process of awarding $51 million in FY 1991
grants. States have begun to implement their man-
agement programs and are continuing those efforts
begun prior to federal funding under section 319.
Other federal agencies, most notably the De-
partment of Agriculture, are contributing to the con-
trol of nonpoint source pollution by assigning water
quality a higher priority in their programs. In addi-
tion, the new storm water program under section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act1 is expected to help
solve urban water quality problems where urban
runoff is discharged through storm water sewers.
This report focuses on the state of the national
effort to control nonpoint source pollution as of Octo-
ber 1, 1989. Included are the findings of the state
nonpoint source assessments; state programs for ad-
dressing problems identified in the assessments; re-
lated activities of EPA, other federal agencies, and
others; and achievements to date on controlling non-
point source pollution. This report does not discuss
implementation activities funded with Fiscal Year
1990 grants and thus may understate the current
level of state nonpoint source control activities.
Impacts Not Reported
184%)
Non-Support
(9%)
/ Partial Support
,(4%)
.Threatened
(3%)
Souroe: Section 319(a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
Impacts Not Reported* Includes both waters not impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not t
Figure 1,—Nonpoint source Impacts to rlv«r» as percentage
of all rivar mileage (40 ttatM reporting).
Assessment Report
Findings — What are the
Problems?
1PA has analyzed the nonpoint source assessment
data provided by the states. Based upon those data,
the following general observations can be made re-
garding the type and extent of nonpoint source im-
pacts to the nation's surface waters.
¦ Wildlife and recreation are the uses most af-
fected by nonpoint source pollution. Our rivers,
lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands
are all experiencing m^jor impacts to either, or
both, of these state-designated uses. Fishing
and shellfishing in the Great Lakes and coastal
waters are also impacted by nonpoint source
pollution. This information indicates very
clearly that nonpoint source pollution has
1 All statutory citations refer to the Clean Water Act unless otherwise specified.
1
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Non-Support
(11%)
Impacts Not Reported
(74%) \^gm
Partial Support
(6%)
Threatened
'(9%)
Non-Support
Impacts Not Reported <13%>
(76%) \ /
Partial Support
(9%)
Threatened
(2%)
Source: Saction 319(a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
'Impacts Not Reported" Includes both waters not Impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not assessed,
Figure 2.—Nonpoint source impacts to laku aa percentage
of ail lake acreage (33 states reporting).
caused severe damage to aquatic communities
nationwide and has destroyed the aesthetic
values of many of our treasured recreational
waters.
Source: Section 319{a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
"Impacts Not Reported" includes both waters not Impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not assessed.
Figure 3.—Nonpoint sourca Impacts to aatuarlaa aa par-
centage of all estuary area (13 statsa reporting).
The leading sources of nonpoint pollution, the
pollutants causing the greatest damage, and the
state-designated uses most affected by these sources
are shown for all waterbody types in Table 1.
¦ Agriculture continues to be the single largest
contributor to nonpoint source problems in the
nation. It is the leading source of impacts to
rivers, lakes, and wetlands.
¦ Siltation and nutrients are the pollutants
responsible for most of the nonpoint source
impacts to the nation's surface waters. Rivers,
lakes, estuaries, and wetlands are all affected
primarily by one of these two pollutants.
Management Programs —
What are the States
Planning to Do?
The states appear to be prepared to address the
m^jor sources of nonpoint source pollution identified
in their assessments. Over a quarter of the manage-
ment program milestones addressed agriculture.
Table 1.—Leading sources, pollutants, and state-designated use impacts related to nonpoint source pollution.1
WATERBODY TYPE
(# STATES REPORTING)
LEADING SOURCES2
LEADING POLLUTANTS
USES IMPACTED
Rivers
Agriculture
Siltation
Wildlife
{40 states)
Unknown
Nutrients
Recreation
Lakes
Agriculture
Nutrients
Recreation
(33 states)
Unknown
Siltation
Wildlife
Estuaries
In-place contaminants
Nutrients
Wildlife
(13 states)
Urban
Pathogens
Recreation
Coastal Waters
Waste storage tanks
Oil and grease
Shellfish,
(7 slates)
Petroleum activities
Metals, pesticides,
Recreation,
Pathogens, & inorganics
High Quality,
Industry, &
Navigation
Great Lakes
In-place contaminants
Priority organics
Fisheries
(2 states)
Unknown
Pesticides
Wildlife
Wetlands
Agriculture
Siltation
Wildlife
(3 states)
Hydrologic modification
Metals
Recreational &
High Quality
Ground Water
Not available
Pesticides
Drinking
{9 states)
Unknown toxicity
Priority organics
' Listed sources, pollutants, and uses impacted are not necessarily linked. The number of states reporting is the maximum number that may nave contributed
data under each of the information columns. For example, while 40 states reported the river mileage impacted by nonpoint sources, only 33 states reported
pollutant information in a quantitative manner.
'Leading sources, pollutants, and uses impacted determined by the number of miles of acres affected. Top two, with ties, are listed.
2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
States proposed a number of nonpoint source
control activities in their management programs.
These included the implementation of control mea-
sures, public outreach, technical assistance, techni-
cal evaluation of projects, continued and expanded
assessment of nonpoint source problems, enforce-
ment, designation of priority waterbodies, and re-
porting. Projects aimed at specific watersheds are
described in only about two-thirds of the manage-
ment programs.
Thirty -nine states reported existing sources of
state funding for nonpoint source pollution control.
The predominant funding sources were general rev-
enues, permit fees, and user fees.
Forty-six states identified existing regulations
to address nonpoint source pollution, but many of
these regulations are designed for point source dis-
charges such as animal feedlots and mining. Many
states with nonpoint source regulations did not de-
scribe enforcement activities.
Forty-five states provided a list of federal pro-
jects they plan to review for consistency with their
management programs. Most states will review pro-
jects using existing intergovernmental review proce-
dures, but several will also coordinate with
intergovernmental reviews provided under other
statutes such as the National Environmental Policy
Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Progress Made in
Reducing Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Because the implementation phase of the section
319 program is only beginning in 1990, it is prema-
ture to try to determine water quality improvements
resulting from state programs. Moreover, the experi-
ence gained by EPA and the states under such pro-
grams as the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP),
the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), the
Clean Lakes Program, the Great Lakes Program,
and the Chesapeake Bay Program tells us that the
response of natural systems to changes in human
activities may take several years or more. The docu-
mentation of this response is often difficult, requir-
ing consistent, rigorous monitoring and sometimes
highly sophisticated analytic techniques.
The states have succeeded, however, in achiev-
ing and documenting water quality improvement in
a number of cases. For example, water quality has
demonstrably improved in at least four of the RCWP
projects (Florida, Idaho, Oregon, and Utah). The
nonpoint source control measures in these projects
primarily addressed animal waste problems and
sediment yields from irrigated croplands.
Impacts Not Reported
(84%)
Non-Support
(10%)
¦ Partial Support
(6%)
Sourer. Section 319(a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
'Impacts Not Report*]" Includes both waters riot Impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not assessed.
Figure 4.—Nonpoint source Impacts to coastal watsra
percentage of all coastal area (7 states reporting).
Impacts Not Reported
(28%)
©
Non-Support
(72%)
Source: Section 319(a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
"Imparts Not Reported* Includes both waters not Impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not assessed.
Figure 5.—Nonpoint source Impacts to Great Lakes as per-
centage of all Great Lakes area (2 states reporting—Indians
and New York). Note: Indiana's total area eetlmated as 350
ml2.
It is clear from the RCWP experience that many
states have the knowledge and tools to solve these
types of agricultural problems. In Iowa, the Green
Valley Lake Clean Lakes project has reduced total
phosphorus concentration 75 percent, algal growth
fourfold, and sediment delivery to the lake by half.
Fish growth rates have increased. Treatment of an
abandoned mine site in Alice, Colorado, improved
the quality of nearby Little Creek by increasing the
pH to more acceptable levels.
These examples illustrate the point that im-
provements in water quality are achieved locally.
Knowing this, the states and EPA are working to-
gether to establish effective statewide awareness
and assistance programs and implement targeted
pollution control measures in high priority water-
sheds.
3
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Non-Support Partial Support
(4%) - (2%)
Impacts Not Reported J—Z -xThreatened
(93%) \ rSW (1%)
Source: Section 319(a) Nonpoint Source Assessments
"Impact* Not Reported" Includes both waters not Impacted by nonpoint
sources and waters not assessed.
Flgura 8.—Nonpoint aource Impacts to wetlands a* parcant*
aga of ail wetland araa (3 ttataa reporting).
Section 319(m}(2) of the Clean Water Act re-
quires EPA, in addition to describing the states'
progress in addressing nonpoint source pollution, to
make recommendations concerning future programs
for controlling nonpoint source pollution. However,
recommendations concerning future nonpoint
source control programs need to be considered in a
broader context that would include an overall as-
sessment of existing Clean Water Act programs.
EPA plans to conduct this assessment, including an
evaluation of the need for any changes in the cur-
rent nonpoint source program, in the context of an
overall evaluation of options for reauthorizing the
Clean Water Act,
4
-------
I. Introduction
Background
Section 319(m) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA
to transmit a final report on the activities carried
out under section 319. The statute requires that, at
a minimum, the report:
¦ describe the management programs being
implemented by the states by types and
amount of affected navigable waters,
categories and subcategories of nonpoint
sources, and types of best management
practices being implemented;
¦ describe the experiences of the states in
adhering to schedules and implementing
best management practices;
¦ describe the amount and purpose of grants
awarded pursuant to subsections (h) and (i)
of this section;
¦ identify, to the extent that information is
available, the progress made in reducing
pollutant loads and improving water quality
in navigable waters;
¦ indicate what further actions need to be
taken to attain and maintain applicable
water quality standards and the goals and
requirements of the Clean Water Act;
¦ include recommendations of the
Administrator concerning future programs,
including enforcement programs, for
controlling pollution from nonpoint sources;
and
¦ identify the activities and programs of
departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities of the United States that
are inconsistent with the management
programs submitted by the states and
recommend modifications so that such
activities and programs are consistent with
and assist the states in implementation of
such management programs.
Nonpoint source pollution generally results
from land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposi-
tion, drainage, or seepage. Although nonpoint
sources have been described in a number of ways,
they are defined as sources of water pollution that
do not meet the legal definition of "point source" in
section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act;2:
The term "point source" means any
discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance, including but not limited to
any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding
operation, or vessel or other floating craft,
from which pollutants are or may be
discharged. This term does not include
agricultural storm water discharges and
return flows from irrigated agriculture.
Although diffuse runoff is generally treated as a
nonpoint source, runoff that enters and is dis-
charged from conveyances such as those described
are point sources and subject to the permitting re-
quirements of the Clean Water Act. In contrast, non-
point sources are not subject to federal permits and
are usually addressed through voluntary programs.
The distinction between nonpoint sources and
diffuse point sources, such as storm water sewers,
may be subtle and is often blurred by states in de-
scribing the effects of nonpoint sources. However, in
most states, it is reasonable to conclude that non-
point sources including certain diffuse point sources
(e.g., storm water discharges) are now responsible
2 All statutory citations refer to the Clean Water Act unless otherwise specified.
5
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
for between one-third and two-thirds of existing and
threatened impairments of the states' waters.
There are many reasons why nonpoint sources
are such a large component of our nation's water
pollution problem. Diffuse sources are often harder
to identify, isolate, and control than traditional
point sources. Perhaps for these reasons, from the
passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 through
1987, EPA and the states focused on issuing permits
to point sources, then inspecting, monitoring, and
enforcing those permits to ensure that point sources
met the Act's requirements.
During that period (1972-1987), the federal gov-
ernment alone invested over $50 billion assisting
local communities in constructing secondary treat-
ment plants to meet Clean Water Act requirements,
with relatively little emphasis on nonpoint sources.
While several states had substantial programs to
help farmers conserve soil and water or control agri-
cultural nonpoint source pollution, many states did
not have a single staff person specializing in the
identification, prevention, and control of nonpoint
source water pollution.
In 1987, reflecting increased awareness of the
scope and diversity of nonpoint source pollution,
Congress enacted section 319 to encourage states to
increase their control of nonpoint source pollution.
This new provision created a three-stage national
program to be implemented by the states with fed-
eral approval and assistance:
1. State nonpoint source assessment reports,
2. State nonpoint source management
programs, and
3. Implementation of the state nonpoint source
management programs.
This Report
This report describes the status of the national ef-
fort to control nonpoint source pollution as of Octo-
ber 1, 1989. Where possible, more current
information concerning the final approval of state
nonpoint source assessments and management pro-
grams and the issuance of grants in 1990 is also pro-
vided.
In its Fiscal Year 1988 Report to Congress, EPA
summarized the status of state nonpoint source as-
sessments and management programs, state activi-
ties, and the nonpoint source activities of EPA and
other federal agencies. As of October 1, 1989, how-
ever, few state nonpoint source assessments and
management programs had been completed and ap-
proved, and in some states, significant implementa-
tion of these programs had yet to begin. Major
events have occurred since the FY 1988 report was
submitted:
¦ All states now have EPA-approved nonpoint
source assessments.
¦ EPA also has fully approved 44 state
nonpoint source management programs and
approved portions of all the remaining state
management programs.
¦ Congress appropriated $40 million in FY
1990 and $51 million in FY 1991 for section
319 state grants to implement approved
state programs.
¦ EPA has awarded all of the appropriated FY
1990 grant funds, based upon work
programs developed by the states. The
states have begun to use this assistance to
implement their nonpoint source
management programs and to continue
ongoing nonpoint source management
activities.
¦ The storm water program under section
402(p) of the Clean Water Act moved closer
to implementation. An initial set of storm
water regulations for large municipalities
and certain industrial storm water
discharges was promulgated in November
1990.
¦ The U.S. Department of Agriculture began
to implement a significant set of technical
assistance and cost-share activities under
the president's Water Quality Initiative to
control nonpoint source pollution from
agriculture. In late 1990, Congress passed
the 1990 Food Security Act, which expanded
the set of water quality programs in the
conservation title.
¦ Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
requiring state development of coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.
These and many other activities by federal,
state, and local governments and by citizens are evi-
dence of the increased commitment at all levels to
protect and enhance water quality by controlling
nonpoint source pollution.
Improving the quality of this nation's waters
will take time, particularly because, as this report
documents, nonpoint source pollution is such a per-
vasive problem. This report outlines how the states,
EPA, and others have begun to address the problem
and describes their efforts and achievements to
date.
6
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Beginning with a discussion of EPA's efforts in
administering the national nonpoint source program
under section 319, this report continues with a sum-
mary of the states' nonpoint source assessments and
management programs. EPA regional and state
highlights and reports comprise the next section,
Nonpoint source control programs within EPA and
other federal agencies are then described, followed
by discussions of other related programs, activities,
and issues.
Section 3l9(m)(2) of the Clean Water Act re-
quires EPA, in addition to describing the states'
progress in addressing nonpoint source pollution, to
make recommendations concerning future programs
for controlling nonpoint source pollution. However,
recommendations concerning future nonpoint
source control programs need to be considered in a
broader context that would include an overall as-
sessment of existing Clean Water Act programs.
EPA plans to conduct this assessment, including an
evaluation of the need for any changes in the cur-
rent nonpoint source program, in the context of an
overall evaluation of options for reauthorizing the
Clean Water Act.
The Nonpoint Source
Program Moves Forward
The period of 1989 and early 1990 has been the
most challenging to date in the national nonpoint
source program. By January 4, 1990, EPA's regional
offices, working closely with the states, had ap-
proved all state nonpoint source assessments, 44
state management programs, and portions of 12
other state programs.
Congress appropriated $40 million for section
319 grants on November 9, 1989, and EPA and the
states took less than four months to complete the
grants process for approved nonpoint source pro-
grams.
By December 1, 1989, EPA gave the. states ini-
tial planning targets, and by December 15,1989, is-
sued detailed guidance on the criteria, priorities,
and conditions for awarding the grants. The guid-
ance stressed the principle that section 319 grants
are not entitlements and that states' actual grant
amounts may be higher or lower than the initial
planning targets, in accordance with the quality of
the states' proposed grant work programs. States re-
sponded by submitting draft grant applications by
February 15. Most grants were awarded by March
1, 1990, with the remainder awarded by June 1,
1990.
While the state assessments, management pro-
grams, and grants were the primary focus of EPA's
activities, EPA also continued or began other activi-
ties to promote national awareness and effective
control of nonpoint source pollution. To assist EPA
in defining the goals of the nonpoint source pro-
gram, and the means to attain those goals, EPA de-
veloped the Nonpoint Source Agenda for the Future
(January 1989).
The overall goal of the Agenda is to protect and
restore designated uses of the nation's waters by
providing strong leadership for the national non-
point source program and by helping states and
local governments overcome barriers to successful
implementation of nonpoint source control mea-
sures. Among these barriers are (1) inadequate pub-
lic awareness of the nonpoint source problem, (2)
inadequate knowledge and/or transfer of knowledge
regarding successful solutions to nonpoint source
problems, and (3) inadequate incentives to correct
nonpoint source pollution.
EPA developed five Nonpoint Source Agenda
themes through which to pursue its national goal:
¦ Public Awareness—help states and local
governments raise the level of public
awareness about the effects of nonpoint
source pollution. .
¦ Successful Solutions—provide states and
local governments with information on
practical, feasible solutions to prevent or
control nonpoint source pollution.
¦ Economic Forces—examine the economic
forces that contribute to the nonpoint source
problem by encouraging environmentally
unsatisfactory behavior.
¦ Regulatory Solutions—help states and
local governments improve their own
regulatory capabilities.
¦ Good Science—develop the tools states
and local governments need to establish
sound water quality-based programs for
nonpoint source control, particularly water
quality criteria and monitoring protocols
designed to evaluate nonpoint source
controls.
These five themes of the Nonpoint Source
Agenda were developed before funding was appro-
priated under section 319. The FY 1990 appropria-
tion of nonpoint source funds has had a mayor effect
on how EPA can address these themes, EPA intends
to respond to commitments made in the Agenda over
a five-year period that began in FY 1989. The fol-
lowing paragraphs describe some of the progress
EPA has made in addressing Agenda themes.
7
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Agenda Highlights
and Progress
Public Awareness
HIGHLIGHTS
EPA has pledged to work with states and local gov-
ernments to improve their capacity to educate the
public about the causes and effects of nonpoint
source pollution and thus encourage behavioral
changes and responsible stewardship of our water
resources.
The Agency will initiate a national public aware-
ness program to help build consensus and mobilize
citizens. EPA will encourage states and local govern-
ments to adopt targeted, watershed management
approaches that provide a common basis for citizen
support and involvement. EPA is also committed to
work with the states, federal departments and agen-
cies, and others to produce high quality educational
materials and to train teachers.
PROGRESS
The Agency has initiated the First phases of its pub-
lic awareness program. EPA's first nonpoint source
brochure and poster were printed in early 1990.
Over 450,000 copies of the brochure and 100,000
copies of the poster have been distributed to the
public with the assistance of states, conservation
districts, and citizens' groups. These materials are
intended to add "nonpoint source pollution" to the
public's vocabulary, and to provide basic background
about the types of nonpoint source pollution and
ways to prevent it.
In addition, EPA has developed or supported nu-
merous information and education materials ad-
dressing a wide range of nonpoint source topics. EPA
has been working with states to develop statewide
and local information and education programs as
part of all approved section 319 management pro-
grams and grant work programs.
EPA is actively supporting the dissemination of
public education programs through the development
of a public outreach clearinghouse, the Nonpoint
Source Information Exchange. This includes an in-
ventory of existing nonpoint source awareness mate-
rials, including videos, brochures, citizens* guides,
manuals, posters, and curricula. EPA has already
published a catalogue of existing materials and is re-
viewing them to identify those that best address spe-
cific nonpoint source control issues. EPA's goal is to
provide the best available materials to state and
local nonpoint source program managers to assist
them in educating the public about nonpoint source
pollution.
Successful Solutions
HIGHLIGHTS
Under this theme EPA has pledged to actively solicit
help in setting up information networks to provide
states and local governments with useful, up-to-date
information on feasible solutions to existing prob-
lems and ways to prevent future problems. This ac-
tivity goes hand-in-hand with public awareness
efforts.
PROGRESS
EPA took a major step toward achieving results
under this theme by establishing Nonpoint Source
News-Notes, an occasionally published vehicle for
sharing success stories among states, communities,
agencies, and others interested in nonpoint source
control. This publication, currently reaching nearly
5,000 professionals and lay persons, describes non-
point source program activities at the federal, state,
and local levels, including technical, institutional,
and incentive-based means for achieving nonpoint
source pollution control. Eight issues were pub-
lished in FY 1990.
EPA has also made considerable progress in de-
veloping the Nonpoint Source Information Ex-
change. This will include an electronic bulletin
board dedicated to nonpoint source issues. The bul-
letin board came on-line during 1990. EPA is also
developing a Manager's Bibliography featuring
major existing resources on nonpoint source pollu-
tion control topics.
Economic Forces
HIGHLIGHTS
Under this theme, EPA intends to deal with both re-
moving or reducing the financial incentives to pol-
lute and providing financial incentives to prevent or
correct problems. To assist and support state and
local efforts to devise their own financing mecha-
nisms, EPA pledged to establish a central clearing-
house for innovative state and local funding ideas
that will cover nonpoint source as well as other
water programs such as wetlands, ground water,
and estuaries.
EPA also has agreed to help match state and
local needs with resources of other federal agencies
to foster joint efforts to support state nonpoint
source programs. Finally, EPA will attempt to influ-
ence federal policy decisions that drive the kinds of
behavior that cause nonpoint source pollution.
8
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
PROGRESS
Nonpoint Source News-Notes is EPA's primary vehi-
cle for sharing success stories among states concern-
ing financial solutions to nonpoint source problems.
EPA also has published Share the Costs — Share the
Benefits, a guide for states on the use of cost-share
programs to encourage BMPs.
EPA has worked with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to link the president's Water Quality
Initiative with state nonpoint source program activi-
ties and needs. Some successful matches between
state nonpoint source activities and the USD A ini-
tiative programs have already resulted and more
are expected in the near future.
EPA has taken an active role in shaping the new
Farm Bill and coastal legislation and has begun
meaningful dialogue with other federal agencies
such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration. EPA will increase support for
interagency cooperation to control nonpoint source
pollution in the years ahead.
Regulatory Solutions
HIGHLIGHTS
EPA has pledged to assist states and local govern-
ments as they seek regulatory solutions to nonpoint
source problems. A clearinghouse and information
transfer workshops were identified as the means for
providing this assistance.
EPA plans to explore ways to more effectively in-
tegrate nonpoint source considerations into its exist-
ing regulatory network, including the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Federal Insec-
ticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Tbxic
Substances Control Act. In addition, EPA will ex-
plore ways for states to make better use of their anti-
degradation policies to fully protect existing uses
from being harmed by nonpoint source pollution.
PROGRESS
As described earlier, Nonpoint Source News-Notes is
EPA's major vehicle for sharing information regard-
ing regulatory solutions to nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
In support of state and local efforts to develop
regulatory solutions to nonpoint source problems,
EPA continues to develop its storm water regulatory
program under the authorities of subsection 402(p)
of the Clean Water Act as amended in 1987. Simi-
larly, EPA is assessing its accomplishments and
needs under the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) program as it relates to
concentrated animal feeding operations (40 CFR
Part 122.23). Furthermore, EPA has supported state
and local regulatory efforts with section 319 grants.
State regulatory activities are discussed in Chapter
IV.
Good Science
HIGHLIGHTS
EPA is committed to research and develop various
approaches for establishing water quality standards
that better address nonpoint source problems, with
a focus on narrative, and numeric sediment and bio-
logical criteria. EPA also plans to develop better as-
sessment methodologies for nonpoint source
impacts.
PROGRESS
In April 1990, EPA published Biological Criteria—
National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, a
document on the effective use of biological criteria
and standards in state water quality programs (EPA
440-15-90-004, April 1990). In addition, EPA's draft
Water Quality Standards Framework (December
1989) includes as EPA priorities for FY 1991-93 the
publication of (1) six estuarine criteria; (2) acute/wet
weather values for pH, total suspended solids, and
bacteria; and (3) guidance on ways to narratively
link nonpoint source control programs to water
quality standards.
Agricultural runoff containing large amounts of
pesticides, nutrients, and sediments can adversely
affect the biological integrity of aquatic systems. A
1990 study by EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation to determine the extent of ecological
benefits arising from' installing vegetative filter
strips along streams that are adjacent to agricul-
tural cropland confirms that such practices improve
stream communities. The study evaluated the qual-
ity of in-stream biological communities rather than
chemical or physical conditions of the water re-
source, because the most important criterion of a
healthy stream is whether it can support ecologi-
cally rich biota in a sustainable manner. After se-
lecting sites with two-year-old filter strips and
Control sites without filter strips, both of which had
similar physical and land use attributes, the re-
searchers analyzed detailed physical, chemical, and
biological parameters, including samples of
macroinvertebrates and fish.
The study found that vegetative filter strips can
provide benefits to headwater stream ecosystems
(first and second order streams) that drain agricul-
9
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
tural croplands. Analyses of benthic macro-inverte-
brates showed significant differences between filter
strip and control sites. The total number of benthic
macroinvertebrates was greater at the sites with fil-
ter strips than at the sites without the strips. In ad-
dition, species richness and the density of fish was
higher at the filter strip sites than at the control
sites in three out of the four pairs of sites. The re-
searchers concluded that vegetative filter strips can
be effective in limiting movement of sediment and
nutrients to streams and therefore they provide eco-
logical benefits to aquatic biota.
EPA's future priorities may include the publica-
tion of guidance on (1) the development and use of
numeric biological criteria for estuaries and
wetlands; (2) the development of nutrient criteria;
(3) the refinement of wetland quality standards; (4)
the development and implementation of comprehen-
sive numeric water quality standards for coastal
waters; and (5) ways to numerically link nonpoint
source programs to water quality standards.
EPA continues to develop technical tools to as-
sist states in developing effective nonpoint source
control programs. The Agency has moved forward in
developing its database summarizing the water
quality to be expected from various agricultural
treatments and will continue to support this effort.
EPA also is testing one of the many nonpoint source
models currently in use to see if it predicts water
quality accurately or adequately. The Agency has
developed draft guidance on nonpoint source moni-
toring and evaluation techniques and completed
this guidance in 1991. Technical support is also pro-
vided to the states regarding nonpoint source moni-
toring protocols for watershed projects funded under
section 319.
Targeting techniques and BMPs (best manage-
ment practices) selection guidance for agricultural
and urban areas have been developed for state use.
Given the scope of the nonpoint source problem, it is
necessary for EPA, states, and local governments to
set priorities for nonpoint source programs. EPA,
therefore, has developed and distributed guidance
on this issue as well.
EPA should provide much more help to the
states as they grapple with their nonpoint source
problems. EPA will continue to foster the develop-
ment and adaptation of existing and new technology
to gradually establish a proven technical backing for
state nonpoint source programs.
Nonpoint Source Funding
The Fiscal Year 1988 report described several EPA
grant programs that can be used to fund nonpoint
source control activities and indicated that the most
important federal funding sources at that time came
from appropriations under Title II of the Clean
Water Act. For example, the largest source of EPA
funding for nonpoint source control in FY 1989 was
section 205(j)(5) grants. In FY 1989, these funds to-
talled $10,642,474 as compared to $23,123,010 in
FY 1988. EPA also made grants under section
201(g)(1)(B).
While the Clean Water Act requires that all
states reserve at least 1 percent of their Title II ap-
propriations for nonpoint source activities funded
under section 205(j)(5), the Act allows states (with
EPA concurrence) to transfer up to 20 percent of
their Title II allotments for nonpoint source use. lb
date, four states have used this provision to fund
nonpoint source programs.
Pursuant to changes in the Clean Water Act en-
acted by Congress in the Water Quality Act of 1987,
Title II funding has essentially been phased out and
replaced by a new Title VI program, which provides
grants for State Water Pollution Control Revolving
Funds (SRF). In this new program, EPA can make
capitalization grants to states to establish a revolv-
ing fund for a number of purposes, including a sec-
tion 319 management program. Title VI thus offers
the potential for continued significant levels of state
assistance to nonpoint source control activity.
¦ The most significant new federal funding source
for state section 319 nonpoint source management
programs is the section 319 appropriation. In No-
vember 1989, Congress appropriated $40 million in
section 319 FY 1990 funds to assist states to imple-
ment their approved nonpoint source management
programs. Table 2 lists the amount of section 319
funds awarded to each state.
Congress appropriated $51 million in section
319 FY 1991 funds. EPA is currently in the process
of awarding this to the states.
10
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Table 2.—Nonpolnt source (319) grant awards status
as of September 13, 1990.
STATES TERRITORIES AWARD
AL
$ 653,298
AK
$ 48,000
AZ
$ 555,420
AR
$ 660,299
CA
$ 1,894,478
CO
$ 512,582
CT
$ 309,825
DE
$ 370,000
DC
$ 169,089
FL
$ 1,294.380
GA
$ 823,934
HI
$ 258.722
ID
$ 790,995
IL
$ 750,000
IN
$ 565,000
IA
$ 846,851
KS
$ 878,401
KY
$ 578,000
LA
$ 845,937
ME
$ 462,084
MD
$ 447,000
MA
$ 383,687
Ml
$ 1,293,000
MN
$ 1,276,000
MS
$ 703,200
MO
$ 745,061
MT
$ 553,377
NE
$ 864.622
NV
$ 294,518
NH
$ 147,746
NJ
$ 585,000
NM
$ 354,510
NY
$ 1,211,052
NC
$ 796,972
ND
$ 667,700
OH
$ 1,074,000
OK
$ 608,944
OR
$ 537,018
PA
$ 500.425
Rl
$ 313,062
SC
$ 536,380
8D
$ 695.067
TN
$ 531.839
TX
$ 1,632,036
UT
$ 387,500
VT
$ 287,114
VA
$ 777,000
WA
$ 870,621
WV
$ 593,000
Wl
$ 1,077,000
WY
$ 220,000
AS
$ 94,260
eu
$ 94,260
MR
$ 94,260
PR
$ 200,000
TT
$ 94,260
VI
$ 0 (ineligib
approved
management
program by
1 '4f90 deadline)
TOTAL $34,816,816*
' This ligu-e does not include grants to Indian Tribes and designated set-
asides.
11
-------
-------
II. Assessments
Section 319(a) requires the states to identify
those navigable waters impacted or threat-
ened by nonpoint sources and to identify the
pollution sources affecting those same waters.
This chapter reports national summary results
based upon information contained in the approved
assessment reports of 41 states, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands (all are referred to as states here-
after, making the total 43). The remaining 10 as-
sessments did not contain sufficient quantitative
information for inclusion in this summary.
The data provided by the states in their ap-
proved nonpoint source assessments provide the
most comprehensive and detailed picture to date of
the nationwide scope and effects of nonpoint source
pollution. The information summarized in this chap-
ter should be treated with caution, however, since
not all states provided data that could be used in
EPA's analyses. For example, some states did not re-
port the number of miles or lake acres affected by
particular types of nonpoint sources. Therefore,
numbers used in this report are generally based on
the subset of states that provided usable quantita-
tive data (see Table 1).
National Summary
The state-designated uses (Table 3) of our nation's
waters most severely impacted by nonpoint source
pollution are wildlife (e.g., support of indigenous
species of fish and waterfowl) and recreation (e.g.,
swimming). Our rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal wa-
ters, and wetlands are all experiencing major effects
on either, or both, of these uses. Fishing and
shellfishing in the Great Lakes and coastal waters
are also affected by nonpoint source pollution.
The information reported in the states' assess-
ments indicates very clearly that nonpoint source
pollution has severely damaged aquatic communi-
ties nationwide and has destroyed or is threatening
the aesthetic values of many of our treasured recre-
ational waters.
¦ Nonpoint sources are also responsible for
many health-related impairments
nationwide: fishing and shellfishing are
limited in many coastal areas because of
pathogen contamination by animal wastes
and pesticides; in other places, ground
water cannot be used for drinking water
because of nitrate contamination. Still other
effects occur in specific waterbodies.
¦ Agriculture continues to be the single
largest source of nonpoint source pollution
problems in the nation.
¦ Siltation and nutrients are the pollutants
causing the greatest share of the nonpoint
source impacts to the nation's surface
waters.
Databases Used
All states provided a list of waters affected by non-
point source pollution, but the informational content
and quality of these lists vary considerably, from
North Dakota's comprehensive approach to Alaska's
very brief summary. Ground-water data in particu-
lar are mostly qualitative, largely because section
319 did not require states to list those aquifers or
wells affected by nonpoint sources. EPA's analysis
uses only those lists for which states identified the
size of impacted waters. For this reason, this report
underestimates the extent of the nonpoint source
problems in the nation. For a more complete version
of EPA's assessment database see Appendix A,
13
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Table 3.—Designated uses and support levels. States' nonpoint source assessments are de-
signed to identify waters affected by nonpoint
source pollution and then to identify the nature and
sources of this pollution. States identify impacts by
comparing a waterbody's existing or threatened con-
dition with the condition needed to support the "des-
ignated uses" that the states have designated as
appropriate for the waterbody (e.g., fishing, drink-
ing, swimming, navigation, agriculture, etc.). Im-
pacts are classified into three degrees of severity: (1)
the waterbody does not support designated uses; (2)
the waterbody partially supports designated uses;
and (3) the waterbody's designated uses are sup-
ported but threatened.
States have identified impairments of waters in
Threatened = ah uses supported, but one or mote uses a variety of ways, ranging from extensive and rigor-
— ous chemical, physical, or biological monitoring to
visual observation and evaluation of land uses in
the watershed. This report is thus based on states'
reports on both "monitored" and "evaluated" waters.
The states' assessments may in some cases
overstate nonpoint source impacts, given the diffi-
culty of characterizing certain sources as point or
nonpoint (Table 4). For example, some states have
reported the effects of in-place contaminants on the
nation's estuaries and the Great Lakes, waste stor-
age and storage tank leaks in coastal areas, priority
organics in the Great Lakes, oil and grease prob-
lems in coastal waters, and metals contamination of
wetlands as significant nonpoint source problems.
Some of these may include point sources, although a
fair share are probably caused by nonpoint sources.
Methodology
EPA extracted data from state assessments in a con-
sistent manner, employing a set of established rules.
These rules, for the most part, governed the manner
in which EPA attributed sizes of impacted waters to
various designated uses, sources, and pollutants.
For a detailed discussion of EPA's methodology, see
Appendix B.
Although their general conclusions are compa-
rable, this report differs in a number of ways from
National Water Quality Inventory: 1988 Report to
Congress (prepared under section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act). For example, methodologies used
to report and analyze data differed in response to
different requirements of the Clean Water Act. In
many cases, the state 319 reports were submitted
later, often by different agencies, and may reflect
newer information than the 305(b) report. For a de-
tailed explanation, see Appendix C.
Wildlife
Fisherv
Shellfish ery
Drinking
Agriculture
Industry
Recreation
Navigation
High Quality
Fish & aquatic wildlife
Warmwater fishery
CoMwater fishery
Shellfish protection
Domestic water supply
' Irrigation
Livestock watering
industrial
Primary contact
Secondary contact
Noncontact
Navigation
High quality nondegradation
Supported = all uses supported
Partial Support = one use not supported
Non-support = 2 or more uses not supported
Data Elements
This summary of state assessments provides the
following categories of information:
¦ Waterbody Type; Lake/Pond, River/Stream/
Ditch/Canal, Great Lake, Estuary,
Ocean/Coastal, Wetland/Marsh, Ground
Water,
m Use Support Status: Non-Support, Partial
Support, Threatened
¦ Designated Uses; Fish & Aquatic Wildlife,
Cold/Warm Water Fishery, Shellfish, Water
Supply, Agriculture, Industry, Recreation,
Navigation, and High Quality/
Nondegradation (Table 3).
m Evaluation Type: Monitored (assessed
using chemical/biological sampling data or
special survey), or Evaluated (assessed
using other than monitored data, including
surveys of fisheries personnel, predictive
modeling based on knowledge of sources
and land use types, etc.)
¦ Sources: States used an amended section
305(b) list to identify sources of pollution
(see Table 4).
¦ Pollutants/Causes: States used an
amended section 305(b) list to identify
causes of pollution (see Table 5).
14
-------
0. ASSESSMENTS
Table 4.—Source category codes used by states to
identify nonpoint source impairments.*
10 Agriculture
11: Non-irrigated crop production
12; Irrigated crop production
13; Specialty crop production (e.g., truck farming and
orchards)
14: Pastureiand (Grazing)
15: Rangeland (Grazing)
16; Feedlots—all types
17: Aquaculture
18: Animal holding/managemen! areas
19: Unspecified &/or Odd
20 Silviculture
21: Harvesting, reforestation, residue management
22: Forest management
23: Road construction/maintenance
29; Unspecified
30 Construction
31: Highway;road'bridge
32: Land development
38: Railroads
39: Unspecified
40 Urban Runoff
41: Storm sewers (source control)
42: Combined sewers (source control)
43; Surface runoff
45: Shipyards
46: Marinas
49: Unspecified
50 Resources Extraction/Exploration/Development
51: Surface mining
52: Subsurface mining
53; Placer mining
54; Dredge mining
55; Petroleum activities
56; Mill tailings
57; Mine tailings
59' Unspecified
60 Land Disposal [Runoff/Leachate from Permitted Areas)
61: Siudge
62: Wastewater
63: Landfills
64: Industrial land treatment
65: On-site wastewater systems (septic tanks, etc.)
66: Hazardous waste
69: Unspecified
70 Hydrologies Habitat Modification
71; Channelization
72: Dredging
73: Dam construction
74: Flow regulation/modification
75: Bridge construction
76: Removal of riparian vegetation
77: Shoreline for lakes, streambank
modification-'destabilization,'erosion
78; Ag streambank erosion (Sub of 10)
79; Unspecified
80 Other
81
Atmospheric deposition
82
Waste storage<'storage tank leaks
83
Highway maintenance and runoff
84
Spills
85
ln*place contaminants
86
Natural
87
Recreational activities
88
Growth urban
89
Unspecified & or Odd
Table 5.—Pollutants/causes codes.
1 = unknown toxicity
2 = pesticides
3 = priority organics
4 = nonpriority organics
5 = metals
6 =- ammonia
7 = chlorine
8 = other inorganics
9 = nutrients
10 = pH
11 = siltation
12 = organic enrichment/DO
13 = salinity
14 - thermal modification
15 = flow alteration
16 = other habitat alterations
17 = pathogens
1B = radiation
19 = oil and grease
20 = not reported
Detailed Summaries by
Waterbody Type
RIVERS
Forty states reported nonpoint source impacts to
206,179 miles of rivers and streams, representing
11.4 percent of the nation's 1.8 million miles of river
(Fig. 7) and 16 percent of the miles in those states
reporting. Monitoring data were used to identify 32
percent of these impaired miles; evaluations were
used to identify an additional 62 percent.
Support of Designated Uses
Of the 40 states identifying impacted waters, only
20 identified the uses that were affected. Based on
these 20 state reports (covering 73,726 miles),
wildlife and recreation appear to be the most af-
fected uses (Fig. 8). The information from these 20
states also suggests the following:
¦ Non-support; More than half the impacted
river miles cannot support designated uses be-
cause of nonpoint source impacts. Wildlife, rec-
reation, warm/coldwater fisheries, drinking
water, and agriculture are most adversely af-
fected.
90 Source Unknown
* This may include both point and nonpoinl sources.
15
-------
Managing Nonpaint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
' Non-Support
I I Partial Support
I I Threatened
Figure 7,—Nonpolnt source Impacts to designated uses In
the nation's rivers (40 etatea reporting).
Partial Support: Nonpoint source pollution
has caused river uses to be only partially sup-
ported on about 28 percent of the impacted
miles of rivers in the nation. Uses affected
most were wildlife, recreation, fisheries, agri-
culture, and drinking water.
Threatened Support: Uses are threatened
on about 20 percent of the nation's impacted
river miles. Again, wildlife uses dominate, fol-
lowed by recreation, fisheries, agriculture, and
drinking water.
Pollutants/Causes
According to the 33 states reporting the causes of
nonpoint source impacts, siltation is the major pol-
lutant affecting rivers and streams (Fig. 9). Nutri-
ents, pathogens, metals, and pesticides are present
in varying degrees.
Nationally, the greatest share of the reported
siltation problem is found in Missouri (Fig. 10); nu-
trients, North Dakota (Fig. 11); pathogens, Virginia;
metals, Colorado; pesticides, Iowa; habitat modifica-
tion, Montana; and organic enrichment, North Caro-
lina.
0 50,000 100,000 150,000
Miles Impacted
Salinity
(3%)
pH
(3%)
Thermal
Modif. _..
/•ao/,1 Others
' ' (5%)
Flow/Habitat
(4%)
Org. Enr./DQ"
(5%)
Pesticides
(7%)
Siltation
'(38%)
Metals
(7%)
Pathogens
(9%)
Nutrients
(16%)
Figure 9.—Pollutants Impacting use support In rivers
{33 states reporting).
High Quality
(3%)
Industry
(2%)
Drinking,
0%)
Agriculture
(12%)
Fishery'
(15%)
Wildlife
(37%)
Recreation
(22%)
Figure 8.—Designated river uses impacted by nonpoint
sources (20 states reporting).
Fraction ~ Missing
CZ30%
£23 1 to 25%
M 26 to 50%
M 51 to 75%
¦I76 to 100%
Figure 10.—Fraction of river impacts caused by slitatJon
(33 states reporting).
16
-------
II. ASSESSMENTS
Fraction ~ Missing
n 0%
f. 1 to 25%
M26 to 50%
MSI to 75%
mm 76 to 100%
Figure 11 .—Fraction of river Impacts caueed by nutrients
(33 atataa reporting).
Sources
With sources affecting uses reported for nearly all
the miles covered, agriculture is the largest source
of nonpoint source impacts to rivers (Fig, 12). In
fact, aside from natural causes, the top four sub-
categories (non-irrigated crop production, livestock,
range lands, and irrigated crop production) are all
from agriculture.
Surface mining, streambank modification (in-
cluding agricultural streambank impacts), on-site
wastewater systems, subsurface mining, petroleum
activities, channelization, flow regulation/modifica-
tion, and urban runoff follow in that order.
Silviculture
(3%)
Others
(3%)
Land Disposal
{3%)
Urban
(4%)
Hydromodif,
(6%)
Mining
(8%)
Construction
(2%)
Agriculture
(41%)
Natural
(8%)
Unknown
(23%)
¦ Agriculture
Agriculture is the nation's largest contributor to
nonpoint source pollution; states attributed 41 per-
cent of their nonpoint source problems to this source
(Pig. 12). However, if the category of sources re-
ported as "unknown" were eliminated from the anal-
ysis, agriculture would account for more than half
the nonpoint source pollution in the United States.
Indeed, it is notable that, as reported in the 1988
section 305(b) report, agriculture is the leading
source of water pollution in the United States, even
when point source impacts are included in the anal-
ysis.
In some states, particularly in the Midwest, ag-
riculture predominates over all other sources, caus-
ing three-quarters of the nonpoint source pollution
in three states and more than half in eight other
states (Fig. 13).
FRACTION
n 11 in
* * « ' ' "
KS53
xmrn 2i to so i
MISSING
0 I
TO 25 I
Figure 12.—Sources Impacting us* support In rivers.
Figure 13.—Fraction of river Impacts caused by agriculture.
Non-irrigated crop production and livestock
comprise the two largest categories of agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. Non-irrigated crops ac-
count for 36 percent. Livestock, including feedlots,
animal holding or management areas, and pasture-
lands account for another 32 percent.
Again, these sources are significantly high in
the Midwest; Wisconsin contains 35 percent of the
nation's miles affected by non-irrigated cropland
and 79 percent affected by feedlots. Illinois claims
the most miles affected by pasture and Ohio and Ar-
kansas have the greatest share of river problems re-
sulting from animal holding and management
areas.
Rangeland and irrigated cropland problems are
significant sources of pollution in western states. In
fact, 99.5 and 89 percent, respectively, of the re-
17
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
ported river mileage impacted by rangeland and ir-
rigated cropland are found in the 11 western states
reporting this information. Montana reported the
greatest problem with irrigated cropland, sharing
75 percent of the problem with California, Colorado,
and Wyoming. Arizona reported the largest problem
with rangeland.
These assessments indicate that agriculture
significantly affects the quality and usability of our
nation's waters. More than a third of the river miles
affected by agriculture do not support uses and an-
other third partially support uses. Impending dam-
age comprises the remaining third, lb be successful,
then, a nonpoint source program targeted at agri-
cultural sources will probably need a balanced pre-
ventive and remedial approach.
¦ Milling
Mining (coal, oil, gas, gravel, gold, etc.) is the next
largest category of nonpoint sources identified by
the states, although a lack of information from nine
states likely resulted in an underestimation of total
river mileage affected. However, some of the im-
pacts included by states may include point source
discharges from active mining operations.
Five states — Ohio, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Ken-
tucky, and Colorado — accounted for half of the total
impacts to rivers and streams. They also reported
that all rivers impacted by mining were not support-
ing uses. Damage is particularly extensive in Penn-
sylvania, accounting for two-thirds of that state's
total mileage affected by nonpoint sources.
Most states, however, indicated that pollution
from mining accounted for less than one-quarter of
their totals, and Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts,
and Vermont did not identify any mining effects.
Surface mining, subsurface mining, and petro-
leum activities all constituted major mining sub-
categories. Ohio was particularly hard hit in these
areas.
Because nearly three-fourths of all rivers pol-
luted from mining are not supporting uses, any suc-
cessful nonpoint source program should involve
mainly remedial efforts.
¦ Hydrologic and Habitat
Modification
With 6 percent of the total impacts, hydrologic and
habitat modification was identified by the states as
the nation's third largest contributor of nonpoint
source pollution to rivers and streams. Further-
more, nearly three-fourths of the miles affected by
hydrologic and habitat modification do not support
uses designated by the states.
Four states — Washington, Tennessee, Idaho,
and North Dakota — indicated that the problem ac-
counts for more than 20 percent of the nonpoint
source pollution to their rivers and streams. An-
other 22 states reported less than 20 percent and 10
others reported no significant modification prob-
lems. North Dakota, in particular, indicated a large
nonpoint source problem from streambank erosion.
Since much of the damage from hydrologic and habi-
tat modification has already occurred, remedial ac-
tivities are likely to be needed most.
¦ Urban
Nonpoint source pollution from urban sources repre-
sents 4 percent of those impacted river miles for
which sources were reported.
The extent of pollution varies from state to
state. Georgia reported that all of the nonpoint
source impacts to its rivers result from urban
sources, and Massachusetts attributed more than
half of its problems to the same cause. Rhode Island
reported that one-quarter of the impacts on its riv-
ers were from urban sources, and Virginia's 942
miles of affected rivers leads the nation at 11 per-
cent of the national total.
Approximately 70 percent of the urban problem
results from surface runoff. As with the other cate-
gories, uneven reporting by the states probably af-
fects these urban figures. Iowa, for example, is a
predominantly rural state but reported having 18
percent of the nation's urban surface runoff problem
in rivers.
Nearly half of the river miles affected by urban
sources do not support designated uses, while al-
most the same amount partially support these uses.
This information indicates a need for remedial activ-
ities to correct existing problems as well as preven-
tive measures to assure that urban growth and
development do not adversely impact water quality.
¦ Land Disposal
Ohio reported the greatest river mileage affected by
land disposal, and Connecticut, Delaware, and
Puerto Rico indicated nonpoint source pollution
from land disposal caused from 25 to 50 percent of
their nonpoint source impacts to rivers. Nine states
said land disposal did not significantly affect river
quality.
Ohio also indicated a significant problem with
on-site wastewater systems, the subcategory that
accounts for 72 percent of the nation's land disposal
problems. These figures may overstate the signifi-
cance of nonpoint source pollution, however, as some
subcategories under land disposal, such as sludge
application, wastewater application, and hazardous
18
-------
11. ASSESSMENTS
waste disposal, can be point sources subject to per-
mitting requirements.
Remedial activities are mostly needed to combat
nonpoint source pollution from land disposal be-
cause almost 70 percent of the river miles affected
do not support uses now.
¦ Silviculture
Idaho reported more than half of its river mileage
impacted by forestry activities. Led by California
(19 percent) and Idaho (15 percent), 17 states said
silviculture accounted for 1 to 25 percent of their
nonpoint source pollution to rivers. Specifically, har-
vesting and road construction and maintenance con-
tributed the greatest amount of pollution attributed
to silviculture.
The absence of information from 12 states sig-
nificantly distorts the figures; Alaska and Oregon,
in particular, have considerable forestry activity and
their inclusion would have affected the total. The
fact that reporting states said that 82 percent of
their impacted mileage does not support uses, un-
derscores the need for comprehensive information,
The extent of existing impairments indicates
that restoration/remedial measures should be an
important component of addressing the country's
silviculture nonpoint source problems. Prevention
also should receive high priority in many water-
sheds because of the potential impact on high qual-
ity waters by activities in forested areas.
¦ Construction
States reported construction activities as causing
only 2 percent of the impacts for which sources were
reported, but this low figure can be misleading. Con-
struction overlaps with several other source catego-
ries, including urban and habitat modification. It is
each state's decision as to which category to report
construction problems under. The choices thus made
can have a profound influence on the relative impor-
tance of construction impacts across the nation.
Since construction activities are generally com-
pleted within a few months to one or two years, any
assessment of the impacts of construction activities
on water quality is likely to be out of date within a
year or so. It is also difficult for states to determine
those waters that are threatened by future construc-
tion since development plans are needed to perform
the impact analysis for each of the numerous
planned construction activities. Headers should note
that construction sites greater than five acres are
subject to storm water permit requirements.
Idaho has reported the greatest share of the
construction impacts with nearly a third of all river
mileage reported. Problems from land development
and construction of highways, roads, and bridges
constitute the major subcategories.
North Carolina reported the largest share of im-
pacts caused by land development (32 percent), and
Wyoming documented most of the highway, road,
and bridge construction problems (58 percent). Be-
cause of the many different ways in which a state
may report construction impacts, however, it should
not be concluded from this information that these
three states have the biggest construction problems
in the nation. If all construction categories could be
combined, we would likely find that other states also
have comparable or greater construction problems.
Given that over half of the rivers affected by this
problem do not support uses and the fact that this
problem stems from recurring activities, remedial
and preventive measures are needed.
¦ Other Sources
Nonpoint source pollution from natural sources rep-
resents 8 percent of those impacted miles for which
sources were reported. Roughly a quarter of the riv-
ers in the nation affected by natural sources do not
support any use, while a large portion (65 percent)
only partially support uses.
LAKES
About 20 percent (5.4 million acres) of the nation's
lake acreage (excluding the Great Lakes, the Great
Salt Lake, and Alaska's lakes) is affected by non-
point source pollution. Slightly over 40 percent of
that acreage does not support designated uses (Fig.
14). Monitoring data were used to assess 48 percent
and another 48 percent was assessed through evalu-
ation.
Support of Designated Uses
Specific uses affected by nonpoint source pollution
were reported for only 4.0 million acres in 18 states.
Based on this information, recreation and wildlife
appear to be the most affected uses (Fig. 15).
¦ Non-support; The states reported that uses
were not supported on 41 percent of the im-
pacted acreage. Recreation was the use most
affected, followed by wildlife, warm/coldwater
fisheries, agriculture, and drinking water,
¦ Partial Support; Drinking water topped the
list of partially supported designated uses. Rec-
reation was next, followed by wildlife, fisheries,
and agriculture.
19
-------
Managing Nanpatnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress an Section 319
B Nori-Suppo
rt
1 1 Partial Support
1 I Threatened
1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000
Acres Impacted
Figure 14.—Total acrea Impacted by nonpolnt aoureas.
Industry
(7%)
High Quality
(6%)
Drinking
(13%)
Agriculture
(13%)
Recreation
Wildlife
(19%)
Fishery
(16%)
Figure 15.—Designated lake uses Impacted by nonpolnt
aoureas (18 statu reporting).
¦ Threatened Support: Recreation was the
m^jor use at risk on the 37 percent of impacted
average that is threatened. Wildlife was a dis-
tant second, followed by fisheries, drinking
water, agriculture, and industrial uses.
Pollutants/Causes
Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) are
the mqjor pollutants in lakes and ponds for the 25
states reporting (Fig. 16). Siltation is the second
largest pollutant, followed by pesticides, metals, sa-
linity, dissolved oxygen, pathogens, priority organ-
ics, flow alteration, and acidity. The extent to which
each pollutant affects lake water quality varies con-
Flow Altered
<3%)
Priority Organic
(4%)
Pattiogens-
(5%)
Org. Enr./DO"
(7%)
Salinity'
(8%)
pH
(2%) Others
{8%)
Nutrients
(26%)
-Siltation
(21%)
Metals
(8%)
Pesticides
Flgura 16.—Pollutants Impacting uss support In lakaa
(25 atataa reporting).
siderably from state to'state. For example, nutrients
affect lake uses in 97 percent of Vermont's lake
acres for which pollutants were reported, but affect
less than 25 percent of the uses in seven other
states (Fig. 17).
Approximately half of the reported siltation
FRACTION
mm
MISSING
1 TO 25 I
26 10 50 I
51 TO 75 I
76 TO 100 I
Figure 17.—Fraction of laka Impacts cauaad by nutriants
(25 statas reporting).
problem is in California and Oklahoma, but the
problem is clearly widespread (Fig. 18). The lack of
data from states such as Minnesota, Nebraska, and
Ohio has a m^jor effect on this finding. Oklahoma
reported 34 percent of all reported national pesti-
20
-------
II. ASSESSMENTS
Fraction CD Missing
\ '< 0%
E3 1 to 25%
El 26 to 50%
E2151 to 75%
Figure is.—Fraction of lake impacts caused by siltation
(26 states reporting).
Construction
(2%)
In-Piace
(3%)
Land Disposal
(4%)
Urban/Growth
(6%)
Hydromodit,,
(6%)
Mining.
<7%)
Natural
(10%)
Atmo, Depos.
(1 %)
Highways
(1 %)
Agriculture
(23%)
Others
(16%)
.Unknown
(21%)
eide problems, but New York, Alabama, Kansas, and
Iowa also reported significant pesticide pollution.
California accounts for more than half of the
acreage reported to be impacted by metals, although
Washington suffers the largest share of lake prob-
lems caused by metals.
Three-quarters of the acreage affected by salin-
ity is found in Louisiana, with four other states
identifying significant problems.
Although Louisiana accounted for 20 percent of
the national total of acres impacted by dissolved ox-
ygen, substantial dissolved oxygen problems were
reported by eight other states.
California reports the greatest pathogen im-
pacts (more than 100,000 acres). In contrast, 66 per-
cent of Rhode Island's nonpoint source-impacted
lake acreage can be attributed to pathogens, but
they affect only 445 acres.
New York reported most of the acreage im-
pacted by priority organics. In addition, seven states
reported significant flow alteration problems.
Sources
Sources affecting uses were reported for nearly all
the acreage reported to be affected by nonpoint
source pollution. Agriculture is clearly the largest
source affecting lakes (Fig. 19). Excluding natural
sources, on-site wastewater systems comprise the
top subcategory, however, followed by irrigated crop
production, in-place contaminants, livestock, non-
irrigated cropland, petroleum activities, flow regula-
Figure 19.—Sources impacting use support in takes.
tion/modification, streambank modification, atmo-
spheric deposition, urban growth, highway mainte-
nance and runoff, recreation, and urban surface
runoff.
¦ Agriculture
Although the largest source of nonpoint source pol-
lution to lakes, agriculture may well affect even
more than the 1 million acres reported because sev-
eral states with substantial lake acreage did not
supply data. Among those was Wisconsin, which, al-
though reporting sources for only 96 acres, showed
that agriculture is responsible for 61 percent of the
nonpoint source damage.
Missouri reported the highest impact at i6 per-
cent, but five other states ranged upward from 58
percent (Fig. 20). Nine other states reported that ag-
riculture caused from 26 to 50 percent of the non-
point source pollution in their lakes.
Irrigated crop production, the major agricul-
tural subcategory, affects 40 percent of the acreage
for which subcategories were reported. Non-irri-
gated crop production and livestock (pasturelands,
feedlots, and animal holding areas) share the second
spot. The rangeland, pastureland, and irrigated
cropland problems are found primarily in the nine
western states reporting this information.
More than a third of the acreage affected by ag-
riculture does not support designated uses. An addi-
tional 30 percent partially supports uses, and 31
percent is threatened. Both prevention and remedi-
ation are indicated for most state lake management
activities.
21
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
i
FRACTION
mm
MISSING
0 I
1 TO 25 I
26 TO 50 I
TO 75
51
I
76 TO 100 I
Flgura 20.—Fraction of lak» Impacts caused by agriculture.
¦ Natural Sources
About 10 percent of the acres for which sources are
reported are affected by natural sources. More than
a third of this acreage does not support uses and
more than half partially supports uses. Fourteen
percent is threatened.
¦ Mining
The next largest category of nonpoint source pollu-
tion reported by the states, at about 7 percent, min-
ing appears to mostly affect lakes in Louisiana,
California, and Oklahoma, with petroleum activities
a major factor. Mining causes nearly half of
Washington's lake problems. As discussed pre-
viously, some of the reported mining impacts may
result from point source discharges.
Surface mining and mine tailings constitute
nonpoint source pollution problems for Alabama's
lakes. Oklahoma also has a major surface mining
problem, and two other states reported nonpoint
source pollution related to surface mining.
About 26 percent of the acreage reported does
not support uses, with 37 percent partially support-
ing uses and 38 percent threatened. A balanced pro-
gram that includes both remediation and prevention
could well be the key in managing mining problems.
¦ Hydrologic and Habitat
Modification
Although a relatively small percentage (6 percent)
of national waterbody impacts stem from hydrologic
and habitat modifications, these activities severely
degrade waterbody uses when they do occur. Almost
half of the acreage affected by hydrologic and habi-
tat modification does not support uses. California
has the greatest acreage affected by hydrologic mod-
ification; Montana is the most affected by habitat
modification. Although 12 other states reported that
habitat modification caused up to a quarter of their
lake problems, 10 reported none.
Flow regulation accounts for about half the ef-
fects; streambank modification or erosion and dam
construction are other significant subcategories. As
for most sources, a management program consider-
ing both remedial and preventive aspects is needed
to address modification.
¦ Urban
The full extent of the urban problem (which, as
noted previously, includes both point and nonpoint
source pollution) is likely to be much greater than
that described in this report because of the absence
of data for many states with urban areas. The fact
that Iowa and Oklahoma, two states that are not
highly urbanized, have significant urban problems
suggests that most states are likely to have measur-
able urban nonpoint source impacts on their lakes.
Vermont, where urban growth is threatening
lake water quality, reported the greatest acreage af-
fected by urban sources at 21 percent of the total.
Vermont's urban problem accounts for 82 percent of
the state's impacted acreage for which sources are
known.
California reported the second largest lake acre-
age affected by urban sources, all of which is not
supporting uses.
Urban sources account for a large part of the
lake problem in Rhode Island and Virginia, while
several other states show that urban problems ac-
count for up to 25 percent of their nonpoint source
lake problems. Seven, however, reported no lake
problems associated with urban nonpoint sources.
Urban growth accounts for nearly half the lake
problems, with surface runoff and discharge from
boats the other subcategories. Expanding urban
areas seem to be the primary urban threat to lakes,
making land use management a key tool in address-
ing this problem.
¦ Land Disposal
Montana reported the greatest lake acreage affected
by land disposal, nearly all of it threatened. The
greatest impaired acreage — none of it supporting
uses — was reported by California.
Seventy percent of the reporting states found
lake problems related to land disposal, which
caused from a quarter to half the effects on lakes.
22
-------
U. ASSESSMENTS
On-site wastewater systems (e.g., septic tanks) af-
fected 84 percent of the acreage.
Landfills and industrial land treatment are
minor contributors to the land disposal problem. Al-
abama and Oklahoma reported most of the lake
acreage affected by nonpoint source pollution from
landfills, and nearly all the lake acreage affected by
industrial land treatment was reported by Tennes-
see. With 42 percent of the reported acres threat-
ened, prevention must play a major role in
managing this pollution source.
¦ Construction
Although identified by this report as only 2 percent
of the lake problem, construction is likely to exercise
a much greater effect because several states are "not
included in this analysis.
For example, Vermont was among the eight
states claiming no significant construction prob-
lems, yet Vermont reported major effects from urban
growth, which is always associated with construc-
tion. In addition, other source categories (e.g., habi-
tat modification) also have associated construction
impacts, so the overall significance of construction is
likely underestimated and characterized inade-
quately using the data provided by the states.
Wyoming and California reported the most lake
acres affected by construction, with nearly all the
impacts reported from road construction appearing
in Wyoming. It is likely that similar impacts occur
elsewhere but have not been reported by other
states. Tennessee reported the most acreage affected
by land development, the major subcategory of con-
struction.
More than a third of the lake acres affected by
construction do not support uses, with another 16
percent partially supporting uses and 47 percent
threatened. Prevention appears to be the major
need in states such as Wyoming, Tennessee, and
Oklahoma, where significant threats exist.
¦ Silviculture
Nearly all the lake acreage reported to be affected
by silviculture lies west of the Mississippi River.
Data for such key states as Alaska, Oregon, and
about half of the eastern states were not available
for this analysis. Given this limitation in available
data, Oklahoma accounted for well over half the af-
fected acreage, with California second at 42 percent.
Road construction and harvesting were two
major subcategories.
Nearly half the acres affected by silviculture do
not support uses; for example, all of California's im-
pacted acreage is non-supportive. An additional 18
per rent partially support uses, and 36 percent are
threatened. Although prevention should be a major
thrust, many states will need to give remediation
priority.
GREAT LAKES
Only New York and Indiana provided quantitative
assessments of the nonpoint source impacts to the
Great Lakes. Indiana reported impacts to 241
square miles and New York claimed 3,568 square
miles affected by nonpoint sources.
Support of Designated Uses
¦ Non-support. All the affected areas reported
by both Indiana and New York do not support
uses, with wildlife the only use affected in Indi-
ana, only fisheries in New York.
Pollutants/Causes
Pesticides and priority organics are each responsible
for half of the nonpoint source impacts to Indiana's
portion of Lake Michigan. Priority organics are the
top pollutants affecting uses in New York's Great
Lakes. Nutrients affect a minor segment in New
York.
Sources
Indiana has not identified the sources of the pollu-
tants impairing the use of Lake Michigan. New
York, however, reported that its major sources of
Great Lakes pollutants are in-place contaminants.
WETLANDS
Although several states discussed wetlands in their
assessments, only three — California, Delaware,
and Iowa — quantified their nonpoint source im-
pacts to wetlands (Fig. 21). That acreage ranged
from around 25,000 in California and Iowa to 850
acres in Delaware.
The absence of wetlands data for nearly the en-
tire nation prevents EPA from drawing national con-
clusions regarding either the extent and type of the
problem or the program needs. Since California,
Iowa, and Delaware reflect differing regions of the
country, differing land uses, and differing geo-
graphic and hydrologic factors, the information re-
ported by these states provides a useful indication of
the impacts that nonpoint source pollution may
23
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Recreation
(14%)
Wildlife
(30%)
High Quality
(14%)
Navigation
Industry
(11%)
Shellfish
(5%)
Agriculture
(7%)
Drinking
Fishery
(8%)
Figure 21.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in
the nation's wetlands (3 states reporting).
have upon wetlands in other states. Moreover, the
loss of wetlands acreage and wetlands' ecological im-
portance have been documented extensively in other
national reports. It is clear from these sources and
the three states' nonpoint source information that
all state nonpoint source programs need to include
provisions for preserving and protecting wetlands.
Support of Designated Uses
Fifty-nine percent of the acreage reported in Califor-
nia, Delaware, and Iowa is non-supportive, with
wildlife the predominant use affected (Fig, 22). In
fact, wildlife is the only use impacted in Iowa; all
other affected uses are reported by California (Dela-
ware did not report the uses affected).
¦ Non-support. All of California's and
Delaware's impacted acreage, plus some of
Iowa's, is non-supportive. In addition to the ef-
fects on wildlife reported by Iowa, California
also reported non-support of recreation, high
quality water, industry, drinking water,
warm/eoldwater fisheries, agriculture, shell-
fishing, and navigation,
¦ Partial Support. Only Iowa reported acreage
partially supported because of nonpoint source
pollution.
¦ Threatened Support. Again, only Iowa re-
ported threatened acreage.
Figure 22.—Designated wetlands uses impacted by non-
point sources (3 states reporting}.
Siltation is the top nonpoint source pollutant affect-
ing wetlands in the three reporting states (Fig. 23),
with over three-quarters of those impacts reported
by Iowa, where siltation accounts for nearly half the
impacted acreage.
Metals, reported only by California, are the big-
gest problem in that state's wetlands, impairing
uses on half of them. Nutrients also affect uses, pri-
marily in Iowa, where there is partial support. But
all of California's wetlands affected by nutrients do
not support uses.
Pathogen contamination is a non-support prob-
lem in California, as are pesticides. Pesticide im-
pacts on wetlands are particularly prominent in
Iowa, where designated uses are largely partially
supported or threatened.
Other Habitat
(5%) \
Others
(1%)
Siltation
(30%)
Pesticides,
(11%)
Pathogens
(14%)
Nutrients
(14%)
Metals
(25%)
Figure 23.—Pollutants Impacting uss support In wetlands
(3 states reporting).
| Non-Suppoft
I I Partial Support
I I Threatened
0 10,000 20,000
Acres Impacted
30,
000
Pollutants/Causes
24
-------
n. ASSESSMENTS
The only other significant pollutant reported is
habitat modification, all of it in Iowa and most of it
not supporting uses.
Sources
Only California and Iowa reported the sources af-
fecting uses. Agriculture clearly causes the greatest
share of the wetlands impacts in California and
Iowa (Fig. 24). The limited database provided by the
states in their nonpoint source assessments does not
support more detailed conclusions.
¦ Urban
Most of the urban sources were reported by Califor-
nia, which did not list a source subcategory for
many of the impacts but attributed one third of
them to discharges from boats and marinas. EPA
has included the latter category under urban
sources, although it might also be classified as re-
creational or "other."
Iowa attributed all of its urban problem to sur-
face runoff. All of California's acreage impacted by
urban sources does not support uses, while most of
Iowa's partially supports uses.
Unknown Construction
(2%) \ (2%)
Land Disposal
(2%)
Tank Leaks,
(2%)
Urban
(4%)
Natural
(1%)
Atmo. Depos.
(1%)
fr—
Hydromodif.;
(6%)
Agriculture
(81%)
Figure 24.—Sources Impacting use support in wetlands
(2 states reporting).
¦ Agriculture
Agriculture is by far the largest category of nonpoint
source pollution affecting California's and Iowa's
wetlands. Only California reported subcategories of
agricultural sources, ranking animal holding and
management areas first, followed by streambank
erosion and irrigated crop production.
In the two states reporting, half of the acreage
affected by agriculture does not support uses, in-
cluding all of California's acreage.
¦ Hydrologic and Habitat
Modification
Hydrologic and habitat modification is the next larg-
est category affecting wetlands, all in Iowa. Most of
this acreage does not support uses.
¦ Other Sources
Waste storage and storage tank leaks impair the
uses of about 4 percent of the wetlands in Califor-
nia, which also reported as significant sources land
disposal, construction, natural sources, and atmo-
spheric deposition. All' of the wetlands acreage im-
pacted by these sources in California does not
support uses.
COASTAL WATERS
Coastal waters are three ocean waters between the
shoreline (or seaward end of estuaries) and the
nation's territorial boundaries offshore. Because
coastal waters data were reported in both acres and
miles, EPA has combined8 the two to estimate non-
point source impacts to somewhat more than 1.2
million acres in five states and two commonwealths
(Pig. 25).
¦ Non_
Support
i 1 Partial Support
1 1 Threatened
0 200,000 400,000 600,000
Acres Impacted
800,000
Figure 25.—Nonpoint source impacts to designated uses in
the nation's coasts! waters (4 states reporting).
8 EPA assumed that the impacts to each coastal mile stretched one-half mile offshore for this analysis.
25
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 3J 9
Support of Designated Uses
Only four (Alabama, California, Hawaii, and New
York) of the 22 coastal states reported specific uses
affected (Fig. 26).
¦ Non-support: Shellfishing, recreation, high
quality, industry, and navigation uses are all
affected equally at the non-support level for the
four states reporting. This result, however, is
primarily an artifact of EPA's analysis of
California's data.
¦ Partial Support: Nonpoint source pollution
has caused uses to be only partially supported
on about 35 percent of the coastal acres re-
ported. Specific uses impacted were not re-
ported.
¦ Threatened Support: No threats to coastal
areas were reported by the states.
Navigation
(19%)
Wildlife
(1%)
Fishery
(1%)
Shellfish
(21 %)
Industry >
(19%)
Recreation
"(20%)
High Quality
(19%)
Figure 26,—Designated coastal waters uaas impacted by
nonpoint sources <4 states reporting).
Pollutants/Causes
Oil and grease constitute the primary pollutant af-
fecting coastal areas in the five states reporting
(Fig. 27). Metals, pesticides, other inorganics, and
pathogens impact about the same amount of coastal
waters, while nutrients, siltation, and dissolved oxy-
gen problems affect much less acreage.
Sources
Waste storage and storage tank leaks cause the
greatest share of coastal pollution, with mining (pe-
troleum) next, followed by urban sources and spills
Pathogens
(12%)
Nutrients
(2%) \ Siltation
(1%)
Other Inorg,
(13%)
Pesticides
(14%)
Oil & Grease
' (44%)
Metals
(14%)
Figure 27.—Pollutants impacting uae support in coastal wa-
ters (8 states reporting).
(Fig. 28). However, this cannot be interpreted as a
national summary since 18 coastal states are not in-
cluded in the database. The numbers presented here
also may be somewhat distorted because they repre-
sent a combination of mileage and acreage reported
by the four states.
Land Disposal Agriculture
(1 %) \ y
, \ / ^.Unknown
In-Place \
(3%) s. \ ( }
\ \ nnnQtriiotirm
spinss. \ \ J
<1 %)
\, Tank Leaks
"*T (51%)
Minino^^ill llfliiiiiiijil
ipp^
(17%)
Figure 28,—Sources impacting use support In coastal wa-
ters (7 states reporting).
¦ Spills, In-place Contaminants,
and Tank Leaks
California blamed waste storage and storage tank
leaks for nearly all of its nonpoint source impacts to
coastal areas. Spills cause uses to be partially sup-
ported in 13 percent of Louisiana's impacted coastal
acres; in-place contaminants cause partial support
of uses on another 8 percent.
26
-------
XT. ASSESSMENTS
¦ Mining
Nearly all of the coastal acreage affected by mining
in the five states and two commonwealths reporting
is in Louisiana.
Petroleum activities account for all of Louisi-
ana's mining impacts of this acreage.
¦ Other Sources
Urban sources account for 17 percent of the non-
point source impacts to coastal areas in the states
reporting.
Agriculture is a minor source of the reported
coastal problem, with only Hawaii reporting non-
support of uses because of agricultural pollution. Ir-
rigated crop production, pastureland, and
non-irrigated crop production are the m^for agricul-
tural subcategories reported by Hawaii. Puerto Rico
has 85 percent of the land disposal impacts in those
states reporting; New York accounts for another 14
percent. All of this impacted area does not support
uses.
ESTUARIES
Estuaries are those waters found between the head
of tide in upstream areas and the seawater bound-
ary downstream. This includes all of the river sys-
tem under tidal influence and the region of mixing
between fresh water and ocean water. Four states
dominate this analysis. Thirteen states reported,
Maryland (40 percent) and Louisiana (24 percent)
reporting much more than the others (Pig. 29).
Because estuarine data were reported in both
square miles and miles, EPA has converted the
miles into square miles for the purpose of analysis.4
Support of Designated Uses
Wildlife, recreation, shellfishing, and fisheries are
most affected by nonpoint source pollution of the
nation's estuaries (Fig. 30). Industrial, navigational,
high quality water, drinking water, and agricultural
uses are affected to a lesser extent. Specific use in-
formation was reported for only 14 percent of the
impacted area; Maryland and Louisiana are not in-
cluded in this part of the analysis.
¦ Non-support: Over half of the impacted estu-
ary area cannot support designated uses, with
Maryland reporting 80 percent of the non-sup-
port area.
4 For this analysis, EPA assumed that the 252 miles reported by Louisiana impacted an area 1/16 mile wide (252 *1/16 = 16
square miles). All other data were reported in square miles.
m Non-Support
I | Partic
1 Support
1 1 Threatened
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Square Miles Impacted
4,000
Figure 29.—Nonpolrit source Impacts to designated usm in
the nation's coastal waters (13 statss reporting).
Partial Support: Nonpoint source pollution
has caused uses to be only partially supported
on about 86 percent of the total area. Louisiana
reported the greatest area partially supporting
use.
Threatened Support; About 10 percent of the
total estuarine area reported is threatened.
Drinking Agriculture
(4%) (4%)
High Quality.
(7%)
Navigation.
{8%)
industry-
(6%)
Fishery
(14%)
Wildlife
(22 %>
Recreation
(17%)
Shellfish
(15%)
Figure 30.—Designated estuarine uses Impacted by non-
point sourcss (13 statM reporting).
27
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Pollutants/Causes
The following pollutant information largely reflects
conditions in Maryland and Louisiana since these
states account for two-thirds of the impacted area
included in the analysis. Nutrients are the biggest
problem for estuaries, affecting 35 percent of the im-
pacted area reported (Fig, 31). Maryland reported
the biggest share of the nutrient problem (83 per-
cent); Louisiana and Virginia, although experienc-
ing significant problems with nutrients, reported far
fewer acres.
Metals
(2%)
Priority Organic
(3%)
Salinity
(3%)
Oil & Grease
(6%)
Org. Enr./DO
(17%)
Pesticides
<1%)
Slltatfon / Unknown Toxicity
,fl%)
Others
'(2%)
Nutrients
(35%)
Pathogens
(28 %)
Figure 31.—Pollutanti Impacting uh support in estuaries
(11 states reporting).
All of Maryland's nutrient pollution causes non-
support of uses, while most of Louisiana's nutrient
pollution causes partial use support, and the greater
part of Virginia's impacts threatens uses.
Pathogens cause the next greatest amount of
the reported damage to estuaries, Louisiana re-
ported the greatest area impacted, followed by
Maryland and Washington. Nearly all of Louisiana's
pathogen-impacted estuaries partially support uses,
while all of Maryland's do not support uses, and the
greater part of Washington's are threatened. Seven
other states reported pathogen problems in their es-
tuaries, ranging from 7 square miles in Alabama to
97 square miles in Virginia.
Dissolved oxygen problems rank third, with
Maryland once again reporting the most area im-
pacted. Louisiana and North Carolina also have
m^jor problems associated with oxygen imbalances.
Oil and grease, salinity, priority organics, and
metals are the other pollutants causing a significant
portion of estuarine contamination. Louisiana re-
ported most of the oil and grease contamination,
with New York accounting for 90 percent of the estu-
ary impacts caused by priority organics.
Sources
ln-place contaminants, one of the "other" sources in
the 305(b) classification scheme (see Table 4), are
the biggest identified source of pollution to estuaries
in the 13 states reporting, followed by on-site
wastewater systems and petroleum activities (Fig.
32). Again, because of the large areas reported by
Maryland and Louisiana, these findings are
strongly influenced by these two states.
Urban sources are also significant, with surface
runoff apparently the largest subcategory.
Identified agricultural impacts to estuaries
seem to be largely related to livestock. Crop produc-
tion was not identified as a major source of pollution
to estuaries.
Unknown
Natural
(5%)
Silviculture
(1%)
Mining
(5%)
Agriculture
(7%)
Land Disposal
(8%)
Others
(43%)
Urban
(11%)
In-Piace
(16%)
Figure 32.—Sources impacting uss support In estuaries (13
states reporting).
¦ In-place Contaminants
In-place contaminants affect uses on the greatest
share of estuaries in those states reporting, with
Maryland reporting most of the area thus impacted.
Nearly all of the area affected does not support
uses. This indicates that the damage has already
been done and that remedial measures will be
needed to address the problem. Preventive mea-
sures, of course, will be necessary to stop the
buildup of contaminated sediments and other forms
of in-place contaminants.
28
-------
n. ASSESSMENTS
¦ Urban
Urban sources affect the second greatest portion of
estuarine area. The urban problem is widespread,
with Virginia and Louisiana reporting the bulk of
the problem.
Slightly over half the areas impacted by urban
sources partially support uses, with the remainder
pretty equally split between non-support and
threatened.
¦ Land Disposal
Although minor in terms of overall national signifi-
cance (8 percent), land disposal affects many estuar-
ies to some degree. On-site wastewater systems are
responsible for the preponderance of the reported
problems, primarily in Louisiana and to a lesser de-
gree in Washington and Texas.
In most cases, land disposal causes partial sup-
port of uses, although non-support accounts for 14
percent and another 19 percent is threatened.
¦ Agriculture
Agriculture affects uses of about 7 percent of the
total impacted area reported. Virginia and North
Carolina both reported one-third of the agricultural
impacts to estuaries. Although subcategories gener-
ally were not specified, livestock uses were the most
significant subcategories reported.
Most of the estuarine area affected by agricul-
ture either partially supports uses or is threatened.
This indicates that preventive measures (e.g., im-
proving livestock, manure, and nutrient manage-
ment practices) may go a long way toward
addressing the agricultural problems.
¦ Mining
Resource extraction affects uses on 5 percent of the
impacted estuaries reported and most of this area
partially supports uses. Louisiana accounts for al-
most all the effects of petroleum activities on estuar-
ies. Only Washington and Connecticut also reported
mining impacts, both in minor percentages.
¦ Other Sources
Natural pollution causes impacts on 5 percent of the
estuaries in those states reporting. Another 42 per-
cent of the estuarine areas are impacted by unspeci-
fied or "other" sources, 4 percent by unknown
sources. Silviculture, spills, hydrologic modification,
and construction all have minor impacts on estuar-
ies in those states reporting.
nonrrwn umtpj?
%JFm JLYJLir TT + Am Hf£\
Although ground-water data were not required in
the assessments, nine states included this informa-
tion. This report provides these data to help improve
understanding of the implications of nonpoint
source pollution for ground water, not as a national
summary.
Support of Designated Uses
Public drinking water supplies are threatened in the
four states specifying use impacts, with Maine re-
porting that private wells are threatened in five of
six hydrologic subregions and impaired in four of
six.
South Carolina claimed impairments to public
drinking water supplies in three subregions. Ten-
nessee reported that five subregions have impaired
public drinking water supplies and two others have
impaired industrial supplies.
Pollutants/Causes
Five states reported pollutant data, and pesticides
were the most frequently reported pollutant, fol-
lowed by unknown toxicity, priority organics, non-
priority organics, ammonia, metals, and nitrate.
Maine topped the list of those reporting the
greatest number of pesticide impacts, again followed
by Tennessee and South Carolina. The Virgin Is-
lands also reported a number of pesticide effects.
Sources
EPA's review of the state ground-water lists indi-
cates that the states are reporting many sources
that are often managed under other programs. For
example, a large share of the ground-water impacts
from hazardous waste sources, industrial land treat-
ment, landfills, mining sources, and storage tank
leaks that were reported in state assessment can be
addressed under RCRA or Leaking Underground
Storage Tank programs.
Maine reported that land disposal (wastewater,
landfills, and hazardous waste), waste storage and
storage tank leaks, and highway maintenance and
runoff cause all of its reported ground-water im-
pacts.
Other states, while usually including land dis-
posal, also attributed impacts to agriculture, natu-
ral sources, spills, mining, agriculture, industrial
land treatment, non-irrigated crop production, live-
stock, silviculture, urban sources, and storm sewers.
29
-------
-------
III. Management
Programs
Section 319(m)(2) requires that EPA in its
Final report to Congress describe the man-
agement programs being implemented by
the states to control nonpoint source pollution, lb
fulfill this requirement, EPA summarized and ana-
lyzed information contained in those state manage-
ment programs approved as of January 4, 1990.
However, the information contained in this analysis
may not fully reflect the current status of state non-
point source control programs for a number of rea-
sons.
First, state nonpoint source programs have been
evolving over time. This analysis provides only a
"snapshot" of state nonpoint source program activi-
ties at the time the management program was ap-
proved. Many state management programs were
approved before section 319(h) funds were appropri-
ated; since then, a number of states have modified
their management programs to broaden commit-
ments, establish more detailed milestones, or focus
priorities on particular programs or activities.
Second, in addition to the information gathered
in the analysis of management programs, it is clear
from the discussion of state and regional activities
(see Chapter IV) that states are using a number of
nonpoint source controls. However, EPA's review of
the management programs and the states' own dis-
cussions of their FY 1989 activities suggest that al-
though a number of activities are ongoing, in many
states these activities were developed either locally
or regionally and have not yet been knit together
into a comprehensive statewide nonpoint source
control prop-am, These activities have, however,
laid the groundwork for accelerated statewide im-
plementation in many states.
For many states, section 319(b) codified an al-
ready developing program by requiring states to
prepare nonpoint source control management pro-
grams to address problems identified in their non-
point source assessment reports. Specifically, the
management programs are required to:
¦ Identify best management practices and mea- (
sures that will be taken to reduce pollutant
loadings from nonpoint sources identified in
state assessment reports, taking into account
the impact of these practices on ground-water
quality;
¦ Identify programs to achieve implementation
of BMPs. Nonregulatory or regulatory pro-
grams for enforcement, technical assistance,
financial assistance, education, training, tech-
nology transfer, and demonstration projects
should be included;
¦ Provide a schedule of annual milestones for
the program, including implementing BMPs
at the earliest practicable date;
¦ Include certification by the state attorney gen-
eral that the laws of the state provide ade-
quate authority to implement the state's
management program;
¦ Identify sources of federal and other assis-
tance and funding to support nonpoint source
control activities and identify how such assis-
tance will be used; and
¦ Identify those federal programs and projects
that the state will review for consistency with
the state nonpoint source management pro-
gram.
31
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Under the statute, management programs were
to be submitted for EPA approval by August 4,1988.
EPA's regional offices were authorized to approve all
or a portion of each state nonpoint source manage-
ment program. Most states were unable to develop
programs of approvable quality by the original date;
therefore, EPA extended the submittal deadline to
January 4,1990,
Methodology for Analysis
of State Management
Programs
Data for this national summary were taken from all
management programs or portions of programs ap-
proved as of January 4, 1990. Information from 52
state and territory management programs is in-
cluded in this report. Management programs were
not approved for Alaska or the Virgin Islands by the
January 4, 1990, deadline. The Virgin Islands' man-
agement program was approved late in January
1990. Alaska's management program was approved
in September 1990. The Pacific Trust Territories did
not submit a management program for EPA review.
Management programs from the Northern Mari-
anas and American Samoa were not available for re-
view even though they were fully approved by the
deadline.
This report summarizes the following informa-
tion:
¦ The extent to which the programs contained
implementation milestones;
¦ The types of activities planned;
¦ Sources of state and local funding for
planned implementation;
¦ State nonpoint source regulatory programs;
and
¦ Federal consistency review efforts.
*Ib compile this information, EPA developed a
data coding form and a set of procedures and cri-
teria for use in extracting and summarizing infor-
mation from the management programs, (See
Appendix D for a detailed summary of the methodol-
ogy.) The miyor criteria governing the review pro-
cess were:
1. Only those portions of a state management
program that were approved as of January 4,
1990, were to be included in this report. For
example, where only a portion of the
management program relating to
agricultural nonpoint source pollution was
approved by January 4, 1990, portions
relating to urban, construction, and other
sources are not included in this summary.
2. Implementation milestones reported in
management programs were included only
when they described existing or proposed
state and local government activities.
Information on federal agency programs,
which are not within the control of state
nonpoint source program agencies, is not
included.
Management Program
Approval and Coverage
Section 319(d) allowed EPA to approve all or a por-
tion of state management programs. Some Regions
approved only portions relating to a state's most sig-
nificant nonpoint source problem (e.g., agriculture
in Iowa). Of the 54 states and territories with ap-
proved management programs, 42 were fully ap-
proved, and 12 partially approved by the January 4,
1990, deadline. Table 6 summarizes those manage-
ment program portions that were approved in each
of the 52 states and two territories included in this
analysis.
Most states developed specific program ele-
ments for each of the major nonpoint source pollu-
tant sources identified in state nonpoint source
assessments (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, and so
forth). As seen in Table 6, most states addressed ag-
ricultural, urban, and construction runoff in their
management programs. The management program
approval status is important because only those ac-
tivities related to approved portions of state man-
agement programs are eligible for funding under
section 319.
Waterbodies Addressed by
Management Programs
In general, most states identified existing state and
local programs to control nonpoint source pollution
of rivers and lakes. The msyority of states also iden-
tified existing programs to control nonpoint source
pollution of ground water. Few states identified pro-
grams to specifically address nonpoint source pollu-
tion of wetlands, estuaries, or coastal waters as
components of their nonpoint source management
programs.
32
-------
m. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Table 6.—Management program status as of January 4,1990.
STATE/TERR.
APPROVAL
STATUS
APPROVAL
DATE
AGRICULTURE SILVICULTURE
URBAN LAND
CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF MINING DISPOSAL
HYDROLOGtCAL
MODIFICATION
AL
Full
8/89
X
X
X
X
X
—
X
AK
Disapproved (4)
_
—
—
—
_
_
—
A2
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
X
—¦
AR
Partial (1)
—
X
—
—
_
_
—
—
CA
Full
1/90
X
X
—.
X
X
X
X
CO
Full
12/89
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
CT
Full
6/89
X
X
X
_
—
_
X
DE
Full
10/89
X
X
X
X
—
X
X
DC
Partial
8/89
—
—
X
X
—
—
X
FL
Full
7/89
X
—.
—
X
—
X
_
GA
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
—
—
GU
Full
8/89
X
—
X
—
—
—
X
Ht
Full
1/90
X
—
X
—
—
—
_
ID
Full
12/89
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
IL
Full
1/90
X
.—
X
X
—
—
X
IN
Full
1/90
X
—
X
X
X
X
' —
iA
Partial
12/89
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
KS
Full
12/89
X
—
—
X
X
X
X
KY
Full
11/89
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
LA
Partial (1)
9/89
X
.—
_
X
—
X
X
ME
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
MD
Partial
10/89
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MA
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ml
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
.—
_
MN
Full
1/90
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
MS
Full
8/89
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MO
Full
12/89
X
—
—
—.
X
—
—
MI
Full
6/89
X
X
X
.—
—
X
X
NE
Full
1/89
No specifics
NV
Full
1/90
X
X
—
X
—
X
X
NH
Full
1/90
_
—
X
X
.—
X
—
NJ
Full
1/90
X
—
X
X
X
X
—.
NM
Partial (1)
9/89
X
X
X
—
X
X
—
NY
Full
1/90
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
NO
Full
8/89
X
—
—
X
—
X
—
ND
Full
6/89
X
—.
—
—
X
X
X
OH
Full
1/90
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
OK
Partial (1)
9/89
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
OR
Partial (2]
11/89
X
—
_
—
_
—
_
PA
Partial (2)
—
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
PR
Full
12/89
X
—
—
—
—
X
—
R)
Full
4/89
X
X
X
_
X
SC
Full
889
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SD
Full
4/89
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
TN
Full
9/89
X
X
X
—
___
—
X
TX
Partial (1)
8/89
x
X
—.
X
¦ —
X
UT
Full
8/89
X
X
X
X
—
—
X
VT
Full
3/89
X
X
X
X
—
X
X
VI
Full (3)
1/90
X
—
X
X
—
___
_
VA
Full
8/89
X
X
X
X
—
—
—
WA
Full
10/89
X
X
—
___
—
—
—
WV
Partial
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
Wl
Full .
1/90
X
—
—
X
—
—
WY
Partial (2)
9/89
X
X
X
X
X
—
X
Total 54
—
—
50
29
34
35
26
30
25
1) Region 6 approved only the pollens of slates' management programs that relate to program implementation,
2) Agriculture only. Only the grazing section of Wyoming's management program remains to be approved.
3) Approved January 24, 1990
4) Approved September 1990.
Funding
States were required to identify sources of federal
and other assistance and funding to support non-
point source control activities. Although several
states identified funding sources, the following cave-
ats apply for purposes of this analysis:
¦ Only state and local funding sources, not fed-
eral sources, were included.
¦ The information on funding provided in the
state management programs most likely does
not reflect all, or even most, of local nonpoint
source funding.
33
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
¦ Although this summary indicates that states
have explored a range of funding alternatives,
most states did not provide information on the
amounts of funding available from the various
sources. Thus, this analysis does not attempt
to quantify state funding amounts. The fact
that a state may have a number of nonpoint
source funding sources may be misleading.
For example, funding sources may range from
a multi-million general revenue initiative ded-
icated to nonpoint source control to a number
of permit fees, each generating less than
$10 ,000 annually.
¦ Although the types of activities that would be
funded with identified revenue sources were
not included in this analysis, 39 of the 52
states and territories reported having sources
of state funding available for nonpoint source
pollution control. Three additional states re-
ported proposing new sources of state funding.
¦ As seen in Table 7, general revenues are the
most common source of state funds. Permit
fere are also commonly applied to a variety of
activities: industrial, commercial, residential,
and recreational water users or activities that
might contribute to nonpoint source pollution
(e.g., building and construction permits, septic
tank permits, and fertilizer and pesticide
fees).
Since the states were focusing on state pro-
grams and funding sources, only 14 states discussed
the availability of existing local funds for nonpoint
source control. At the local level, general revenues
also account for the largest share of existing local
funds for nonpoint source pollution control. Local
permit fees and property and sales taxes have also
been earmarked for nonpoint source control.
Implementation Activities
Under section 319(b)(2)(C), states were required to
provide a schedule of annual milestones for non-
point source control. The milestones are intended to
serve as general program goals for the four-year im-
plementation period. Each milestone may contain a
number of nonpoint source control activities such as
technical outreach, public education, and water
quality monitoring. Each activity within a milestone
is reported separately, but if it relates to more than
one portion of the management program (e.g., to
both agriculture and silviculture), the activity is re-
ported for both programs.
Table 7.—Existing sources of nonpoint source fund-
ing identified in state management programs.*
PERCENT OF
FUNDING
EXISTING FUNDING
SOURCES
SOURCES
General Revenues
4?
Fees
26
Stale Revolving
Fund
8
Taxes
6
Other
13
* Does not reflect the share of state nonpoint source funding that comes
from these sources but only indicates the frequency of states' identifi-
cation of these as funding sources.
Milestones are divided into two categories for
analysis: statewide activities and watershed pro-
jects. Section 319(b)(4) provides that states shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, develop and im-
plement management programs on a watershed
basis. Seventeen states and territories reported only
statewide milestones, listing none for watershed
projects. The remaining 35 states had milestones for
both statewide activities and watershed projects;
however, most milestones included only statewide
activities. As seen in Figure 33, 77 percent of activi-
ties were for statewide projects while only 23 per-
cent related to watershed projects.
Watershed
<23%)
Figure 33.—Summary of state management program mile-
stone*.
Sources of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Addressed by
Milestones
Implementation activities were also analyzed based
on the source of pollution they were designed to ad-
dress. Almost a quarter of all activities reported in
state implementation milestones address agricul-
tural pollutants. Approximately one-third of the wa-
tershed project milestones address agriculture. As
illustrated in Figure 34, many nonpoint source con-
trol activities are also directed to the contributions
of nonpoint source pollutants by construction,
urban, and land disposal practices.
34
-------
IB. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
All Others
Mining
(?%)
Hydromodif.
(8%)'
All Sources-
(9%)
Silviculture'
(10%)
Agriculture
'(24%)
-Land Disposal
(13%)
Construction H?,??
(11%) <12/o>
Flgura 34.—Sourest addraaaad by actlvltlaa propoaad In
management program*.
Sources of Nonpoint Source
Pollution of Ground Water
Addressed by Milestones
Seventeen states have developed milestones related
specifically to controlling nonpoint source pollution
of ground water. Figure 35 summarizes information
provided on ground-water-specific activities,
¦ Ground-water activities account for only §
percent of all the activities proposed in state
management programs.
¦ Almost 40 percent of ground-water
activities were designed to address
agricultural sources of pollution.
¦ Over 20 percent of ground-water activities
relate to urban runoff.
All Others
(17%)
Land Disposal.
(13%)
Agriculture
(38%)
Urban
(21%)
Construction
(11%)
Flgura 35.—Ground water nonpoint aourca actlvltlaa (distri-
bution by aourca).
Types of Implementation
Activities
States proposed a number of nonpoint source control
activities in their milestones; this summary groups
them under the following categories: public out-
reach, technical assistance, technical evaluation, as-
sessment, enforcement, reporting, implementation
of nonpoint source controls (e.g., installation of
structural BMPs, cost-sharing programs), and des-
ignation of priority watersheds. Figure 36 shows the
distribution of types of activities in the management
programs.
Priority WB
<6%>
Reporting
(4%)
Enforcement
(8%)
Public Outieach-
(11%)
Assess. Mon.
(12%)
Tech Outreach
(26%)
NPS Controls
(21 %)
Eval. Monit.
(12%)
Flgura 36,—Typaa of nonpoint sourca control activttlaa con-
talnad In mllaatonaa.
Nonpoint source control activities such as
implementation of BMPs and cost-sharing
programs were reported by all states. Such ac-
tivities were most commonly used to address
agricultural, land disposal, and urban sources.
Public outreach activities are considered by
many to be key to the long-term success of
state and local nonpoint source control pro-
grams.
~ 11 peroent of all activities included in
state milestones related to public
outreach. These activities included
preparing homeowners' guides ami
developing school curriculum materials
on nonpoint source pollution,
Q Almost a third of public outreach
activities are designed to provide
information on agricultural sources of
nonpoint source pollution.
35
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 3IS
¦ Technical outreach is the most common ac-
tivity proposed in state nonpoint source man-
agement programs, with 26 percent of all
activities involving such efforts as on-site or
field assistance.
¦ Evaluation monitoring is a key to measur-
ing the success of nonpoint source control activ-
ities in meeting water quality objectives,
particularly for watershed projects.
~ 39 of the 52 states reported technical
evaluation as an activity for one or more
components of their nonpoint source
management program,
~ 12 percent of activities reported in state,
milestones involve monitoring. Only 11 of
the 28 states with watershed-related
activities proposed evaluation monitoring
activities in their management programs.
¦ Assessment monitoring was proposed in a
number of milestones. Many states are still
trying to assess the nature and extent of non-
point source pollution, particularly as it affects
ground water.
~ Approximately 12 percent of the
milestones involve assessment of surface
and ground water,
~ Of ground-water-specific milestones, over
20 percent involved assessment of ground
water,
¦ Enforcement activities, such as enforcement
of state feedlot permits, were included as mile-
stones in 26 of 52 state management programs.
Enforcement accounted for less than 10 per-
cent of all proposed activities and related pri-
marily to construction and land disposal
practices. Many of these practices are subject
to existing state sediment and erosion control
laws and solid waste regulations,
¦ Reporting requirements on both statewide
and watershed implementation, such as an-
nual reports to the state legislature, are built
into a number of state management programs
but account for a relatively small share of ac-
tivities proposed therein.
¦ Designation of priority waterbodies al-
lows nonpoint source control resources to be
targeted to priority areas. Twenty-seven of the
52 states reported having procedures to desig-
nate priority watersheds. In some cases, the
process applied only to one source of pollution.
Measures to Evaluate
Nonpoint Source
Management Programs
In evaluating state nonpoint source management
programs, two factors were of particular impor-
tance:
¦ The relationship of the management program
to the state's nonpoint source assessment: do
milestones in the management program ad-
dress the major sources of pollution?
¦ Are the milestones designed to allow the state
to implement nonpoint source activities effi-
ciently and effectively, as described by section
319(b)(2)(C) of the Clean Water Act?
Relationship to
Assessments
Section 319(b) of the Clean Water Act links the non-
point source pollution identified in assessment re-
ports to the activities specified in the states'
management programs. EPA has performed two
simple analyses, based upon its summaries of the
state management programs and assessments, to
¦explore the linkage between approved assessments
and management programs. For more detail regard-
ing EPA's methodology and results, see Appendix E.
Program Activities Directed
Toward Significant Sources
Identified in Assessments
In this analysis EPA estimated whether states had
milestone activities related specifically to the
sources identified in its assessment as causing non-
point source problems. Without making judgments
as to the quality or scope of these activities, EPA
looked for milestones for those sources that affected
at least 1 percent of the impacted waters of the
state.
Table 8 shows that all states identifying agricul-
ture as a problem did address agriculture in their
management programs. States also generally ad-
dressed silviculture when it was identified as a
problem. Urban, hydrologic modification, mining,
land disposal, and construction sources were each
addressed by about three-quarters of the states
claiming such nonpoint source impacts in their as-
sessments.
36
-------
Ml, MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Table 8.—Management program activities associated with identified problems as reported in assessments.
NUMBER & PERCENT NUMBER & PERCENT
OF STATES OF STATES
SOURCE ADDRESSING SOURCE NOT ADDRESSING SOURCE
Agriculture
37 100%
0
0%
Silviculture
15
88%
2
12%
Urban
26
79%
7
21%
Hydromodification
19
73%
7
27%
Mining
21
72%
a
28%
Land disposal
22
71%
9
29%
Construction
17
71%
7
29%
Atmospheric
4
57%
3
43%
Highways
3
50%
3
50%
Recreation
1
20%
4
80%
In-place
2
14%
12
86%
Storage tanks
1
14%
6
86%
Natural
3
12%
22
88%
Spills
0
0%
4 100%
Note: States were given credit (or addressing the source if they have at least one activity addressing the source. Source must account tor at least 1 percent
ol surface water NPS impacts for state to be included In analysis. The numbers of states shown in this table for agriculture and urban sources are
less than those shown in Figures 1-3 because the regression analyses also included states reporting that these sources accounted for less than 1
percent of the nonpoint source impacts.
The apparent strong response to agricultural
problems results in large part from the presence of
extensive networks and delivery systems for ad-
dressing soil conservation and agricultural resource
issues. EPA did not distinguish between new and
ongoing activities in this analysis, so it is likely that
many of the activities associated with these seven
source categories continue or expand traditional
programs rather than create new programs specific-
ally designed to address the effect of nonpoint
source pollution on water quality.
In contrast to the sources previously identified,
states generally do not have programs to address
such sources as waste storage tanks. As noted in the
chapter on assessments, storage tanks and some of
the other reported nonpoint sources may be point
sources and often are addressed under programs
other than the nonpoint source program. States also
generally have not attempted to tackle problems
caused by natural sources in their nonpoint source
management programs.
Correlation of Program
Emphasis with Major Source
Impacts Identified In
Assessments
EPA used standard regression analysis to examine
the extent to which management programs focused
on the major nonpoint sources identified in states"
assessments. The linear regression plots are pro-
vided for the interested reader in Appendix E, but
are not intended as statistical proof of EPA's find-
ings.
EPA found the strongest relationship between
the states" level of activity associated with agricul-
ture and the extent of agricultural problems, but
still only 14 percent of the state variability in the
emphasis on agricultural activities is accounted for
by the variability in agriculture's share of nonpoint
source problems.
Although weak, the agricultural correlation is
fairly consistent across states and also indicates
that states usually address agricultural sources
even if no agricultural problems appear in their as-
sessments. This is not surprising since, as described
earlier, agricultural resource programs have long
been institutionalized across the nation. These pro-
grams have begun to focus on water quality prob-
lems only recently as knowledge of the nation's
nonpoint source pollution problems has become
more widespread.
Another aspect of the correlation shows that
state program emphasis shifts toward agriculture
only slightly as agriculture's share of the nonpoint
source problem increases. This can be interpreted in
many ways, one being that the states all have the
same core agricultural programs regardless of the
extent to which agriculture affects water quality. It
could also be that management programs include
basically the same range of activities for each source
category, reflecting priorities largely through re-
source allocation. EPA did not investigate these or
other interpretations of the data.
EPA also found a relationship between the focus
on urban activities and the extent of the urban prob-
lem. A quick look at the data, however, shows that a
few states with largely urban problems are mostly
responsible for this correlation. Still, however, only
11 percent of the state-to-state variability in the em-
phasis on urban activities is accounted for by the
37
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
state-to-state variability in the share of nonpolnt
source impacts caused by urban, sources. The corre-
lation also indicates that the shift toward urban ac-
tivities is very slight as urban sources cause an
increasing share of the nonpoint source problem
across the states.
EPA did not discover statistical relationships
between activities and the extent of the problem for
any other source categories.
Summary
The states appear to be addressing both agricultural
and urban sources where they are causing water
quality problems. It is unclear, however, based upon
EPA's analyses of assessment and management pro-
gram data, whether state management programs
have been directed similarly at other nonpoint
source categories in proportion to their identified
significance.
The two simple analyses conducted indicate
strengths and weaknesses in states' initial attempts
to establish nonpoint source programs to address
identified problems. On a positive note, all states
with agricultural nonpoint sources addressed such
sources. However, in many states, the percentage of
the program focused upon agricultural nonpoint
sources was significantly higher or lower than the
extent of the identified problem would indicate. Be-
yond agricultural sources, the match between iden-
tified problems and planned activities is, with
certain exceptions (e.g., urban activities in highly
urbanized states) rather weak.
There are several reasons for differences be-
tween assessments and management programs. The
first is an issue of timing. Because the states were
developing their assessments and management pro-
grams simultaneously, they could not know the rela-
tive importance of any given source until the entire
assessment was completed. This would present
some difficulties initially in tying the management
program milestones directly to the assessment re-
port findings.
Second, as recommended in EPA guidance docu-
ments (e.g., EPA, Setting Priorities: The Key to Non-
point Source Control [1987]), many states chose to
focus their limited resources on priority areas that
were often selected for reasons other than the ex-
tent to which a particular source category caused
nonpoint source problems in the state. For example,
the importance of particular waterbodies, public
perceptions, and the anticipated capability of
achieving cleanup are all valid criteria for setting
management program priorities.
EPA has worked and will continue to work with
the states to develop stronger linkages between the
problems identified in the assessments and the ac-
tivities funded under the management programs.
Milestones in
Management Programs
In evaluating management program milestones and
the ability of a state to use these milestones to effec-
tively implement a nonpoint source program, EPA
selected certain basic components as essential to
nonpoint source program implementation. These
are well-stated objectives or goals, specific deadlines
for implementation, identification of funding needs,
and empowerment of a lead agency for implementa-
tion. These component® were included in EPA cri-
teria for approving state management programs
(December 1987 Nonpoint Source Guidance). To un-
derstand a state's commitment to future nonpoint
source control activities, milestones are analyzed in
this report to determine if these components had
been included.
For purposes of this analysis, a well-stated ob-
jective would be one that clearly described an activ-
ity, set forth a goal, and included a means to
quantify whether the objective had been met. For
example, an objective might be to install a specific
number of BMPs to reduce the effects of a particular
land use on water quality or to develop targeted in-
formation and education materials to promote BMP
use.
To report in this analysis that a state had set a
deadline for implementation, states had to require
that tasks be completed by a certain date or within
a specific period. If a project was not proposed to
begin until after 1992 (or four years after the pas-
sage of section 319), it was viewed as not having a
deadline.
Management programs were also analyzed to
determine if the state had identified a funding
source for the proposed activities, as described by
section 319(b)(2)(E). In most cases, states acknowl-
edged that additional funding would be needed to
carry out an activity but did not identify specific
funding sources.
Successful nonpoint source implementation also
depends on a state lead agency to manage the effort
as well as interagency coordination among federal,
state, and local agencies. Management programs
were reviewed to determine if lead agencies had
been identified for each milestone.
Quality of the Milestones
Of the 52 states and territories whose management
programs were analyzed, 15 had milestones that
38
-------
III. MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
met all of the criteria. That is, their milestones con-
tained objectives and deadlines and identified fund-
ing needs and a lead agency. Nine of these 15 states
had such milestones in their management programs
for both statewide and watershed projects. However,
in many cases, only one portion of a state's manage-
ment program contained milestones meeting all of
the criteria.
Less than 10 percent of all states' milestones in-
cluded all of the criteria. The majority of state man-
agement programs contained milestones that either
lacked specific objectives, committed to few outputs,
or had vague deadlines. Many states were also un-
clear in setting forth the roles and responsibilities of
participating agencies and other groups in achieving
milestone tasks. Congress required state manage-
ment programs to provide a schedule containing an-
nual milestones for nonpoint source program
implementation; however, those very schedules and
milestones may limit a state's flexibility in manag-
ing and implementing a nonpoint source control pro-
gram.
Regulatory Programs
Management programs were also analyzed to deter-
mine if states had identified existing or proposed
state regulatory programs to control nonpoint
source pollution. Regulations were reported by the
sources they were designed to control (e.g., construc-
tion, agriculture). If the regulation covered more
than one source, both were reported. If the regula-
tion covered all sources, it was reported as such. The
type of pollutants addressed were analyzed as were
the types of waterbodies covered (ground water,
lakes, rivers). Management programs were also an-
alyzed to determine if provisions for enforcement of
regulations were included.
Forty-six states specified regulations to control
nonpoint source pollutants. However, the greatest
number of existing regulations cover land disposal,
agricultural, and mining activities (Pig, 37). Many
of these sources may be regulated as point sources
under existing NPDES provisions or under state
solid and hazardous waste laws. For example, 20
percent of agricultural regulations identified in
state management programs applied to feedlots and
animal holding areas; almost 30 percent of mining
regulations applied to surface and subsurface min-
ing (activities subject to NPDES permitting); and
approximately 30 percent of regulations for land dis-
posal activities applied to landfills and hazardous
waste disposal. Thus, a large share of the regula-
tions identified as nonpoint source regulations re-
ally were designed to address point source
discharges.
All Sources
(5%)
Silviculture
(5%)
Other
(6%)
Urban
(7%)
Construction
(8%)
Leaking Tank
4%)
Land Disposal
(22%)
Agriculture
' (17%)
Hydromodif.
(12%)
\
Mining
(14%)
Figure 37.—National summary of existing nonpoint sourcs
regulations by source.
Management programs were also analyzed to
see if states were proposing new regulatory activi-
ties. Of the total regulations described, 22 percent
were identified as proposed. The majority of pro-
posed regulations relate to agriculture, urban, land
disposal, and other nonpoint sources. Twenty-three
states discussed proposed nonpoint source regula-
tory activities in their management programs.
Based on this analysis, proposed regulatory activi-
ties will increasingly focus on agricultural, urban,
and other nonpoint sources such as spills, highway
maintenance runoff, and atmospheric deposition
(see Figure 38),
In most cases, management programs did not
include information on the types of pollutants cov-
ered % the regulation or on the waterbodies subject
to the regulation. For example, for 33 percent of the
regulations identified in the management programs,
230
| Existing
I I Proposed
<5S ejT.Jk
6 x?
Source Addressed
Flgura 38.—National summary of axlatlng nonpoint source regulations
by source.
39
-------
Managing Nanpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
the type of pollutant to be regulated was either un-
clear or not reported. For almost half of the regula-
tions, the type of waterbody that the regulation
applied to was unclear. However, of those regula-
tions designed to regulate specific pollutants, the
pollutants most commonly covered are sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, priority organics, and oil and
grease. The majority of regulations applied to all
surface waters or rivers. Few regulations applied
specifically to lakes, wetlands, coastal areas, or es-
tuaries.
For regulations described in management pro-
grams, over half included references to enforcement.
However, in 20 of the states that identified regula-
tory programs, no enforcement activities were men-
tioned. Enforcement provisions were most common
for regulating land disposal, mining, and construc-
tion. Even though enforcement activities were iden-
tified for a number of regulations, this analysis did
not consider the type or extent of enforcement. It is
therefore not clear what types of regulatory activi-
ties states engage in (e.g., whether they permit spe-
cific activities, adopt land use ordinances, and so
on). Furthermore, it is not clear from this analysis
whether states actively enforce the regulations.
Federal Consistency
Reviews
Under section 319(b)(2)(F), states may review fed-
eral projects and programs for their effects on water
quality to determine whether they are consistent
with the objectives of the state nonpoint source
management program. Forty-five of the 52 states
and territories provided a list of federal projects
they plan to review for consistency with their man-
agement programs.
Most states will review projects using existing
intergovernmental review procedures. In addition, a
number of states reported they would coordinate
their nonpoint source consistency review with inter-
governmental reviews provided under other stat-
utes such as the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Coastal Zone Management Act. A list of
those programs states have chosen to review is pro-
vided in Appendix F,
Management Program
Analysis—Summary
¦ State management programs appear to ad-
dress the major sources of nonpoint source pol-
lution identified in their assessments.
¦ Although the December 1987 guidance
stressed the importance of watershed projects,
17 states reported milestones only for state-
wide activities and did not include watershed
project milestones in their management pro-
grams.
¦ In response to the requirement (section
319(b)(2)(F)) to identify funding sources for
nonpoint source implementation, 39 of the 52
states and territories included in this analysis
reported having existing sources of state fund-
ing for nonpoint source pollution control. The
predominant funding sources were general
revenues and permit/user fees.
¦ Section 319(b)(2)(C) required states to provide
a schedule of annual milestones. A number of
states reported specific milestones to address
nonpoint source pollution of ground water.
However, these accounted for only 5 percent of
total management program milestones.
¦ Over a quarter of milestones addressed agri-
cultural nonpoint source pollution. This is con-
sistent with state assessments, which suggest
that agriculture accounts for the largest share
of use impairments or threats in rivers and
lakes.
¦ Only 15 states had milestones in their man-
agement programs that included objectives,
deadlines, identification of funding needs, and
designation of a lead agency. These factors are
critical to the success of nonpoint source pro-
gram implementation.
¦ Although 46 states identified existing regula-
tions to address nonpoint source pollution,
many of these regulations are designed to reg-
ulate point source dischargers such as animal
feedlots and mining. Many states that identi-
fied nonpoint source regulations did not de-
scribe enforcement activities.
40
-------
IV. Regional Activities
and State Programs
his section discusses the activities of EPA's regional offices and the
state nonpoint source control programs from October 1988 through
September 1989, This discussion is based on state annual reports
required by section 319(h)(ll) and on materials provided by EPA's regional
nonpoint source coordinators. During this period, most states were still
completing their nonpoint source assessments and management programs,
with the assistance of the Regions.
Although section 319 grants to fund nonpoint source control projects
had not been authorized during this period, some implementation did
occur. In most cases, these activities involved state nonpoint source control
efforts associated with other state or federal agency programs.
In November 1989, Congress appropriated $40 million for section 319(i)
and (h) grants. EPA began awarding grants the following March. These
funds are being used to develop the states' institutional capabilities to
execute comprehensive nonpoint source management programs and to
complete specific watershed protection projects. These activities, just
underway, are not included in this discussion.
41
-------
-------
REGION I
In FY 1989, EPA's Region I staff provided exten-
sive technical assistance and guidance to
states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) in de-
veloping nonpoint source assessments and manage-
ment programs. However, the states were initially
reluctant to develop specific four-year programs
with milestones, schedules, and financing plans.
The states feared that EPA would hold them to
such schedules in future years, rather than view
them as a means to direct the program for the fu-
ture.
All states except Connecticut have used all of
their 205(j){5) allocations for nonpoint source activi-
ties. States did not identify additional needs over
the four-year program period, nor did they explore
alternative financing mechanisms.
Efforts to integrate nonpoint source needs and
priorities into state Clean Water Strategies and re-
gional geographic initiatives generally were success-
ful (e.g., near-coastal waters, Merrimack River,
Cape Cod Aquifer, Lake Champlain, and wetlands).
Assessments
In preparing assessments, state lead agencies ex-
pressed frustration with the lack of (1) empirical
monitoring data on nonpoint source pollution, (2)
nonpoint source criteria within state water quality
standards (including anti-degradation provisions),
and (3) coordination with agencies responsible for
wetlands, near-coastal waters, and ground water.
Sustained efforts by EPA, the states, and the re-
search community are needed here.
Region I helped the states revise their initial as-
sessments to include more information on threat-
ened waters, near-coastal waters, ground water, and
wetlands. This improved the states' ability to iden-
tify those watersheds that need priority treatment.
The revised assessments also identified use impair-
ments or threats to lakes, estuaries, and some river
segments.
The principal sources of New England's non-
point source pollution are (1) urban runoff (includ-
ing storm water); (2) erosion/sedimentation; (3) land
disposal (including on-site systems, sludge disposal,
and substances leached from landfills); (4) agricul-
tural practices and animal wastes; and (5) hydro-
logic modification. These sources reflect the
accelerated pace of land development and urbaniza-
tion in the region. The impacts from development
MAINE
VERMONT
HAMP.
Boston
MASS
R. .
CONN
Regional Office
are particularly acute along the coast, on water sup-
ply watersheds and aquifers, and in sensitive recre-
ational lakes and headwaters.
Management Programs
In response to regional and state Clean Water Strat-
egy priorities and assessment findings, manage-
ment programs focus on near-coastal waters, water
supply watersheds and aquifers, and lakes. Priori-
ties are as follows:
43
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
¦ Near-coastal Waters: Connecticut — Long Is-
land Sound; Rhode Island — Narragansett
Bay; Massachusetts — Buzzards Bay and Mas-
sachusetts Bay, including the Merrimack
River; New Hampshire—Great Bay; and Maine
— Casco Bay and estuarine modeling activi-
ties;
¦ Lakes; Vermont — Lake Champlain and devel-
opment of statewide lake protection regula-
tions; and Maine—"vulnerable" lakes;
¦ Water Supplies: Massachusetts — Quabbin
watershed and watersheds serving the Boston
metropolitan area; and Maine — Lake Sebago
and Greater Portland's water supply.
The Region assisted with management pro-
grams by encouraging states to:
¦ target waterbodies that needed urgent
attention;
¦ emphasize state and local land use policies
to protect existing high quality waters and
prevent future pollution; and
¦ develop sound statewide nonpoint source
programs, including (1) charting four-year
action programs with milestones; (2)
building broad-based interagency
cooperation and public participation; (3)
proposing alternative financing; and (4)
developing compliance and enforcement
programs.
All of the states proposed activities to control
urban storm water pollution and integrate pollution
prevention measures with land development. The
states stress the need for statewide legislation, reg-
ulations, and guidance materials relating to land de-
velopment, storm water management, and
erosion/sedimentation control.
The Region also helped the states target public
education programs to audiences in priority water-
sheds. The states proposed that project-oriented
handbooks and related materials be aimed at those
most responsible for the problems in priority water-
sheds; developers, road commissioners, and for-
estry-related businesses.
All Region I states have Nonpoint Source Advi-
sory Committees that involve state, regional, and
local agencies, and environmental and industrial
groups. These Advisory Committees have helped to
develop processes for perfecting and building con-
sensus on BMPs and other management program ef-
forts. Several committees have proposed generic
BMPs for agriculture, silviculture, and construction.
BMPs for activities relating to storm water runoff,
land development, resource extraction, and land dis-
posal are being developed.
Initially, the states did not realize the opportu-
nities that the federal consistency provisions of-
fered. Now, several states cite the need for improved
application of BMPs in highway projects and road
maintenance; they seek EPA intervention at the re-
gional and national level.
The states also propose that funding be pro-
vided for statewide leadership to maintain and
broaden a nonpoint source program and complete
specific watershed projects.
Regional Highlights
Region I has initiated several projects to enhance
nonpoint source control-related programs and help
accomplish geographic initiatives, including:
¦ A comparative demonstration of a chambered
detention treatment system and a wet deten-
tion pond to control storm water runoff, a prin-
cipal reason for closing Buttermilk Bay,
Massachusetts, to shellfishing and recreation.
¦ Identification of nonpoint source impacts from
specific land uses for the Near-coastal Waters
Strategy, as a pilot for the National Near-
coastal Waters Strategy, The project will in-
clude the development of nonpoint source
control measures in estuarine management
programs for Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
and Massachusetts; Long Island Sound, Con-
necticut and New York; Buzzards Bay, Massa-
chusetts; and Casco Bay, Maine.
¦ Empirical studies of the impact of nitrogen
loadings from on-site septic systems and storm
water runoff into Waquoit Bay, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts. The studies will assess the im-
pact of development scenarios on estuaries,
and provide a basis for regulating land use by
the Cape Cod Commission to protect water
quality and critical habitat. The state legisla-
ture recently gave the Commission the power
to regulate land use on Cape Cod.
¦ The development of modeling and data man-
agement systems as local management tools to
integrate water quality controls with Maine's
growth management plans and ordinances.
Maine's management program and 205(j)/319
grants will demonstrate implementation of
water quality controls in the Lake Sebago and
Casco Bay watersheds.
44
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS — REGION I
An eight-year Intensive monitoring
and evaluation of BMPs for dairy ani-
mal wastes, milk house wastes, and
farming practices in the St. Albans
Bay and LaPlatte Rural Clean Water
Program projects, carried out in coop-
eration with USDA and the University
of Vermont.
Evaluation of BMPs for reducing non-
point source pollution in specific areas
of the Merrimack River Basin. The
pollution prevention efforts are part of
an interstate/interagency Merrimack
River Initiative led by 1PA.
Development of an urban runoff pro-
gram for Buttermilk Bay, Massachu-
setts. Urban runoff poses significant
water quality problems for confined es-
tuaries and embayments because of the con-
centration and variety of pollutants discharg-
ing into shellfishing and recreational waters.
Bacteria, nitrogen compounds, sediment, sus-
pended solids, petroleum products, heavy met-
als, and toxics are pollutants causing concern.
Shellfish bed closings in* Buttermilk Bay
prompted extensive efforts by local citizens
and officials to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion in the Bay and develop a storm water in-
filtration system.
Citizen education was a major component of
the overall watershed management strategy. In-
formation was provided on septic system mainte-
nance, pet control, and proper litter and
household waste disposal. EPA's nonpoint source
staff developed a plan for treating storm runoff
from the watershed that involved modifying ex-
isting catch basin systems and installing an in-
filtration system to remove bacteria and other
contaminants from the storm water.
These new systems have reduced runoff to the
bay. Field observations suggest that the infiltra-
tion system has been highly effective in remov-
ing bacteria from the runoff.
CONNECTICUT
Statewide Activities
The state legislature passed Public Act 89-305, An
Act Concerning Designation of Aquifer Protection
Areas. This act requires that public wells in strati-
fied drift (sand and gravel) aquifers be protected
through state and municipal land use regulation in
Candlewood Lake, Connecticut Photo by Jonathan Simpson.
"aquifer protection areas." The Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection (DEP) will develop regulations
to designate aquifer protection areas, specify land
use prohibitions, and identify BMPs for land use.
Municipalities, water supply utilities, and soil and
water conservation districts share responsibility for
program implementation.
DEP established a Farm Resource Management
Plan Advisory Committee that first met in October
1989. The committee is working with SCS to develop
an Agricultural Resource Management Plan Pilot
Study that will evaluate BMPs for inclusion in
DEP's Farm Resource Management Plan regula-
tions. DEP's draft regulations were due for public
notice in July 1990.
The Connecticut Council on Soil and Water Con-
servation continues to emphasize water quality en-
hancement through improved nonpoint source
management programs, better agricultural practi-
ces under the Aquifer Area Protection Act, and en-
forcement of erosion and sedimentation control
laws. Pollution reduction demonstration projects for
Long Island Sound may be applied to the entire
basin in the future.
The state is rewriting its watershed protection
handbook. The handbook shows municipalities how
to protect public water supply reservoirs by improv-
ing land use zoning, subdivision regulations, and
land management techniques.
During FY 1990, a draft of the state's Clean
Water Strategy will be available for public review.
This report sets geographic priorities designed to
target limited government resources on the state's
most urgent water quality problems (e.g., Long Is-
land Sound, sources of public potable water, and
aquifer protection areas). It also proposes specific
ways to consolidate regulatory and non-regulatory
programs into an overall management approach.
45
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Watershed Activities
The state granted ASCS an additional $100,000 in
FY 1989 to cost share agricultural BMPs. In October
1989, SOS provided financing and authorization for
the Hoosatonic River Cooperative River Basin
Study. The study, which involves SCS, U.S. Forest
Service, Connecticut DEP, and New York and Con-
necticut state and county soil and water conserva-
tion districts, will provide the basis for greater
implementation of agricultural BMPs and associ-
ated cost sharing.
Four watershed protection projects were initi-
ated in 1989 using 205(j)(5) funds to protect state
reservoir systems.
MAINE
The Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (DEP) developed a state nonpoint source man-
agement program with assistance from federal,
state, and local agencies. Maine's Nonpoint Source
Advisory Committee represents state and local
agencies and industries that are directly concerned
with nonpoint source management.
Maine has identified the following problems as
priorities for state attention and funding:
¦ Development (including construction erosion/
sedimentation, nutrients, and urban runoff)—a
major priority throughout the state, with criti-
cal effects in the southern, coastal, and lake re-
gions.
¦ Agriculture (erosion/sedimentation, animal
wastes, and pesticides)—a major statewide pri-
ority.
¦ Silviculture, resource extraction (including
recent mineral mining proposals).
¦ Transportation, chemical use and storage,
waste disposal (including landfills and on-site
systems).
¦ Marine industries and hydrologic modifi-
cation, considered moderate to high priorities
(in critical waters).
State program officials are concerned that the
recent state budget deficit could reverse gains made
in staffing over the last two years (including the hir-
ing of a full-time nonpoint source coordinator and
state water quality staff) and slow program momen-
tum.
Statewide Activities
The DEP published Phosphorus Control in Lake Wa-
tersheds, a handbook that outlines methods to eval-
uate the phosphorus loadings in lakes and streams
that result from development and changes in land
use. The handbook is designed for use by state per-
mit reviewers and local governments.
The DEP also published The Long Lake Water-
shed Study—a Handbook for Long-term Lake Pro-
tection, intended for use by lake associations and
local governments as a model for integrating phos-
phorus control methodology with local growth man-
agement programs and ordinances. DEP helped
regional planning commissions and local govern-
ments apply the methodology to vulnerable water-
sheds.
Proposed Activities
The Maine DEP proposes the following activities for
FY 1990:
¦ Casco Bay Land Use: Work with local govern-
ments in Casco Bay to develop land use ordi-
nances that will control population density in
future development, and to implement BMPs
designed to combat erosion, sedimentation, and
urban runoff. Other proposed activities include
conducting workshops, publishing brochures,
and helping local governments and landowners
combat the contributions of development, for-
estry, and agriculture to nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
¦ Lake Sebago Pollution Prevention Pro-
ject: Provide technical assistance through the
Portland Water District to help local govern-
ments within the watershed use land ordi-
nances and BMPs to control and prevent
nonpoint source pollution. The assistance is de-
signed to protect Portland's potable water sup-
ply and recreation.
¦ Kennebec County Nonpoint Source Tar-
geted Lake Watershed Project: Develop
BMPs for the China Lake watershed; help local
governments develop and adopt ordinances re-
garding land use and BMPs; monitor and en-
force BMP compliance.
¦ Rule and Regulation Development: De-
velop and implement the rules and regulations
needed for resource extraction, transportation,
chemical use, and storage for new mineral min-
ing activities.
46
-------
IV, REGIONAL ACTIVITIES St STATE PROGRAMS — REGION I
¦ Forestry BMP Implementation: Develop in-
centives; strengthen agency regulations and
local ordinances; and intensify enforcement in
targeted watersheds.
¦ Nitrate Pollution from Subsurface Dis-
posal: Measure nitrates in wells in 26 water-
sheds without sewer systems and evaluate the
effectiveness of current regulations that affect
subsurface wastewater.
¦ BMP Performance Evaluation: Evaluate
changes in nonpoint source pollutants follow-
ing BMP installation in China Lake, Sebago
Lake, and Casco Bay.
Comprehensive Planning and
Land Use Regulation Act
Nonpoint source pollution in the form of urban run-
off and land development is a mayor cause of water
use impairment in the northeastern United States.
Development impacts are particularly severe for
coastal waters, for surface and ground-water drink-
ing water supplies, and for sensitive recreational
waters.
To mitigate the impacts of development on
water and other resources, Maine adopted the Com-
prehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act
of 1988. The law established a three-tiered schedule
(deadlines in 1991, 1993, and 1996) for compliance
by all towns. The towns with the highest percentage
growth rate are required to complete and submit
comprehensive plans for their towns by the earlier
deadlines. These towns are just beginning to de-
velop their plans. Supporting land use ordinances
are required within five years after state approval of
the comprehensive plans.
The act has two major components that support
local development of comprehensive growth man-
agement plans: state goals for growth management
and state-sponsored technical and financial assis-
tance programs.
The state's growth management goals include:
¦ encouraging orderly growth,
¦ planning and financing public facilities and
services,
¦ promoting economic growth,
¦ encouraging affordable housing,
¦ protecting water and other natural resources,
¦ protecting the marine industry,
¦ providing harbor and shore access,
¦ safeguarding farm and forest resources,
¦ preserving historical and archaeological
resources, and
¦ protecting outdoor recreation opportunities.
Technical assistance is provided by both state
and county governments. Local soil and water con-
servation districts are now working with the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection to deliver
direct technical assistance to implement nonpoint
source controls in high growth communities associ-
ated with waterbodies either impacted or threat-
ened by nonpoint source pollution. According to DEP
staff, "towns are generally hungry for any technical
assistance we can provide and every effort is made
to respond to requests for help in a timely manner."
Maine's program has been successful, in part
because of the substantial state financial commit-
ment (approximately $1 million per year) and tech-
nical assistance provided to towns that are
developing and implementing plans. The state feels
that this level of support is necessary and that
money and staff time are well spent when compared
to the cost of restoring even one waterbody. Maine is
placing a great deal of emphasis on the growth man-
agement process as a means to control the state's
nonpoint source pollution problem.
Maine's nonpoint source program recognizes
that the act and subsequent local planning provide a
tremendous opportunity to institutionalize the non-
point source control program at the local level. Non-
point source program activities to support the
Comprehensive Planning Act include:
¦ close liaison with the Office of
Comprehensive Planning within the
Department of Economic and Community
Development (the office that administers
the growth management program);
¦ developing nonpoint source control model
ordinances;
¦ assisting with development, review, and
comment on municipal comprehensive plans
and ordinances;
¦ training Code Enforcement Officers through
vocational and technical education schools;
and
¦ emphasizing pollution prevention and the
economic benefits associated with
improvements or protection of water quality.
47
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Watershed Activities
Maine initiated several projects that addressed spe-
cific water quality problems in watersheds, includ-
ing:
¦ Demonstration of innovative sediment/nutri-
ent control ponds in agricultural watersheds
in Aroostook County. The ponds are being
monitored by the University of Maine, with
preliminary results indicating phosphorus
loadings have declined by more than 85 per-
cent.
¦ Completion of an inventory of farmland in pri-
ority agricultural watersheds and outlining of
the BMPs needed in these areas.
¦ Development of BMPs for water quality pro-
tection to be included in regulations that im-
plement the Forestry Practices Act.
¦ Preparation of Maine's Marine Environment
Plan for Action and Agenda for Action —
Casco Bay for the Region I Near-coastal Wa-
ters Strategy. The strategies address how
storm water runoff, erosion/sedimentation, on-
site waste systems, and agriculture may con-
tribute toxins to marine sediments.
¦ Increased technical assistance and monitoring
to help high growth areas adopt plans and or-
dinances to protect aquifers and wellheads.
MASSACHUSETTS
Statewide Activities
The state published Best Management Practices,
Timber Harvesting Handbook in April 1989. The
booklet addresses timber activities near lakes,
ponds, small streams, and wetlands. In addition, a
nonpoint source best management practices manual
is being developed to address the application of
BMPs to agriculture, silviculture, construction,
urban runoff, resource extraction, and land disposal.
The state legislature is considering a proposed
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, The biE
addresses the effects of agriculture, silviculture,
construction, resource extraction, and hydrologic
modification on lakes, ponds, small streams, and
wetlands.
Open space acquisition to control water quality
continue in the Department of Environmental Pro-
tection, the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement, and the Metro-
politan District Commission. However, fiscal con-
straints will limit future efforts.
The state continues to develop and present sem-
inars on regulations affecting septic tank design and
construction. These regulations are designed to en-
sure that septic tanks do not adversely affect the
water quality of ground water, lakes, ponds, and
small streams. Although the DEP did not engage in
federal consistency reviews under section 319 dur-
ing FY 1989, the state's Coastal Zone Management
Agency is continuing its state Environmental Policy
Act reviews, focusing on all categories of pollution
that occur along the state's coastline.
Fiscal concerns also are likely to prevent the
passage of legislation that would establish a state-
funded nonpoint source pollution control program,
even though the bill has wide support on technical
grounds,
Watershed Activities
The Quabbin Reservoir watershed is one of the larg-
est (186 square miles) bodies of untreated drinking
water in the world. Unless nonpoint source pollu-
tants entering the system are controlled, Safe
Drinking Water Act regulations may force the in-
stallation of an expensive water filtration system.
Nutrients, metals, bacteria, and other chemicals in
the tributaries are being monitored bi-weekly; those
in the lake are monitored monthly. This monitoring
effort is the first step in developing a detailed non-
point source watershed management plan.
The contamination of shellfish beds from urban
runoff, land disposal, and agriculture greatly con-
cerns local, state, and federal officials. The state is
conducting a nonpoint source control demonstration
project on the Back River in Bourne and on Snell
Creek in Westport. Detailed management plans are
being developed to control excessive fecal coliform
and nutrient levels in each of these 1,000-acre wa-
tersheds. Using the demonstration areas as models,
an overall guidance document will be prepared to
help municipal officials address similar problems.
The Clean Lakes Program administered 36 di-
agnostic/feasibility studies, 35 implementa-
tion/maintenance projects, and 10 lake restoration
projects this past year. However, a shortage of state
funds and the reassignment of personnel will slow
this program for the foreseeable future.
Federal assistance allowed completion of the
Buzzards Bay project, including the construction of
a storm water facility in Bourne along the Bay.
Workshops have discussed management problems,
needed improvements, and cost impacts related to
the projects.
48
-------
IV,; REGIONAL ACTIVITIES A STATE PROGRAMS — REGION I
The Southeastern Regional Planning and Eco-
nomic Development District completed and pub-
lished three reports: The Technical Resource
Manual, Sample By-Laws, and An Assessment of
Past Implementation of Local Water Quality Recom-
mendations.
The SCS has been working closely with the
state on the Pontoosuc Lake project, the Metcalf &
Eddy shellfish project, and agricultural demonstra-
tion projects. SCS also has worked to establish a li-
aison position to work full-time with state staff, and
has recommended increased funding for the Clean
Lakes Program.
Funding Summary
The Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program re-
ceived federal funds through section 205(j)(G)
($393,062 in FY 1987 and $100,000 in FY 1988).
These funds enabled the state to develop the state
assessment report and management program, and
to conduct special projects. These projects included
assessing the water quality of the Quabbin Reser-
voir watershed and of small streams and wetlands,
and entering and verifying data in the Geographical
Information System (G1S).
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Statewide Activities
During FY 1989, New Hampshire completed a state-
wide assessment of residuals and reported its find-
ings in Sludge and Septage Management in New
Hampshire; A Report and Action Plan, March 1989,
SR #64. Proposed state legislation would shift lead
agency authority from the Waste Management Divi-
sion to the Water Supply & Pollution Control Divi-
sion within the Department of Environmental
Services (DES).
The state also implemented a fee system under
authority of RSA 149:8-a to substitute state for fed-
eral funding of the Sediment & Erosion Control pro-
gram.
The New Hampshire Fish & Game Department,
Department of Public Health Services, and DES
completed the Interagency Report On the Shellfish
Waters Of New Hampshire. The report addresses
problems, including nonpoint source pollution, in
the Great Bay/Little Bay, Rye Harbor, and Hampton
Harbor estuaries and outlines specific actions
needed to re-open closed shellfish beds.
The New Hampshire legislature drafted a Com-
prehensive Shoreland Protection Act to address the
need for further restrictions on development in
areas adjacent to public waters. This legislation has
been introduced for the 1990 session.
The Ground-water Protection Bureau (in coop-
eration with other divisions of DES and other state
agencies) developed strategies for ground-water and
wellhead protection as part of the state Clean Water
Strategy.
The DES, the Office of State Planning Coastal
Zone Management Program, the Sea Grant Pro-
gram at the University of New Hampshire, and local
groups such as the Great Bay Conservation Trust,
cooperated to develop initiatives to protect near-
coastal waters. The designation of the Great Bay
National Estuarine Reserve is a major step toward
protecting this sensitive resource.
The state legislature allocated $18 million for
the Land Conservation Investment Program for
1989 and 1990. New Hampshire was able to pur-
chase conservation easements in several significant
sensitive parcels (e.g., the Nash Stream tract in
northern New Hampshire) by using these funds
along with matching funds from the Society for the
Protection of New Hampshire Forests and other in-
terested groups. Since the program started in 1987,
several hundred tracts (70,000 acres) have been
purchased. These acquisitions complement efforts of
local land conservation groups and commissions
that have been working for years to protect the
state's natural assets from the pressures of popula-
tion growth.
The Commissioner of DES appointed a full-time
enforcement coordinator to address nonpoint source
management issues, including subsurface disposal,
sediment and erosion control, landfill, and wetlands
violations. Increased public awareness and under-
standing of nonpoint source management goals are
expected to encourage more effective enforcement.
Watershed Activities
The Office of State Planning supports regional plan-
ning agencies in developing and implementing
water resource protection plans and measures at
the community level. DES also provides 205(j)(l)
funds to these agencies.
New Hampshire is participating in the Inter-
state Merrimack River Initiative to assess water
quality and point and nonpoint pollution sources.
The Merrimack River Basin Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan (for New Hampshire), published in Sep-
tember 1989, summarizes the progress made in
pollution abatement since the last update more than
a decade ago.
The Office of State Planning, working with local
groups, continued progress on the Merrimack River
Corridor Study. The study focuses on the upper Mer-
49
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
rimack River from Franklin to Bow. Recommenda-
tions have been drafted regarding land use, set-
backs for structures, and certain related activities.
These recommendations emphasize the need to pro-
tect aesthetic values as well as water quality.
The state continued work under a Clean Lakes
Program grant to establish baseline conditions at
Mendums Pond in Lee to monitor the impact of a
proposed development on water quality. These data
will help expand a watershed/lake development im-
pacts model for application to other sensitive
waterbodies.
Forty-four new manure storage facilities were
constructed in FY 1989 to provide better manage-
ment of animal waste; most were located in Grafton
(20) and Sullivan (6) counties, ASCS and local farm-
ers shared the cost. By reducing the runoff from nu-
trients and bacteria, these facilities improve water
quality at the same time they help farmers save fer-
tilizer costs. ASCS contributed $608,000 for sharing
construction costs, improving solid cover, and devel-
oping erosion-resistant roadways in forests. A total
of 21,930 acres were treated in the state's 10 coun-
ties.
The state has funded two new water quality co-
ordinators based in Durham, one with the Univer-
sity of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
Service and the other with the Soil Conservation
Service. Through their efforts, the Great Bay Area
has been designated as a critical state watershed;
that designation will allow the coordinators to focus
on nonpoint source problems there. The coordina-
tors also will provide technical assistance and edu-
cational programs for DES, other resource agencies,
and landowners throughout the state and develop
BMPs for nonpoint source management.
Water Quality Improvements
Nonpoint source controls, such as BMPs to reduce
erosion, often clearly reduce turbidity; however,
they do not measure subsequent effects on the
waterbody. Very little monitoring data are available
to measure what happens in the waterbody, espe-
cially during storms, so that reductions in nonpoint
source loads resulting from BMPs and enforcement
have not been documented.
Further Actions/Programs
Needed
To effectively assess progress in attaining Clean
Water Act goals and achieve full attainment of legis-
lated water classifications and quality standards,
baseline water quality conditions must be estab-
lished. These should include not only chemical and
traditional biological parameters but also
biomonitoring and sediment/substrate analysis. In
addition, the basic monitoring program needs to be
expanded to include storm and runoff event sam-
pling. EPA funding is needed for this effort; a focus
only on implementation will not document the effec-
tiveness of measures taken.
Funding Summary
During calendar year 1989, New Hampshire was
awarded EPA 205(j)(5) nonpoint source grants in the
amount of $268,056, using FY 1987 and 1988 funds.
Less than $125,000 of this amount actually was ex-
pended during 1989; the remainder has been carried
forward to FY 1990. The main focus of the work plan
was production of a final nonpoint source assess-
ment and management, program. In addition to
these efforts, EPA funds supported development of a
Draft Erosion Control / Storm Water Management
Manual targeted to designers, engineers, surveyors,
contractors, and town officials. Workshops were con-
ducted to address the effects of timber harvesting
practices on wetlands and water quality. The work-
shop audiences included landowners, loggers, and
foresters. The final manual was to be completed by
April 1990.
RHODE ISLAND
Statewide Activities
Rhode Island's nonpoint source management pro-
gram emphasizes prevention. The program focuses
on strengthening state and local programs that ben-
efit the entire state and on programs that are mod-
els for other areas within the state. The prop-am is
designed to maximize the limited state and federal
funds available for nonpoint source management.
Significant data gaps were identified in prepar-
ing the state's assessment report, and the Rhode Is-
land Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM) is collecting additional water quality and
pollution source data. All surface waters identified
as high priorities for water quality monitoring data
have been sampled through contracts with the U.S.
Geological Survey. In addition, Clean Lakes Pro-
gram funds are making possible the collection of
data on lakes and ponds in southern Rhode Island.
With support from the nonpoint source pollution
management program, the University of Rhode Is-
land has developed a short course in lake manage-
ment for citizens and local government officials. The
course covers basic physical, chemical, and biologi-
50
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS — REGION I
cal characteristics of Rhode Island ponds; the inter-
pretation of water quality data; identification of pol-
lution sources (emphasis on nonpoint source
pollution); determination of the causes of water
quality problems; and methods to protect water
quality. The course complements the volunteer
water quality monitoring component of the state's
Watershed Watch program.
An amendment to RIDEM's section 319 work
plan outlines the development of a curriculum re-
garding state and local environmental laws and se-
lected nonpoint source pollution issues. The
material is intended for local planning and zoning
board members and conservation commission mem-
bers. Because of the late date of the grant award,
this activity will be carried over into FY 1990.
The state started a land use planning and water
quality technical assistance program for municipali-
ties, For example, the program helped the town of
Smithfield revise the nutrient loading provision of
its subdivision ordinance.
The state also developed a simple phosphorus-
trophic status model as a planning tool for manage-
ment of surface water supply watersheds; it
prepared a brief user's guide and diskette with the
model and made them available to town planners
and water suppliers. In addition, the state made
several public presentations at conferences, work-
shops, and annual meetings on the topic of land
use/water quality and nonpoint source pollution.
The state revised its Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook, which will be printed in FY
1990. The Rhode Island Resource Conservation and
Development Council (RC&D! is distributing the
handbooks at cost.
The Coastal Resources Management Council
has started a special area management plan for the
lower Pawcatuck River. RC&D drafted a brochure
for local officials and citizens that describes the need
to adopt a model soil erosion and sediment control
ordinance. As a pilot project, Rhode Island's three
conservation districts have funded site plan reviews
that help communities review soil erosion and sedi-
ment controls and storm water management plans
and guide them in inspecting sites to determine
compliance with local permit requirements. As a re-
sult of this work, two more communities have
adopted the model ordinance for soil erosion and
sediment control.
In response to a Coastal Resources Manage-
ment Council requirement, several communities
have adopted harbor management plans and others
are developing them, assisted by the Council and
the Coastal Resources Center. The RIDEM Division
of Water Resources reviews the plans to ensure that
they adequately address water quality issues and
problems.
Narragansett Bay Project investigators are de-
veloping land use models for water quality and
buffer areas for use by state and local planners and
regulators. Water quality and wildlife habitat data
needed for the buffer model are being collected in
the Hunt River watershed, where the model will be
tested.
The nonpoint source program coordinator has
met with Rhode Island Department of Transporta-
tion representatives to discuss the protection of en-
vironmentally sensitive areas and long-term water
quality protection. Of particular concern are the de-
sign, location, and construction of highways, includ-
ing upgrades. An important part of the protection
effort is the identification of inconsistencies between
transportation needs and environmental protection
standards. This substantial task has national signif-
icance.
The RC&D, with funding from RIDEM, organ-
ized Environmental Review Teams to provide expert
technical advice to several Rhode Island communi-
ties on subdivision proposals and their effects on
surface and ground-water quality. Assistance has
been provided to the towns of Hopkinton, Lincoln,
Foster, and Exeter. Review Teams also have advised
several Rhode Island communities on the reclama-
tion of sand and gravel extraction sites and provided
assistance to North Kingstown and Chariest own.
Watershed Activities
¦ Land Management Project (LMP): Through
these demonstration projects, public and pri-
vate sector leaders are being encouraged to
demonstrate innovative approaches to non-
point source management. Specifically, the
LMP is seeking to establish projects to:
~ Demonstrate nonpoint source
management at a proposed subdivision
development located on an abandoned
sand and gravel site in a coastal pond
watershed;
~ Create wetlands that will manage storm
water runoff draining into the
Pettaquamscutt River from a
construction site; and
~ Demonstrate the use of oil and water
separators retrofitted with oil-absorbing
devices.
The LMP is initiating pilot watershed man-
agement programs for the towns of Warwick,
East Greenwich, and North Kingstown. Based
on specific planning and resource protection ob-
51
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
jectives, these programs are designed to build on
the working relationship developed during the
tri-town wellhead study. The programs' goal is to
establish a cohesive approach to protecting
ground and surface waters.
The LMP has prepared several fact sheets on
land use/water quality issues and has proposed
workshops to address these issues and the com-
prehensive planning process. The nonpoint
source program has reviewed the fact sheets and
discussions of workshop topics.
¦ Scituate Reservoir Watershed Project:
The nonpoint source pollution assessment re-
port identified this watershed as threatened
by nutrients, solids, pathogens, dissolved
salts, and oil and grease from:
~ construction activities in the watershed;
~ urbanization (predominately from
increases in the impervious area and the
number of individual sewage disposal
systems);
~ road de-icing practices; and
~ agricultural activities.
A draft watershed management plan was
presented to the Scituate Reservoir Task Force
in the fall of 1989. Upon approval of the plan
by the Task Force, towns in the watershed are
expected to begin implementation. However,
progress has already been made with the fol-
lowing activities:
~ GIS maps and statistical information
have been made ready for use in the
Scituate Reservoir Watershed
Management Plan with Financial support
from RIDEM.
~ Environmental Data Center staff have
prepared a poster illustrating limitations
to further development in the Scituate
Reservoir watershed.
~ Correlations between certain pollutants
and particular land uses have been
demonstrated by preliminary results of
water quality monitoring and modelling
of the Scituate Reservoir watershed
system.
~ The Northern Conservation District and
Soil Conservation District have been
helping farmers in the watershed prepare
and implement resource management
and agricultural waste management
plans.
Use of Grants
In April 1989, the Rhode Island Department of En-
vironmental Management received a grant of
$27,000 in 205(j)5 funds to refine the nonpoint
source assessment. These funds supported water
quality monitoring by USGS and the University of
Rhode Island's Watershed Watch program. These
activities did not require state matches.
Federal funds totalling $192,830 were granted
to RIDEM in FY 1989; these funds required a state
match of $128,533 for a total budget of $321,363.
State funds supported the Environmental Review
Team program and local communities' efforts to
comply with state comprehensive planning require-
ments.
The first grant ($146,000) was awarded in May
1989. It was amended in August 1989 to provide an
additional $46,830. The latter award represented a
carryover of unexpended FY 1988 section 205(j)(5)
funds.
The federal funds were allocated in the follow-
ing manner: $129,800 for salaries and general pro-
gram expenses; $20,000 for printing the revised Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; $8,000 for
preparation of the Site Suitability Manual; $35,000
to support Rhode Island's GIS.
The average annual state expenditure on non-
point source pollution regulatory programs in fiscal
years 1985 and 1986 was $312,809. Rhode Island's
FY 1989 budget was $770,610, of which $100,000
was used as a non-federal match for grants other
than the section 319 grant.
VERMONT
Statewide Activities
Vermont's nonpoint source assessment identified ag-
riculture as the most extensive source of nonpoint
source pollution, impacting more than 500 river
miles and Lake Champlain and Lake
Memphremagog. Within the agriculture category,
non-irrigated crop production and pastureland are
the largest contributors while soil erosion, manure
and fertilizer runoff are the primary problems.
The second most serious form of nonpoint
source pollution identified by the state was flow reg-
ulation below hydroelectric facilities. Restoration of
river flows has strong public support and conse-
quently, this effort has been designated as a high
priority for state water quality management activi-
ties.
52
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS
— REGION I
To this end, the Vermont Citizens Advisory
Committee was formed to oversee the state's Com-
prehensive Rivers Program. All groups with river in-
terests are represented and work together to ensure
that river management goals are balanced. The ini-
tial efforts under the program will result in the de-
velopment of river basin plans for the following high
priority basins: the Deerfield River, the Passumpsic
River, the White River, and the Winooski River.
Minimum flows will be addressed during direct
consultation with applicants for hydroelectric licens-
ing and relicensing on the Deerfield, Passumpsic,
and Winooski Rivers.
Vermont is also working'to implement measures
to address lake water quality, its third priority. Ac-
tivities include:
¦ updating and improving the Model
Shoreland Zoning Report;
¦ developing a lake protection guide on how to
achieve sufficient water quality protection
and management at the town, regional, and
lake watershed levels; and
¦ distributing educational materials to
munici-palities, lake associations, and the
general public.
The publication Shoreland Zoning Options for
Towns will be distributed and explained to munici-
palities and regional planning organizations follow-
ing internal review and completion. This manual
may include zoning regulations for new develop-
ment requiring setbacks for houses and septic sys-
tems, regulations for density of development,
requirements for vegetated buffer strips, and the es-
tablishment of erosion control standards for new
construction. A contractor will prepare, with state
assistance, a Water Quality Planning and Protection
Manual for planners. Scheduled for completion and
distribution by late 1990, the manual will provide
information about regulatory and non-regulatory
options for local lake water quality protection.
Vermont's growth management law requires
that natural resource issues be addressed as part of
the planning process. Most municipalities will be re-
quired to rewrite town plans and revise local land
use controls. Four municipalities have requested
and received more advanced technical assistance for
achieving specific water quality levels for lakes. Ef-
forts have been made to educate local communities
on how incremental growth and development affect
water quality. For example, comprehensive river
planning and GIS mapping of wetlands provide
water quality and natural resource information to
communities for use in their Act 200 plans.
The Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation has directed section 205(j)(5) funds to
two nonpoint source program areas:
¦ re-establishment of minimum flows, and
¦ comprehensive rivers management and lake
water quality protection {including a lake
water quality manual).
Vermont will use recently awarded section 319
implementation funds to enforce the state's Wetland
Rules, domestic discharge requirements, and Act
250 erosion control, as well as abate nonpoint source
pollution of ground water.
53
-------
-------
REGION II
N on point source pollution is a significant
source of contamination for many water-
bodies in Region II (New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). In New
Jersey, nonpoint source pollution is the major rea-
son for closures of beaches and restrictions on shell-
fish growing in backbays and estuaries. Through-
out the region, acid rain, agriculture, urban devel-
opment, and underground storage tanks are the
major generators of nonpoint source pollution.
Each state in the Region formed a nonpoint
source task force or working group to help develop
that state's assessment report and management
program. The task force or working group played a
major role in setting nonpoint source priorities and
implementing programs.
Following are some highlights of nonpoint
source activities in the states and territories com-
prising the Region.
NEW JERSEY
Statewide Activities
¦ Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control;
New Jersey has established a program to pre-
vent soil erosion and sedimentation caused by
new construction. Land-disturbing activities
are subject to soil erosion, sedimentation, and
nonpoint source pollution control require-
ments of local soil conservation districts,
which must certify sediment and erosion con-
trol plans before construction begins.
¦ Nonpoint Source Education; The New Jer-
sey Department of Environmental Protection
is developing a nonpoint source education pro-
gram that is targeted to local officials, busi-
nesses, schoolchildren, and the media. The
program emphasizes topics such as good
housekeeping practices to help reduce urban
runoff pollutants.
¦ Citizen Participation: New Jersey Water
Watch has been developed to identify local
nonpoint source problems and to train citizens
NEW YORK
New York City
NEW JERSEY
• Regional Office
to monitor water quality. Presently there are
61 active Water Watch groups in New Jersey.
¦ Legislative Initiatives: Several new laws
have been enacted to support the New Jersey
nonpoint source program. These are the
Wellhead Protection Sections adopted pursu-
ant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986; the Sewage Infrastruc-
ture Improvement Act; the Watershed Buffer
Act; and the Aquifer Recharge Protection Act.
¦ Cooperative Estuary Programs: New Jer-
sey has worked with the National Estuary
Programs in the New York-New Jersey Har-
bor Estuary and the Delaware Estuary to ad-
dress both point and nonpoint source
pollutants through the development of a Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management
Plan.
¦ Coastal Water Quality Management Proj-
ect. This project developed a water quality
and shellfish resource assessment methodol-
ogy to define past and current conditions of
specific estuaries.
55
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Watershed Activities
¦ Cook College Study on Watershed Protec-
tion: This study addressed the relationship
between land use and surface waters in the
state. The report is expected to recommend
ways to abate nonpoint source pollution, in-
cluding adoption of BMPs in urban areas,
¦ Navesink River Shellfish Pollution Con-
trol Project; This continuing cooperative
study addresses pollution problems in the
shellfish harvesting areas of the Navesink
River. Preliminary findings show that primary
bacterial loading comes from animal feces and
urban and suburban runoff; the report identi-
fies appropriate BMPs to control the bacterial
contamination. The latest phase of the project
is a survey to evaluate storm water impacts to
the Navesink River.
¦ Tidal Tuckahoe River Project: This cooper-
ative project with the Atlantic and Cape May
County Health Departments monitored bacte-
ria and used dye-testing to determine the rea-
sons for high bacteria levels in the river.
Proposed Initiatives
Although nonpoint source pollution is a significant
impediment to achieving desired water quality
¦ goals, very little monitoring has been performed.
Upgraded monitoring is necessary to determine in-
puts and stream response so that distinctions be-
tween point and nonpoint source pollution effects
can be determined. This information is crucial to
evaluating nonpoint source pollution control pro-
grams and setting priorities for future nonpoint
source control.
State and local governments have exercised rel-
atively little authority to control nonpoint source
pollution because of uncertainly about what con-
trols to require and inadequate staff and funding re-
sources for the job. The nonpoint source assessment
report and management program prepared for EPA
should assist the state and local governments in es-
tablishing priorities, developing guidelines, and al-
locating resources.
Federal assistance is necessary for some initia-
tives. For example, although New Jersey has initi-
ated programs to control nonpoint source pollution
within the state, EPA support is needed for inter-
state agreements, especially those concerning ocean
pollution. EPA could also fund research projects of
national significance, such as the behavior of hydro-
carbons in ground water and nonpoint source toxic-
ity to various organisms. Finally, New Jersey be-
lieves that an interagency agreement between
USDA and EPA to make commodity price support
loans contingent upon the use of BMPs would pro-
vide incentives for farmers to follow state pollution
guidelines.
Funding Summary
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection has $867,000 available under section
205(j)(5). This money is being used to develop the
state's nonpoint source management program and
to further the Navesink Water Quality Improve-
ment Project. Additional EPA funding is necessary
to improve monitoring efforts so that sources of non-
point source pollution can be identified and appro-
priate control measures and BMPs can be
implemented and assessed.
NEW YORK
New York has made a significant effort to address
nonpoint source pollution and presently has over 50
ongoing state and local programs that either di-
rectly or indirectly control this environmental prob-
lem.
Statewide Activities
¦ Improved Assessment: A broader informa-
tion-gathering program to obtain a more com-
plete picture of nonpoint source pollution has
been implemented with the participation of 57
soil and water conservation districts and the
cooperation of the state Soil and Water Con-
servation Committee.
¦ Public Education; Nonpoint source pollution
was the focus of the state's annual Water
Week activities to inform the public. The pro-
gram included school curriculum materials on
nonpoint source pollution, a symposium, mag-
azine and newspaper articles, and exhibits
displayed in state offices. The New York State
Water Resources Institute at Cornell Univer-
sity and the Cornell Cooperative Extension
Service provided general educational materi-
als, technical assistance, and research on non-
point source pollutants.
During FY 1989, an impact study of pesticides
on upstate ground water was completed, ground-
56
-------
TV, REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS
— REGION II
Eroding banks and human debris clutter tkis stream.
water educational materials were prepared and dis-
tributed, and nonpoint source management projects
were undertaken in several counties.
¦ Technical Assistance to Landowners: Dur-
ing FY 1989, the New York Sail Conservation
Service gave $415,000 in technical assistance
to landowners and land users in New York to
help develop and implement conservation plans
to reduce soil erosion and improve water qual-
ity. These activities included providing techni-
cal assistance to the New York State
Department of Environmental Control to de-
velop and implement the assessment report,
the management program, and new state non-
point source legislation.
Proposed Initiatives
¦ Additional funding is needed to guarantee
that nonpoint source management programs
will be fully implemented. It is especially im-
perative to secure funds for implementation of
the new state nonpoint source pollution legisla-
tion.
¦ Federal assistanqe is also needed to develop
a comprehensive education program on the
hazards of nonpoint source water pollution
with components appropriate to all age levels.
Increased awareness is needed to assure the
effectiveness of control programs.
¦ Another area of needed federal action in-
volves regulation of the effects of interstate air
emissions. Currently, atmospheric deposition
is the largest category of nonpoint source pol-
lution in New York state waterbodies. While
New York has an enhanced control program
for air emissions within the state, sources be-
yond New York's borders also adversely affect
state waterbodies. Recent amendments to the
Clean Air Act will help solve this problem.
57
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Poliutton; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
¦ Contaminated sediment is another major
category of nonpoint source pollution in New
York state. Federal assistance is needed to de-
fine quality standards for sediments and to de-
lineate acceptable disposal and/or destruction
techniques.
Funding Summary
New York received approximately $2,200,000 in
205(j)(5) funds in FY 1989. Of this amount,
$250,000 was allocated to the development of the
state's section 319 assessment report and manage-
ment program. The state has also expended
$1 ,250,000 to implement a nonpoint source control
program to address the problem of bulk storage of
petroleum products and other chemicals to protect
ground-water resources.
A state revolving loan fund was authorized by
the legislature in FY 1989. This may be used as a
source of funding for nonpoint source pollution pro-
jects in the future.
PUERTO RICO
Nonpoint source pollution is caused by a number of
factors in Puerto Rica. Major water quality prob-
lems resulting from agricultural runoff have drama-
tized the need for improved animal waste and
cropland management systems. Sedimentation and
uncontrolled erosion have been associated with con-
struction and mining. Finally, high fecal coliform
loadings and reduced dissolved oxygen levels in
water have been caused by runoff from urban and
rural communities.
Statewide Activities
Nonpoint source pollution programs in Puerto Rico
in 1989 continued a management program begun in
earlier years as a result of recommendations made
in the 1979 report, 208 Islandwide Project; A Water
Quality Management Plan for the Island of Puerto
Rico, Various demonstration/planning projects have
been developed to address nonpoint source pollution
problems. These projects have concentrated on two
principal watersheds (Rio Grade de Loiza and Rio
La Plata) and the north coast limestone area, the
island's major aquifer zone. The major programs
are:
¦ Agricultural Runoff and Waste Control; lb
deal with agricultural runoff, Puerto Rico's En-
vironmental Quality Board implemented an
islandwide animal waste control program in
the early 1980s. The program requires the uti-
lization of conventional BMPs on poultry, hog,
and dairy farms. In 1987, federal non-construc-
tion grant funds were used to strengthen the
territorial effort by developing a watershed-
specific BMP program for animal waste con-
trol.
¦ Ground-water Quality Management and
Protection Strategy: The Ground-water
Quality Management and Protection Strategy
was begun in 1987 to protect ground-water re-
sources from contamination. As one of the cur-
rent initiatives in this program, the
Environmental Quality Board is preparing a
Wellhead Protection Program that will estab-
lish procedures to protect individual wells
from surrounding sources of contamination.
¦ Sediment and Erosion Control: The Envi-
ronmental Quality Board has administered an
islandwide Sediment and Erosion Control Pro-
gram since 1984 to control pollution problems
such as sedimentation resulting from con-
struction and mining.
¦ Urban Runoff: Urban runoff has not been ex-
tensively addressed in Puerto Rico because
the environmental impact from the urban
coastal centers such as San Juan, Ponce, May-
agues, and Arecibo has been considered sec-
ondary to pollution from other sources.
Environmental Quality Board efforts to con-
trol urban runoff have been concentrated in
the San Juan metropolitan area, specifically
in those areas affecting the beach front and
the Martin Pena Channel.
Funding Summary
The Environmental Quality Board received approxi-
mately $450,560 of 205(j)(5) funds from EPA. Of
that amount, $151,000 (FY 1987 funds) was used to
develop the nonpoint source assessment report and
management program. The remaining $299,560 (FY
1988 funds) will be used to develop nonpoint source
pollution control activities.
The Environmental Quality Board also received
a $95,946 EPA grant, matched with 30 percent non-
federal monies, for Phase I of the Lake LaPlata
Clean Lakes Project. In addition, $375,000 was
granted for Phase II of the project with the Environ-
mental Quality Board providing a 50 percent match.
58
-------
XV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS
— REGION II
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
The U.S. Virgin Islands has recently conducted a
number of studies designed to assess impacts on
water quality and develop nonpoint source pollution
controls in the following areas:
¦ reducing sediment from construction sit®;
and
¦ reducing the effects of sediment on reef
development.
These studies provided much data for the non-
point source assessment report and management
program.
Statewide Activities
Several current and projected initiatives are:
¦ Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessments;
Further nonpoint source' assessments will be
conducted to update the list of waterbodies im-
pacted by nonpoint source pollution and to re-
vise the list of BMPs based on their
effectiveness in controlling nonpoint source pol-
lution.
¦ Soil Conservation: Through a Memorandum
of Understanding with the U.S. Virgin Islands
Soil Conservation District, SCS provides tech-
nical assistance to landowners and land users
who are district cooperators. SCS has trained
professional personnel in all areas of soil and
water conservation and also developed the En-
vironmental Protection Handbook, used for
BMPs in earth movement activities,
¦ Technical Assistance: SCS, ASCS, and the
Cooperative Extension Service are among the
USDA agencies that are providing technical
help to individuals, groups, and units of gov-
ernment involved in soil, water, plants, and re-
lated resources management.
Funding Summary
To date, no 205(j>(5) funds have been awarded to the
U.S. Virgin Islands. However, extensive technical
assistance has been provided by the regional office
in the development of the nonpoint source assess-
ment report.
59
-------
-------
REGION III
Region III approved all state assessments
and fully or partially approved all manage-
ment programs by January 1990. It deter-
mined that agriculture, silviculture, mining, and
urban runoff are all major contributors to the
Region's nonpoint source pollution problems.
The Region (Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Vir-
ginia) has made a major commitment to reduce nu-
trients in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and
directs a large proportion of its resources toward
meeting that commitment.
Regional Highlight
A major source of nonpoint source pollution of
ground and surface waters in Delaware is runoff
from poultry operations. The Region has cooperated
with Delaware to develop a "self-contained" system
in which nutrients generated by the poultry indus-
try are recycled.
Dead poultry is a rn^jor pollutant in Delaware,
but the birds can be composted into an environmen-
tally safe fertilizer. In addition, the industry gener-
ates approximately 300,000 tons of poultry manure
with an estimated fertilizer value of $10 million.
The Region provided cost-sharing funds to help the
state develop and implement a poultry waste re-
source management system. The funds were used to
develop waste storage structures, waste treatment
lagoons, dead bird disposal systems, and conserva-
tion tillage.
DELAWARE
Overview
Delaware made a commitment to control nonpoint
sources before the passage of section 319. The state
began nonpoint source control initiatives under sec-
tion 208, the Delaware Conservation District pro-
grams, and the state Coastal Zone Management
Program; now Delaware has a comprehensive non-
point source management program built on both
government and private activities. The Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Conserva-
PA.
Philadelphia
MD.
District of
Columbia
W.VA.
VA.
• Regional Office
tion (DNREC) Division of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion and Delaware's Conservation Districts are the
lead agencies for nonpoint source pollution control
involving agriculture, woodlands, urban areas, and
construction projects.
Statewide Activities
Delaware was the first state to have its manage-
ment program and assessment report approved by
EPA, It made significant progress in implementa-
tion during FY 1990.
¦ Agriculture: Animal wastes are a major
source of nonpoint source pollution in Dela-
ware. The state completed guidelines for land
disposal in agricultural settings, educated
more than 250 farmers on manure manage-
ment, and provided financial assistance for
manure testing and construction of animal
waste storage structures. State and local
agencies are cooperating on a demonstration
project to compost dead chickens.
61
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Delaware Gov. Castle (left) and Agriculture Secretary William B. Chandler, Jr. watch H. Edward Dutton, Jr., test
the temperature on his chicken compost. Photo by Susan L. Gregg of News Journal.
¦ Construction: The state published an Ero-
sion and Sediment Control Handbook to ad-
dress construction activities. Highway
personnel, engineers, contractors, and local of-
ficials will be trained on the design of erosion
and sediment control plans.
¦ Urban Runoff: Delaware is working to estab-
lish state authority for storm water manage-
ment. In addition, the state is developing a
training program on BMPs for storm water
management.
Watershed Activities
¦ Nanticoke River: This project involves a
comprehensive poultry manure management
program and includes evaluation as well as
nonpoint source reduction activities. The proj-
ect established research plots in which poultry
manure was applied at varying rates. Soil and
plant samples provided the means to evaluate
nutrient uptake. The Sussex Conservation
District contributed cost-sharing funds to con-
struct two poultry manure storage structures.
A preliminary biological sampling was con-
ducted in the watershed in the spring of 1989.
The state designated the site a demonstration
project and included it in the statewide educa-
tion and information activities.
¦ Murderkill River Basin: This project was
designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution
from erosion. Project sponsors and partici-
pants implemented BMPs for grassed water-
ways, cropland terraces, and impounded
ponds. As a result of BMP implementation,
the average annual soil loss was reduced by
490 tons.
The project includes an Integrated Pesticide
Management Program, managed jointly with
62
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS — REGION III
the Cooperative Extension Service. In addi-
tion, the project includes an in-stream biologi-
cal monitoring program. The state is preparing
an education program for rural homeowners
regarding the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and
on-site wastewater systems; it will explain the
necessary procedures for minimizing nonpoint
source pollution. Efforts are being made to co-
ordinate state nonpoint source pollution activi-
ties with the state Coastal Zone Management
Program's Murderkill River corridor project.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Urban runoff is the primary source of nonpoint
source pollution in the District of Columbia. All of
the District's waters are affected by pollution from
new construction, combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
land disposal of wastes, and surface runoff. Control
of nonpoint source pollution within the District has
fallen into two categories;
¦ The promulgation of BMPs for new
construction projects regulated by the
Storm Water Management Program, and
¦ The CSO Abatement Program undertaken
by the Department of Public Works.
In addition, a number of state and local control
programs add to the District's nonpoint source con-
trol activities. Among them are the Chesapeake Bay
Plan and the Anacostia River Restoration Strategy.
Districtwide Activities
¦ Education: The District maintains an ongo-
ing effort to educate the public about its role in
controlling nonpoint source pollution. For ex-
ample, the District is preparing a storm water
management brochure to educate citizens on
BMPs. District staff are beginning to work
with teachers to help them integrate environ-
mental science into the curriculum and to as-
sist in the development of outdoor classrooms.
¦ Urban Runoff: District regulations require
developers to adopt BMPs to control storm
water runoff from their projects and maintain
nonpoint source pollution levels equivalent to
or less than pre-development runoff levels. De-
velopers must apply for permits, submit a
storm water management plan, allow site in-
spections, and comply with erosion and sedi-
ment control regulations.
Erosion and sediment control regulations
have been in place since 1977, and the District
updates them as necessary to ensure compli-
ance, Approximately 1,200 new projects for
erosion control and 110 storm water plans
were approved in FY 1989. Five waivers were
granted to developers. It is anticipated that by
the end of 1989, 200 BMPs for storm water
management will be in use at new construction
sites.
By January 1990, the District will have
hired and trained new staff to implement and
enforce nonpoint source controls. It had al-
ready hired staff for nonpoint source pollution
monitoring and to monitor erosion control pro-
jects for the Storm Water Management Pro-
gram. The District will continue to monitor
nonpoint source pollution from various land
use activities and anticipates that monitoring
will be completed by the end of 1991. Once in
place, storm water control BMPs will be moni-
tored for efficiency in removing pollutants. In-
formation from these monitoring efforts will be
used to model pollutant loads.
The District will continue street sweeping,
catch basin cleaning, and water quality inlet
cleaning to reduce pollutants in surface runoff.
Watershed Activities
A number of rehabilitation projects are underway to
reduce adverse effects of surface runoff on water
quality. The Department of Public Works (DPW), Of-
fice of Planning, and the National Park Service are
collaborating on a project to rehabilitate Kenilworth
Marsh. The project involves modifying and improv-
ing degraded wetland along the Anacostia River, in-
cluding creating a sedimentation forebay to protect
the marsh against sediment loadings.
The DPW contracted with the University of
Maryland's Born Point Lab to create tidal marshes
in the District. Two sites were planted in May 1989
— one in Anacostia, where the plantings have suc-
cessfully taken hold, and the other in Oxon Run,
where the vegetation has not fared as well.
Evaluation of these new marshes will continue
through 1990. The District expects to complete its
assessment of the plants' heavy metal uptake by
1992.
The District has made some progress in meeting
management program milestones. By end of 1989,
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments will have performed a survey of retrofit sites
and others for habitat improvement. By September
1989, the soil and water conservation district, the
District's Soil Resources Branch, and USDA-SCS
will have completed four streambank stabilization
63
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
projects. Three of these projects are along Watts
Branch and already have been finished. By 1991,
sub-watershed action plans for Watts Branch and
Sickey Run will be completed.
During FY 1989 the District cleared and shaped
a severely eroded hillside at the Phelps Center. It ex-
pects to finish the project by March 1992. By end of
1989, the District will specify an end-of-pipe BMP for
the River Terrace area. Planning and design have
been completed.
Water Quality Improvements
No significant improvements in water quality can
be reported to date, in part because of heavy rains
and high levels of sedimentation and other runoff in
1989.
Further Actions Needed
¦ Water Quality Standards: Updated water
quality standards are needed for better non-
point source control. The District's review of
water quality standards was expected to be
published in late 1989. Data for nonpoint
source pollution load calculations will be col-
lected in the storm water monitoring program
in FY 1990; technical assistance is needed to
determine nonpoint source pollution loads. In
addition, more staff are needed to enforce
storm water management and erosion control
regulations.
¦ Federal Consistency: The District has had
problems ensuring that federal agency actions
are consistent with the District's nonpoint
source pollution management program,
largely because military bases occupy large
plots of land along the District's waterfront.
These bases occupy enough land to use non-
point source controls, but none have been im-
plemented. For example, Boiling Air Force
Base removed much of its wooded buffer when
it installed new storm drains that flow directly
into the Potomac River. No storm water plan
for the new drains was submitted to the Dis-
trict.
New federal buildings do not have to comply
with District building regulations. Hence,
there is no review process for compliance with
storm water and erosion control regulations.
Because 30 percent of the District is federally
owned, federal compliance with these regula-
tions is essential to reduce nonpoint source
loads. The building code should be revised to
include federal buildings.
Funding Summary
In FY 1988, the District spent $23,197 of its
205(j)(5) grant on the purchase of equipment for
nonpoint source pollution monitoring.
The District's Soil Resources Branch spent
$398,960 of its Chesapeake Bay Program Grant for
the implementation and enforcement of the storm
water management program.
MARYLAND
Maryland's nonpoint source program relies on a
number of existing state programs that promote
nonpoint source pollution control both directly and
indirectly. However, the development of the section
319 assessment and management program has al-
lowed the state to better coordinate these activities.
State programs for agricultural pollution control,
sediment control, urban storm water management,
shellfish certification, abandoned surface mine rec-
lamation, structural and nonstructural shore ero-
sion control, and State Highway Administration
pollution control all provide significant nonpoint
source control benefits.
¦ Chesapeake Bay Critical Area: Maryland
participates in the Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment and has adopted the Agreement's goal to
reduce phosphorus and nitrogen loading to the
Bay by 40 percent. In addition, a state com-
mission oversees the locally implemented
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program. The
goals of this program are (1) to reduce non-
point source pollutant loads entering the Bay,
and (2) to preserve natural habitat near the
Bay by establishing specific land use policies
and development criteria. The program re-
quires a minimum 1,000-foot-wide restricted
area along the Bay shoreline and adjacent to
all Maryland tributaries up to the head of the
tide.
This program will have important nonpoint
source control implications for the Bay and its
major tributaries. It restricts the distribution
and density of future development in much of
this critical area and places new conditions on
storm water management, farming, forestry,
mining, and other activities in the Critical
Area. By the end of 1988, all of the local gov-
ernments had adopted Critical Area programs;
the Critical Area Commission had approved 43
and 17 were awaiting approval.
64
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS — REGION III
Statewide Activities
¦ Shore Erosion Prevention Program:
Maryland has two programs that provide fi-
nancial and technical assistance to property
owners and local governments for the develop-
ment of measures (structural and nonstructu-
ral) to prevent shore erosion. In 1989, the
state designed 19 structural projects and con-
structed 27. (The management program mile-
stones called for the design and construction of
72 projects.) In addition, 160 technical assis-
tance visits were made. The state awarded 34
grants to property owners for nonstructural
control to cover 14,172 feet of shoreline. This
far exceeded the management program goal of
15 grants. During this same period, 57 pro-
jects covering 32,195 feet of shoreline were
completed.
¦ Sediment and Erosion Control: The state
reviewed 660 state and federal projects for
consistency with the state's erosion and sedi-
ment control program. It conducted 11,794 in-
spections, issued 367 violation notices, and
provided technical assistance to 450 individu-
als. The State Highway Administration has
also actively participated in the Sediment and
Erosion Control Program and trained 60 in-
spectors in 1989.
¦ Storm Water Management: Maryland's
storm water management law requires that a
person submit a storm water management
plan before beginning any land development.
Hie agency provided technical assistance
under this program and reviewed 670 plans.
In addition, the state conducted research on
the use of marshes for storm water manage-
ment and monitored three infiltration BMPs
for effectiveness in reducing nonpoint source
pollution.
¦ Agriculture: Maryland's Agriculture Cost-
share Program provides matching funds to ini-
tiate BMPs for managing soil loss, nutrient
loads, or agricultural chemical loads and mini-
mize the movement of these pollutants into
state surface waters. In 1989, the state pro-
vided assistance on 726 projects. The Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and
the Environment have joint authority to pro-
mulgate regulations for the design, construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of
agricultural drainage projects to control non-
point source pollution. Non-compliance with
the regulations can result in administrative
orders, civil actions for damages, or i injunctive
relief. The state investigated 50 complaints in
1989.
PENNSYLVANIA
Statewide Activities
¦ Manure Management Program; This pro-
gram addresses the proper handling and stor-
age of the large quantity of animal wastes
generated by Pennsylvania's agricultural op-
erations. The program developed the Manure
Manual, a series of publications providing
technical guidance on accepted BMPs for ma-
nure handling and storage. The state has
printed over 46,000 copies and made them
available to farmers across the Common-
wealth.
Pennsylvania conducted a trial program for
inspecting farms in one south central region of
the state in 1989, visiting 58 farms to deter-
mine whether their manure handling practices
were in accord with the Manure Manual, Al-
though the final report has not yet been pre-
pared, the preliminaiy findings indicate few
inconsistencies with the recommended practi-
ces. Moreover, Pennsylvania investigated over
100 complaints involving agricultural opera-
tions in 1989.
¦ Integrated Pest Management (IPM): The
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
began this program in 1989, initially focusing
on education. The department prepared a
slide show on IPM and distributed 20 copies to
its regional offices and cooperating agencies
for public viewing. The department is also de-
veloping an urban IPM exhibit.
¦ Erosion and Sediment Control Program:
Under this program, state personnel reviewed
more than 2,380 Erosion and Sediment Pollu-
tion Control Plans and conducted more than
1,300 site inspections (based on 66 percent of
the county conservation districts reporting).
The Department of Environmental Resources'
(DER) Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation
in FY 1989 handled 74 enforcement actions,
which resulted in the collection of $139,850 in
civil penalties. The county conservation dis-
tricts dealt with an additional 39 actions re-
sulting in $64,750 in civil penalties.
65
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Runoff from this scene will carry sediment and nutrients to adjacent waters.
¦ Abandoned Coal Mines: SCS assists land-
owners in reclaiming abandoned coal mines
and land under the Rural Abandoned Mine
Program (RAMP). The state has 240,000 acres
of abandoned land once mined for coal, the
greatest number of any state in the nation. Al-
though RAMP has focused on eliminating
health and safety hazards, RAMP projects (as
of December 31, 1988) improved water quality
in 97 miles of streams and 9,725 acres of
lakes.
¦ Urban Runoff: Pennsylvania's Storm Water
Management Act addresses urban runoff by
requiring counties to prepare watershed storm
water management plans. Municipalities
adopt and implement these plans through
local ordinances. In FY 1989, the DER re-
viewed 15 watershed plans, three of which
have been fully approved. The department an-
ticipates reviewing 18 additional plans and
approving six more in FY 1990. To date, 53
municipalities are authorized to enact or have
enacted ordinances consistent with approved
watershed plans. The department is project-
ing that 50 additional municipalities will
enact ordinances in FY 1990.
Watershed Activities
¦ Chesapeake Bay: Pennsylvania has partici-
pated in a number of activities to meet the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement goal to reduce nu-
trients in runoff from Chesapeake Bay water-
sheds by 40 percent. The Pennsylvania Chesa-
peake Bay Program provided cost sharing to
implement BMPs on farms through March 31,
1989. The total cost for implementing the
BMPs exceeded $6 million. The BMPs re-
sulted in:
~ reducing the annual nutrient load by
more than 761,000 pounds of nitrogen
and 609,000 pounds of phosphorus (as of
March 31, 1989), and
~ preventing more than 32,000 tons of
sediment from entering Pennsylvania
streams annually.
Five new Bureau of Soil and Water Conser-
vation employees have been assigned to the
Chesapeake Bay Program, including three nu-
trient management specialists, an engineer,
and an enforcement specialist for the Erosion
and Sediment Pollution Control Program, The
following are highlights of the Chesapeake
Bay Program educational activities:
~ The Pennsylvania Office of the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation produced a
storm water management BMP manual
for local officials and hired a full-time
information specialist.
~ The Bureau of Soil and Water
Conserva-tion's mobile nutrient
laboratory publicized the importance of
soil, water, and manure tests in the
development of nutrient management
66
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS
— REGION UI
programs at 15 different agricultural
events.
~ The Chesapeake Bay Foundation Office
developed technical guidance to help
estimate nutrient loads from manure
spread on fields that reach streams and
ground water (for different times of the
year and under various weather
conditions). They also developed a
guidance manual on animal and manure
handling systems for individual farm
operations.
~ The Office distributed instructional
materials to teachers throughout
Pennsylvania that included information
on the Chesapeake Bay Program and on a
soils and land use curriculum.
¦ Conestoga Headwaters: The Conestoga
Headwaters Project is part of the Rural Clean
Water Program (RCWP). The project devel-
oped nutrient management plans that were
implemented on 92 farms last year. Additional
funds were provided for in-depth monitoring of
the effectiveness of land use BMPs. The proj-
ect effected a reduction of nitrogen use by
156,445 pounds and phosphorus use by 82,261
pounds on the 6,028 acres subject to manage-
ment plans. That is equivalent to $63,000
worth of chemical fertilizer.
The number of participating farms in the
watershed has increased to 270, covering some
18,960 acres. This translates into a total an-
nual savings of 542,125 pounds of nitrogen,
310,116 pounds of phosphate, and 260,369
pounds of potash. The equivalent fertilizer
value of these savings is $267,621 per year.
¦ Lake Nockamixon: Pennsylvania developed
a four-year plan to reduce phosphorus, nitro-
gen, and suspended solids in Lake
Nockamixon; the plan is now in its final year.
The majority of the plan's BMPs are for ma-
nure management, soil testing for nutrients,
and grass waterway diversions to prevent di-
rect runoff to surface waters. High priority
areas were targeted for conservation plan de-
velopment and implementation, and 22 coop-
erators were identified. Six conservation plans
have been completed and are being imple-
mented. They have resulted in a soil savings of
over 21,800 tons per year.
¦ Red Clay Creek: Red Clay Creek is a small
watershed in eastern Pennsylvania that
drains into Delaware. The watershed is con-
taminated by a variety of pollutants, including
pesticides and other toxic substances from
conventional agricultural operations and
mushroom growing operations. U.S. EPA,
Pennsylvania DER, and the Delaware Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Environmen-
tal Conservation developed a Tbxic Substances
Control Action Plan to address the problem,
and Pennsylvania hired a Red Clay Creek
Project Coordinator. The coordinator was in-
strumental in securing a grant from the EPA
Delaware Estuary Program that will be used
to develop and implement BMPs for the Red
Clay Creek Basin over the next two years.
Water Quality Improvements
Although specific water quality improvements have
not been reported, nonpoint source pollutant load-
ings have been reduced in a number of the water-
shed projects described.
Funding Summary
Pennsylvania received a 205(j)(5) grant for $458,000
on June 22, 1988. The grant covered seven assess-
ment and development tasks, as follows:
¦ $93 ,000 for a Department of Environmental
Resources assessment report and
management program development and
administration;
¦ $140,500 for updating the state's nonpoint
source assessment database;
¦ $83,400 for a contract to revise the Penn
State Runoff Model to include water quality
parameters;
¦ $45,000 for employing a coordinator to
oversee nonpoint source assessment and
implementation activities in the Red Clay
Creek Watershed;
¦ $83,400 for a statewide evaluation of
agricultural nonpoint source pollution; and
¦ $12,700 for updating the Ground-water
System Inventory throughout the state.
The Commonwealth anticipates providing over
a quarter of a million dollars to match implementa-
tion funds. Implementation activities include the
construction of a wetland to demonstrate its effec-
tiveness in treating acid mine drainage and imple-
mentation of BMPs to reduce nutrient, sediment,
and toxic loads in two priority watersheds.
67
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
VIRGINIA
The Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion (DSWC) has responsibility for implementing a
statewide nonpoint source pollution management
program and for coordinating with other agencies
and individuals. The State Water Control Board
(SWCB) retains responsibility for establishing
water quality standards for surface and ground
water and for monitoring water quality,. The DSWC
works closely with the SWCB to ensure that non-
point source control programs are consistent with
the state's water quality standards.
Statewide Activities
A number of projects address commitments under
the 198? Chesapeake Bay agreement, including the
goal to reduce nonpoint source loading to the bay by
40 percent by the year 2000.
¦ Agriculture: Virginia's nonpoint source pol-
lution program made progress in 1989 ad-
dressing agricultural nonpoint source
pollution, including:
~ Passing the 1989 Virginia Pesticide Control
Act. The law seeks to improve pesticide
management through education and stricter
registration and licensing programs for
those involved in pesticide labeling, sales,
! and application. The 1989 Act created the
Virginia Pesticide Control Board and pro-
vided staff support within the Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Reg-
ulations are currently being promulgated to
implement provisions of the act,
~ Providing (through DSWC) almost $2 mil-
lion in cost-sharing funds to implement agri-
cultural BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay basin
and in other state watersheds. In addition to
the state cost-share program, the division
initiated a Nutrient Management Program
in 1989, The program is implemented by 11
nutrient managers located in regional (field)
officesl Following personnel training and
program development, 124 nutrient man-
agement plans were developed in 1989 for
over 36,000 acres. The nonpoint source pol-
lution management program also estab-
lished a number of on-farm projects to
demonstrate optimum nutrient manage-
ment. Technical assistance and nutrient
management training were also provided
through the program.
¦ Forestry: State activities to address nonpoint
source runoff from forestry activities included:
~ Developing a reporting system linking BMP
installation to measures of BMP effective-
ness. The information will be combined with
a computer model to provide more accurate
estimates of forestry nonpoint source pollu-
tion trends.
~ Producing and distributing an updated For-
estry BMP Handbook.
~ Creating a procedure to register citizen com-
plaints regarding Department of Forestry
activities. Citizen complaints are registered
and investigated on-site by the Department
of Forestry within 24 hours of the complaint.
Recommendations for correcting the prob-
lem are given to the landowner, logger, tim-
ber buyer, or other party responsible for the
problem. Follow-up inspections are made
and the complainant is notified of remedial
actions. Twenty-five complaints were regis-
tered and investigated during 1989.
~ Monitoring the effectiveness of forestry
BMPs in both the Jefferson and George
Washington National Forests.
~ Inspecting 1,049 tracts of land from January
to July 1989 to evaluate compliance with
forestry BMPs. Inspection results suggest
that over 75 percent of the forest tracts in-
spected were in compliance with BMPs.
However, the inspection also indicated
that, in the remaining tracts, BMP devices
were improperly located, installed, or main-
tained, To encourage compliance with for-
estry BMPs, the party responsible for the
tract was notified of remedial measures nec-
essary to bring the tract into compliance.
The Department of Forestry cautioned
that this information is not indicative of the
effectiveness of BMPs in reducing nonpoint
source pollution. The department acknowl-
edges that inspection data represent the
subjective judgment of the inspecting for-
ester and do not involve monitoring or di-
rect evaluation of water quality relative to
the logged area and installed BMPs. Quan-
titative monitoring, water quality analysis,
and subsequent modeling research will
begin in 1990 to better evaluate the effec-
tiveness of BMP implementation.
68
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS — REGION 111
¦ Urban and Construction Runoff; In 1989,
state activities addressing these sources in-
cluded:
~ Revising the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook and the Urban BMP
Handbook. These documents will be com-
bined in a single Urban Conservation Hand-
book scheduled for completion in 1990.
~ Providing technical assistance through
DSWC presentation of Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control seminars. Four storm water
management seminars are planned for FY
1990.
~ Preparing and presenting "problem solving
workshops" for the Virginia Department of
Transportation inspectors and contractors.
VDOT also conducted two erosion control
programs for 204 new inspectors.
~ The state passed a comprehensive storm
water management law in 1989. Regula-
tions are being developed. The Storm Water
Management Act separates storm water
management from the existing Erosion and
Sediment Control Regulations. The act au-
thorizes localities to develop and implement
a storm water management program that
can require;
• separate storm water management plans
for new development,
• water quality monitoring,
• regional storm water planning,
* integration with existing, related
programs (flood control, erosion and
sediment control, etc.),
* minimum design criteria, and
* maintenance of storm water
management facilities.
In addition, any state funded project must
meet state storm water management require-
ments.
~ DSWC hired 11 new field personnel and two
trainers to implement the state Erosion and
Sediment Control Law. Six new employees
will be hired in FY 1990 to assist in the
storm water management program,
~ The DSWC reviewed 49 projects for control-
ling runoff and determined that 70 percent
demonstrated effective mitigation of soil loss
and compliance with the Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Law.
~ The Council on the Environment provided
funds to three local agencies to develop
model urban nonpoint source management
programs, including programs for storm
water management, urban nonpoint source
management, and placement of water qual-
ity protection demonstration projects.
Water Quality Improvements
To meet the Chesapeake Bay Agreement goal of re-
ducing total nonpoint source loadings by 40 percent,
Virginia is placing a new emphasis on nonpoint
source loads from non-agricultural sources such as
urban runoff, silviculture, and atmospheric depos-
its. The state has already reduced nitrogen and
phosphorus levels from all sources by 5.5 percent
and 5.4 percent, respectively.
WEST VIRGINIA
The West Virginia Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) and the West Virginia Soil Conserva-
tion Committee signed an updated memorandum of
understanding to strengthen the relationship be-
tween these two agencies. The West Virginia Soil
Conservation Committee is the lead agency for im-
plementing the agriculture and construction por-
tions of the state nonpoint source management
program.
Statewide Activities
¦ Construction; West Virginia developed a
demonstration site on the grounds of the
Cedar Lakes Environmental Training Center
near Ripley, for construction BMPs and ero-
sion control. The project is a joint effort be-
tween industry, labor, and government.
The West Virginia Department of Highways
(DOH), the lead agency for the highway con-
struction portion of the construction manage-
ment program, developed a generic sediment
control plan for small bridge replacement pro-
jects. In addition, the DOH is updating its
maintenance manual and developing an envi-
ronmental education program for DOH person-
nel to reflect current technology for nonpoint
69
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
source management, DOH will offer the educa-
tion program on a trial basis in one DOH dis-
trict and, if successful, expand it to include the
entire state.
The state is working with the New River
Parkway Authority to develop land use regula-
tions and ensure that the authority's highway
development activities are in compliance with
nonpoint source construction management
programs,
¦ Silviculture: The state launched a new silvi-
cultural education program to educate forest
landowners on the use of forestry BMPs. The
program discusses why BMPs are needed, how
they benefit the landowner, and how to ensure
that they are used in logging operations on
privately owned land. The state developed, or
specifically revised, a variety of educational
materials for use with this program.
Watershed Activities
The U.S. Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation
Service, and the West Virginia DNR conducted a co-
operative study to determine the effects of sediment
control measures on soil erosion and sediment
transport in areas of intensive oil and gas develop-
ment in Ritchie County.
USGS and the West Virginia DNR completed a
cooperative study to determine the origin and mag-
nitude of suspended sediments in the Elk River
basin. Both reports are expected to be approved and
published in the near future.
The state also provided technical assistance to
the acid mine drainage water quality improvement
project for Big Sandy Creek in Preston County. The
state prepared a preliminary feasibility report for
the Webster Gob project site incorporating the
abatement techniques suggested in the nonpoint
source mining management program, lb neutralize
the acid mine drainage from the area, water dis-
charged from three deep mine portals flows into an
alkaline leach bed before leaving the project site.
Monitoring shows a great improvement in the dis-
charge leaving the alkaline leach bed, with the pH
level changing from 3.2 to 7.2. The DNR also re-
viewed 32 environmental assessments for aban-
doned mine land projects aa part of NEPA (National
Environmental Protection Act) requirements. Prob-
lems were identified and resolved in 10 of the pro-
jects.
70
-------
REGION IV
All Region IV states (Alabama, Florida, Geor-
gia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Tennessee) have sub-
mitted final nonpoint source assessment reports
and management programs.
Program development and implementation are
proceeding, with improved communication evident
among multi-level public agencies, landowners, and
industry. So is the strong public support for early
demonstration projects. It is apparent that with the
encouragement of EPA and state leadership, the
southeastern United States can address its nonpoint
source problems, and produce substantial environ-
mental improvements.
Region TV's nonpoint source pollution is attrib-
utable primarily to agriculture. Because of the ex-
tensive dairy, chicken, and hog production in this
Region, animal waste poses a significant manage-
ment problem; it is believed to be a principal source
of fecal coliform and nutrient contamination of the
Region's waters. Urban runoff, construction, mining,
and silviculture operations also contribute to non-
point source pollution.
During FY 1989, the Region IV Steering Com-
mittee approved and adopted
¦ The long-range plan of the Land and Water
201 Program, which identifies the Region's
resource management needs and numerical
goals to be accomplished by the year 2000,
and
¦ An implementation strategy for the
participating agencies in cooperation with
private land users and the public.
Region IV also has established an Agricultural
Policy Committee composed of regional staff from
the following areas; nonpoint source, pesticides,
ground water, wetlands/estuarine, nonpoint source,
and other programs that overlap in the rural envi-
ronment. The committee hosted the first USDA-
EPA forum on rural environmental issues and has
initiated an ambitious agenda for future actions
aimed at increasing communication and responsive-
ness within the Region on agricultural/rural envi-
ronmental matters.
A number of multi-level, multi-agency, and
landowner demonstration projects are underway,
most initiated by EPA or SCS. Among the most nota-
ble are:
KY,
N.C.
TENN.
Atlanta •
S.C.
MISS.
GA.
ALA.
• Regional Office
¦ Mississippi Delta erosion prevention proj-
ect, sponsored by EPA through an interagency
agreement with SCS.
¦ Sand Mountain-Lake Guntersville pro-
ject, which deals with poultry wastes and sep-
tic problems associated with a high density
rural population, sponsored by the Land and
Water 201 agencies.
¦ Georgia dairy waste management project,
sponsored by both EPA and SCS, and involving
federal, state and local agencies.
Regional Highlight
Compounding the Region's nonpoint source prob-
lems are unique geological formations such as karst
(sinkhole) topography. In extensive areas of Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, Florida, and parts of Georgia,
ground water is particularly vulnerable to pesticide,
fertilizer and manure runoff from fields, and dis-
charges from failing animal waste lagoons and sep-
tic tanks. These waters are directly exposed to high
concentrations of nitrates, sediment, bacteria, and
71
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
pesticides. Conventional monitoring, waste treat-
ment, cropland BMPs, and other water protection
strategies often are not effective.
lb address issues peculiar to karst topography,
EPA is working with county conservation districts,
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the National Park
Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in a demonstration
project in the karst area surrounding Mammoth
Cave, Kentucky. Sinkholes and intense cropland
and animal/dairy production characterize this five-
county area, which relies on ground water for 75
percent of its drinking water supply. The project will
include monitoring the effects of land use on under-
ground streams, developing land treatments to re-
duce the flow of ground-water pollutants, improving
animal waste facilities, and providing better educa-
tional programs and information management sys-
tems.
ALABAMA
Nonpoint source control activities in Alabama in-
clude the application of BMPs to control sediment
and properly manage animal waste and the educa-
tion of users on the proper use and application of ag-
ricultural chemicals. Most of these activities occur
under existing programs.
Statewide Activities
¦ Resource Extraction; Nonpoint source pol-
lution resulting from resource extraction is
controlled through existing programs such as
permitting, inspection, enforcement, and rec-
lamation. These programs are designed to re-
duce the effects on waterbodies of sediments,
acidity/alkalinity, and metals generated by
mining.
Eighteen reclamation projects were com-
pleted in FY 1989 under the Abandoned Mine
Land Reclamation Program managed by the
State Department of Industrial Relations. Ef-
forts to control nonpoint source impacts from
eoalbed methane exploration and recovery dra-
matically increased in FY 1989. Activities in-
cluded not only inspection and enforcement
but also increased educational efforts.
¦ Silviculture: Implementation activities also
are targeted at silviculture, with special em-
phases on inspection, enforcement, and educa-
tion on BMPs. Evaluation and revision of
silvicultural BMPs began in 1989 with guid-
ance documents available in mid-FY 1990.
¦ Urban Runoff and Construction: Activities
targeting these types of nonpoint sources have
been limited to inspection and enforcement
and the adoption of construction and land de-
velopment ordinances by a few municipal-
ities. Recent increases in the number of
complaints about construction site runoff have
prompted more state inspection and enforce-
ment. The State Department of Environmen-
tal Management will encourage the adoption
and enforcement of erosion control ordinances
by more municipalities.
Watershed Activities
As with statewide activities, specific watershed ef-
forts have been somewhat limited to those under-
taken by existing programs. Watershed projects
currently underway in Alabama are Sand Moun-
tain-Lake Guntersville, Bear Creek, Blue Creek, Big
Prairie Creek, Upper Black Warrior Water Quality
Project, Chewacla Creek, Flat Creek, Herrin Creek,
and Blue Springs Creek.
TVA's Bear Creek watershed project involves
designing and funding BMPs to control animal
wastes in the watershed. Voluntary participation by
landowners in the watershed has been high and a
number of animal waste management systems were
installed under the cost-sharing program in 1989.
TVA and SCS also initiated a farmer-related educa-
tion program in the watershed to ensure that in-
stalled BMPs were properly operated and
maintained. Water quality monitoring by TVA indi-
cates a significant reduction in bacterial contamina-
tion since the project began. Because of the
improvement in water quality, the agencies involved
re-opened the floatway for recreational use in 1990.
TVA will continue to monitor water quality to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the BMPs.
Further Actions
Because Alabama's management program was ap-
proved only recently, progress in meeting nonpoint
source control goals has been limited. However, ef-
forts are underway to evaluate agricultural, re-
source extraction, and silvicultural BMPs and to
implement revised BMPs to protect surface and
ground water. Progress has also been made in as-
sessing agricultural pesticides in ground water. In-
creased inspection and enforcement are resulting in
greater utilization of BMPs by the eoalbed methane
industry.
72
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IV
The Bear Creek floatery during low water. Photo by Dick Green, Tennessee Valley Authority.
In many cases, improvements in water quality
have yet to be realized or documented. However, re-
ductions in bacterial loadings in the Bear Creek wa-
tershed suggest that efforts to control nonpoint
source pollutants may be improving water quality.
In past years, most water quality data were
generated in response to point source programs and
thus do not reflect nonpoint source impairments. As
part of its nonpoint source program, Alabama has
begun to develop a nonpoint source database to
track improvements in water quality.
Future programs to control nonpoint source pol-
lution should include education as a primary compo-
nent. Public awareness is necessary to change
behavior patterns and actions that contribute to the
nonpoint source pollution problem.
Funding Summary
Grants for nonpoint source program development
and implementation for FY 1989 consisted of
205(j)(5) funds ($104,821), a carryover of unused FY
1988 federal funds ($150,000), and state funds
($125,650).
FLORIDA
Florida's nonpoint source implementation activities
include enforcement of regulations that require
BMPs for erosion and sediment control during and
after construction; enforcement of wetland protec-
tion regulations; public education programs; moni-
toring; BMP evaluation; and providing technical
assistance.
Statewide Activities
¦ SWIM: The state's growth management pro-
gram and the Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) program have greatly ex-
panded awareness of nonpoint source water
quality problems and the implementation of
watershed management strategies. SWIM
plans have been approved for the priority
waterbodies listed in the Florida assessment:
Apalachioola River, Apalachicola Bay, Lake
Jackson, Deerpoint Lake, Penaacola Bay,
Upper and Lower Suwanne River, Santa Fe
River, Steinhatchee River, Alligator Lake, Fall-
ing Creek, Tampa Bay, Rainbow River, Banana
Lake, Crystal River/Kings River Lagoon, Lake
73
-------
Managing S'onpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Apopka, Upper Oklawaha River, Lake Okee-
chobee/ Kissimmee River, and Biscavne Bay.
¦ Urban Runoff: Florida has undertaken sev-
eral initiatives to address storm water runoff.
The state worked with EPA to refine the draft
NPDES storm water regulation published in
December 1988. In addition, comprehensive
storm water management legislation devel-
oped by the state government passed the 1989
Florida Legislature. The legislation integrates
the storm water regulatory program, the
SWIM program, and the growth management
program into a comprehensive watershed ap-
proach to reducing storm water pollution load-
ings.
To assist with implementation of the legislation,
the state government has provided technical assis-
tance to water management districts, local govern-
ments, and the private sector. In addition, the
department continues to conduct research on the ef-
ficiency of various storm water BMPs.
The state also has helped local governments re-
vise their land development codes to include ordi-
nances that will further reduce nonpoint source
pollution. The state also has recommended that
local governments establish storm water utilities to
provide a dedicated source of revenues for the devel-
opment and implementation of storm water master
plans.
The state began public education efforts in the
late 1970s and has continued these efforts through-
out the 1980s. The most recent example of public ed-
ucation is the distribution of nearly 1,200 copies of
the Florida Development Manual: A Guide to Sound
Land and Water Management to local governments,
state agencies, consulting engineers, planners, and
citizens.
The state is having problems getting the Fed-
eral Highway Administration to recognize the water
quality degradation associated with storm water
runoff from highways. Although the agency provides
funding for implementing BMPs to control erosion
and sedimentation during highway construction, it
does not provide funds for storm water treatment
BMPs required by state regulations and the state
nonpoint source management program.
Funding Summary
The state used FY 1987 205(j)(5) (at 100 percent fed-
eral funding) to conduct the statewide nonpoint
source assessment and to prepare the management
program.
KENTUCKY
Statewide Activities
Kentucky conservation districts are the local imple-
menting agencies for nonpoint source construction
and agriculture programs. Nonpoint source program
staff assisted several conservation districts in pre-
paring proposals for the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service's (ASCS) water quality
special projects, helped three conservation districts
formulate the water quality components of their
long-range plans, and provided an exhibit and edu-
cational materials at the Kentucky Association of
Conservation Districts' annual convention.
The staff also began to expand the Division of
Water's Water Watch program to address the educa-
tional, assessment, and monitoring objectives of the
nonpoint source management programs. The Water
Watch coordinator is training adopt-a-lake (or
stream) groups in developing an awareness of land-
disturbing activities in their watershed.
Disseminating nonpoint source information is a
major focus of the program. Kentucky has developed
a library of nonpoint source materials by cataloging
all documents on a computer. The University of
Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service is evaluat-
ing and updating existing educational materials re-
lated to the control of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution. The Kentucky Division of Conservation
will be working to update existing brochures, slide
shows, and BMP manuals for agriculture and con-
struction.
The Extension Service has conducted the first
phase of a water quality training program for
county extension specialists. The second phase of
training now underway emphasizes reducing water
• pollution arising from agricultural activities.
Nonpoint source staff will continue to assist con-
servation districts in water quality educational ac-
tivities as needed and to work with the Water Watch
coordinator to enhance nonpoint source educational,
assessment, and monitoring activities.
Watershed Activities
Two nonpoint source on-site planning field teams
are responsible for implementing watershed moni-
toring activities. Each team consists of a Division of
Water field team leader with an aquatic ecology
background and a Division of Conservation team
member with an agronomy/agriculture background.
¦ Upper Green River Watershed: The Con-
cerned Citizens of Upper Green River for Bet-
74
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IV
ter Water Quality have raised public con-
sciousness about water quality issues in their
watershed. In association with the Soil Con-
servation Service, this group applied for and
received a federal grant from ASCS for imple-
menting agricultural best management practi-
ces at a 75/25 cost share. The nonpoint source
teams have conducted county-level field recon-
naissance with each SCS district conserva-
tionist to identify possible BMP installation
sites and water quality sampling stations and
verify and update land use/land cover data.
These land use/cover/treatment data included
(but were not limited to) geology, pesticide
usage, number of failing septic systems, and
number of dairies and animal waste facilities
in the watershed. A study plan has been devel-
oped that proposes pre- and post-BMP moni-
toring using a paired watershed approach to
document the long-term effects of agricultural
BMPs • (especially nutrient management
BMPs) on water quality. One set of pre-BMP
low/normal flow condition water samples has
been collected for each station. Biological data
(fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae) also will
be collected at each station to supplement
water chemistry data.
Further actions needed in this watershed
include (1) implementation of physicochemical
and biological pre-BMP data collection, and (2)
evaluation and reporting of pre-BMP data re-
sults.
¦ Mammoth Cave/Karst Area Water Quality
Project: The Division of Water worked with
EPA, the Division of Conservation, the SCS
area conservationists in Bowling Green, and
the Barren County Conservation District to
initiate a long-range water quality project to
protect the cave system in Mammoth Cave
National Park from agricultural and other
sources of nonpoint source pollution. The cave
system, the largest in the world, is threatened
by both point and nonpoint source problems
that threaten to close the caves to the public,
jeopardizing an outstanding natural resource
and a $40 million a year tourist industry.
The project was launched at a meeting of
agencies and universities in September 1989.
Subsequent to the meeting, a locally sponsored
Project Oversight Committee was formed,
which in turn established a Technical Advisory
Committee that has selected a target ground-
water drainage basin for monitoring and BMP
implementation. Activities planned to further
develop the project include:
~ hiring a project coordinator,
~ establishing a water quality monitoring
network,
~ establishing two demonstration farms,
~ targeting funds from a $400,000 USDA
Agricultural Conservation Practices grant
to install agricultural BMPs, and
~ Planning and conducting educational
activities in the ground-water basins
draining into the cave system.
The Division of Water, which is represented
on the Technical Advisory Committee, will as-
sist with planning and monitoring and will ad-
minister the section 319 funds provided for
various phases for the project.
¦ Salt River/Taylorsvilie Reservoir Water-
shed: This project is designed to determine
the legitimate stream uses of the Salt River
system from the Taylorsville Reservoir Dam
upstream. The basin is being adversely af-
fected by excessive nutrient and sediment
loading from a wide variety of activities. State
nonpoint source on-site planning teams com-
piled land use information and other data for
the project.
Further actions needed in this watershed
include:
~ approving a final study plan,
~ implementing the nonpoint source
assessment study, and
~ evaluating and reporting study results.
Progress in Meeting Management
Program Milestones
The actual collection, assessment, evaluation, and
interpretation of both water quality and land-based
data are the responsibility of the nonpoint source
on-site planning field teams. Physical characteris-
tics of the aquatic environment, water chemistry,
aquatic biological community structure, and land
use/treatment activities are different aspects of the
waterbody"s ecosystem that may be monitored. A
multi-faceted monitoring approach is necessary be-
cause of
¦ the mobility of nonpoint source pollutants,
¦ the varying degrees of pollutant toxicity,
¦ the close interrelationship of land-based
activities and nonpoint source pollution, and
¦ the spatial and temporal variabilities that
exist in natural, dynamic ecosystems.
75
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Standard operating procedures specific for non-
point source pollution monitoring activities are being
developed for quality assurance and quality control.
Nonpoint source standard operating procedures will
provide instruction, guidance, and standardization
for study plan development, station location selec-
tion, water quality monitoring, land use/treatment
monitoring, and weather monitoring.
MISSISSIPPI
Statewide Activities
Mississippi's Bureau of Pollution Control (BPC) is
drafting a statewide Erosion and Sediment Control
Law. The law should provide a useful tool to reduce
nonpoint source impacts from construction activi-
ties. A draft is expected to be completed in early FY
1990,
The Mississippi Forestry Commission recently
published a manual detailing silvieultural BMP
guidelines for maintaining and improving water
quality. The commission met with the Mississippi
Forestry Association and Mississippi Cooperative
Extension Service to plan a statewide training pro-
gram for loggers, foresters, and landowners on using
BMPs to control silvieultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
State and federal agencies, together with nu-
merous public and private organizations, are devel-
oping a program to collect and dispose of pesticide
containers. A volunteer pilot program in Washington
County already is underway; if successful, similar
projects will be initiated elsewhere in the state.
Watershed Activities
¦ Yazoo Basin is the site of a U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers/SCS erosion control demonstra-
tion project that will include comprehensive
monitoring and evaluation during and after
project implementation. The purpose of the
project is to reduce flooding, erosion, and sedi-
mentation and to increase public awareness of
nonpoint source pollution,
¦ Tangipahoa River, a watershed targeted for
nonpoint source control by both Louisiana and
Mississippi, is the subject of a cooperative
river basin study in which BPC is developing
and implementing a comprehensive water
quality monitoring plan. The plan is intended
to assess water quality impacts attributable to
fecal coliform bacteria from both nonpoint and
point sources in the watershed and to obtain
baseline water quality information needed to
establish a database for future resource man-
agement.
¦ The state has received Clean Lakes Pro-
gram grants to conduct Phase I studies for
three lakes: Wolf Lake, Moon Lake, and Lake
Washington, These studies are intended to
identify ways to improve water quality and re-
store beneficial uses. The projects began in
May 1989 and are scheduled to be completed
by November 1990.
NQRTH
Statewide Activities
North Carolina made significant progress in its non-
point source program by passing legislation in a
number of areas, including:
¦ Mandating nonpoint source pollution control
for surface water supplies. For the first time,
upstream municipalities will be required to
implement nonpoint source controls to protect
downstream water supplies.
¦ Requiring undisturbed buffer zones adjacent
to trout streams.
¦ Limiting the exemption in the sedimentation
control law to only those forestry activities
where best management practices are used.
¦ Increasing cost-share funds to implement
BMPs through the state's Agriculture Cost
Share Program. The program was also ex-
panded statewide. In addition, BMPs for trout
farms in western North Carolina are now in-
cluded on the list of approved BMPs and as
such are eligible for cost-sharing.
¦ Establishing a goal to recycle 25 percent of the
total solid waste stream in the state by 1993,
This should reduce the state's need for new
land disposal sites. Thirteen positions have
been appropriated to provide guidelines and
direction for local government planning on
solid waste issues including impacts to water
quality. A revolving fund was established for
loans to construct lined landfills and to begin
recycling projects.
¦ Requiring the phase-in of a statewide plan for
storm water rules and programs.
76
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IV
'^<4 i
The slogan of North Carolina's conservation districts, this message was planted in ryegrass in a coastal bermuda
field by Albert Troutman, Jr., then chairman of the North Carolina Soil and Water Commission, When frost
turned the bermuda brown, the large green (2 feet high) letters spelled out the message to airplane passengers
until late May. Photo by Jim Page, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
The state also adopted rules to provide nonpoint
source pollution protection of the state's highest
quality streams. Certain waters with quality higher
than the standards are now afforded more protec-
tion from nonpoint source pollution by subjecting
them to a new surface water classification scheme
that has more stringent requirements.
The state continued to classify qualified
waterbodies as Outstanding Resource Waters. An
Outstanding Resource Waters designation requires
special management strategies to maintain and pro-
tect the outstanding values of these waters from
point and nonpoint source pollution. There are cur-
rently 198,000 acres and 871 miles of surface waters
that have been classified as Outstanding Resource
Waters.
The State Environmental Management Com-
mission adopted revised water quality standards ap-
plicable to North Carolina surface waters and
ground water. Several of the revised standards have
implications for nonpoint source pollution control.
For example, the turbidity standard for all fresh
surface water now specifies that to comply with the
standard, approved BMPs must be used during land
management activities. Violators of the turbidity
standard are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
The fecal coliform standard was also strengthened
to protect swimming uses in all state waters. The
number of ground-water standards for pesticides
and other chemicals also increased significantly.
There were major expansions in the state's non-
point source-related ground-water and wetlands
protection programs. The General Assembly voted
to fund an interagency study on the effects of pesti-
cides on ground-water quality, to create an Under-
ground Storage Tank Clean-up Fund, and to form a
Legislative Study Commission on wetland protec-
tion.
Targeted watershed efforts during FY 1989 in-
cluded the completion of the Lockwoods Folly River
Water Quality Evaluation Report, which will even-
tually lead to a nonpoint source management plan
for the watershed. In addition, the state designated
the Tar-Pamlico River as a Nutrient Sensitive
Water, thus requiring a nutrient management strat-
egy for point and nonpoint source pollution.
Other nonpoint source-related achievements
during FY 1989 include amending regulations for
sewage treatment and disposal systems, research-
ing the benefits of agricultural BMPs, and conduct-
ing educational programs.
77
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
SOUTH CAROLINA
Statewide Activities
South Carolina is implementing nonpoint source
pollution controls through voluntary BMPs (particu-
larly for agriculture and forestry) by using demon-
strations, seminars, technology transfer, and
financial and technical assistance. In addition, the
state is enforcing regulations and mandatory BMPs
where applicable.
Under current law, BMPs must be implemented
for land disposal, mining, hydrologic/wetlands modi-
fication, construction, and urban storm water activi-
ties in certain counties, silvicultural activities on
federal and state lands, and some activities related
to the disposal of agricultural waste.
During FY 1989, South Carolina's Department
of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) is-
sued 133 permits for the construction of agricultural
waste management systems (generally animal
waste management systems) and 272 certifications
for Army Corps of Engineers permits under section
401 of the Clean Water Act. South Carolina's Land
Resources Conservation Commission issued 55 min-
ing operating permits that require BMPs to control
erosion and runoff.
The DHEC helped establish joint ventures de-
signed to gather and evaluate data about waterbod-
ies impaired by nonpoint source pollution. These
ventures included contracts with the U.S. Geological
Survey to gather storm water data on the Ashley
River and with the South Carolina Land Resources
Conservation Commission (LRCC) to acquire new
statewide aerial photography.
Several state agencies also are evaluating
whether new laws or regulations should be consid-
ered for nonpoint source categories. The South Caro-
lina LRCC submitted proposed legislation to the
General Assembly that would require a storm water
management and sediment control program meet-
ing state criteria.
The LRCC established a program to inspect
highway construction projects and review erosion,
sediment, and storm water standards and specifica-
tions of the South Carolina Department of High-
ways and Public Transportation, recommending
revisions where necessary through the federal con-
sistency provisions of section 319.
The South Carolina Forestry Commission pro-
duced two slide-tape programs: one on BMPs for
general audiences and the other outlining BMPs for
wetland road construction and timber harvesting.
The agency also has publicized and encouraged the
use of forestry BMPs by distributing approximately
7,500 copies of the book, Voluntary Forest Practice
Guidelines, and 6,500 copies of the book, Best Man-
agement Practices for South Carolina's Wetlands,
The South Carolina Coastal Council, a nonpoint
source coordinating agency, has begun to develop
storm water control programs for beachfront com-
munities. Goals for the programs include maintain-
ing or reducing the number of ocean storm water
outfalls and using BMPs to pretreat storm water
discharges. South Carolina will evaluate BMPs and
develop new ones as it begins to implement its state-
wide nonpoint source program.
The State Land Resources Conservation Com-
mission is helping to develop two experimental
BMPs for agriculture: furrow diking and interseed-
ing. The commission also is examining whether
storm water utilities can control urban storm water
throughout an entire watershed. In addition, the
state will be developing new education, demonstra-
tion, and financial assistance programs for each
nonpoint source category.
Watershed Activities
The State Nonpoint Source Task Force targeted 26
watersheds for implementation of nonpoint source
management actions and will add more watersheds
after evaluating the areas that show evidence of
being affected by nonpoint source pollution.
The state has designated the following
waterbodies as watershed projects: Murrells Inlet,
Kinley Creek, Long Cane Creek, and Lake Marion.
Lake Bowen and Camping Creek are being consid-
ered by SCS for funding under a new water quality
program.
TENNESSEE
Tennessee's nonpoint source program staff has
begun activities to increase public awareness on
nonpoint source pollution. A nonpoint source slides-
how along with other handouts and fact sheets have
been effective tools to increase public awareness.
Watershed Activities
In April 1989, the state nonpoint source manage-
ment advisory group developed a list of watersheds
to be targeted for nonpoint source controls. The
state wiE focus its resources on the five watersheds
on this list as section 319 funds become available.
Projects in specific watersheds include the fol-
lowing:
78
-------
TV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IV
These crops are planted improperly, right up to the eroding coastal shoreline.
¦ Mobley Spring: This project is designed to
determine how storm water runoff affects local
ground-water quality.
¦ Beelfoot Lake; A two-year study of
streamflow and water quality will be under-
taken in the three tributaries that surround
this lake. The study is expected to show that
the tributaries contain considerable amounts
of suspended sediment, along with residues of
fertilizers and pesticides, because of the high
level of agricultural activity in the area sur-
rounding the lake,
¦ Oostanaula Creek: A two-year project will be
conducted by ASCS and SCS to install animal
waste management systems. Pre- and post-
BMP monitoring activities are being coordi-
nated to demonstrate water quality
improvements resulting from BMP implemen-
tation. Aerial photography and interpretation
of land use and nonpoint source pollution have
been completed by TVA for the watershed. A
similar aerial inventory is being conducted by
TVA in the Nolichucky River watershed.
¦ Abandoned Mine Projects: Ttennessee has a
number of abandoned mine reclamation pro-
jects underway. Each of the projects has signif-
icant nonpoint source pollution problems. The
Meadow Creek Project and the Dean Project
involve the sealing of portals, the demolition of
structures, and the hauling of refuse to a fill
area for revegetation. The Bear Creek water-
shed, a larger watershed, will be the site of a
five-year BMP implementation project.
Tennessee is working to enforce required
permit and contract conditions concerning
nonpoint source pollution control. The State
Division of Water Pollution Control issued 188
aquatic resource alteration permits in FY
1989; 44 percent of all permits involving
wetlands destruction of one acre or more were
denied while the remaining 56 percent re-
quired some form of mitigation.
During FY 1989, the division issued 145
section 401 certifications and approximately
150 gravel dredging permits. The state has
been relatively successful in enforcing re-
quired permit and contract conditions concern-
ing nonpoint source pollution.
79
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Poliufiort; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Funding Summary
Approximately $150,000 annually of 205(j)(5) funds
have been used for contracting $600,000 per year for
nonpoint source program activities from October
1987 through June 1991. A total of $555,000 USGS
federal matching funds have also been dedicated.
Total nonpoint source program development funds
including non-205(j)(5) funds for FY 1988-91 equal
$1 .6 million.
80
-------
REGION V
To ensure approval of high quality nonpoint
source assessments and management pro-
grams, Region V established a comprehen-
sive review process. The following Region V offices
and the Great Lakes National Program Office re-
viewed each state's (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) submittal for com-
pliance with section 319 requirements, integration
with ongoing EPA programs and initiatives, and
achievement of environmental results:
¦ Water Division (Office of Ground-water,
Planning and Standards Section, Office of
Wetlands, Permits, and Watershed
Management Team), and the
¦ Environmental Science Division
(Monitoring, Pesticides),
The Regional Watershed Management Tteam
continued to provide technical support to the Re-
gional Ground-water and Pesticide Programs. The
team concentrated on coordinating and facilitating
EPA initiatives on agricultural chemicals in ground
water with those of other federal agencies.
The Region helped SCS develop three P.L, 83-
566 land treatment projects, each of which with sig-
nificant water quality components. The proposed
Upper Tifton Project is a prototype for integrating
the P.L, 83-566 and section 319 programs. Under
this project, SCS will provide cost-sharing and tech-
nical assistance to landowner/operators for soil ero-
sion control, and ASCS will provide cost-sharing
assistance for the water quality measures. Technical
assistance for the water quality efforts also will be
provided.
Working with SCS offices in Indiana, Michigan,
and Ohio, the Region completed a survey of tillage
practices in the Saginaw Bay and Lake Erie drain-
age basins. The results will be used to estimate
phosphorus load reduction.
The Region also worked with SCS on the hydro-
logic unit project selection and with the Wisconsin
and Minnesota offices on developing a water quality
demonstration project.
An urban targeting manual is also being pre-
pared by the Region that will set forth procedures to
determine the greatest generators of nonpoint
source pollution within specific urban areas. This
project will provide guidance for selecting appropri-
ate BMPs for a particular area,
The Region is developing a model storm water
management permit for the Rouge River Basin and
MINNESOTA
WISCONSIN
MICHIGAN
Chicago
OHIO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
• Regional Office
will include language for both interim and final
NPDES storm water permits and a prototype permit
application. In addition, the Region's Urban Non-
point Source Control and Storm Water Management
Information and Education Project is developing a
plan for local education programs. The project ex-
pects to create 12 fact sheets that discuss problems,
programs, and success stories about urban nonpoint
source controls and storm water management. It
has scheduled publication for March 1990.
The Region also is participating in a project to
assess the use of wetlands to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. The Region's contribution to the project is
a literature review to document the use of wetlands
as a BMP for nonpoint source pollution control.
Regional Highlights
In response to the agricultural community's concern
about drinking water quality and the need to pro-
vide more useful information about agricultural
sources of ground-water contamination, Region V is
cooperating with Extension Service water quality
specialists in Wisconsin and Minnesota to develop
and refine agricultural pollution assessment proce-
dures. The Region will develop fact sheets that ex-
plain the Farmstead Assessment System procedures
81
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Sectton 319
designed to help farmers identify potential sources
of ground-water contamination. The Region also will
help farmers set priorities for effective management
and structural changes designed to minimize the
risk of ground-water contamination,
EPA's financial and advisory support of this
project has been extensive. The Office of Ground
Water provided financial support to the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources to develop pollu-
tion vulnerability site evaluation criteria. Regional
nonpoint source ground-water and pesticide staffers
are members of the project's advisory committees.
The Great Lakes National Program Office sup-
ported initial development of materials for use in
the Great Lakes Basin.
Indications are strong that farmers are seeking
and will use the Farmstead Assessment System. Re-
gion V staff distributed surveys after a drinking
water presentation, and 70 percent of the respon-
dents expressed interest in receiving information on
farm pollution assessment procedures. Forty-four
percent wanted help with conducting a pollution
prevention assessment, followed by recommenda-
tions for structural and management improve-
ments.
INDIANA
Statewide Activities
Indiana's Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
continued activities under the state T by 2000 pro-
gram that addresses the effects of erosion and sedi-
mentation in watersheds throughout the state. The
program's lake enhancement component directly ad-
dresses water quality concerns.
A variety of organizations work cooperatively
under the program to resolve sedimentation and eu-
trophication problems with volunteer monitoring ef-
forts and public information and education
activities. In addition, the 1989 General Assembly
enacted a boat tax that is expected to generate at
least $1 million per year; the money will supplement
the $300,000 annual lake enhancement budget.
Until now, the state has used these funds primarily
for preliminary investigations and feasibility stud-
ies; projects on several lakes now will move into de-
sign and construction phases.
The T by 2000 program also addresses erosion
from nonagricultural sources. The program provides
technical assistance to planners, developers, and
local governments to assess soil suitability for non-
agricultural uses and to solve development site ero-
sion problems. A number of counties rely on
employees from SCS and the soil and water conser-
vation districts for technical expertise in selecting
BMPs to control erosion on development sites.
The Highway Extension Research Project for In-
diana Counties and Cities has coordinated the devel-
opment of a model erosion control ordinance. This
ordinance can be adopted by local governments in-
terested in regulating development site erosion. Al-
though the ordinance is not in final form, a number
of local agencies have expressed interest in adopting
it.
State regulations governing residential on-site
sewage disposal are being revised to strengthen con-
trols over the installation of residential disposal sys-
tems. Tfechnical and management information will
be provided to on-site disposal users to help them
protect water quality.
Indiana's Department of Environmental Man-
agement (IDEM) will continue its ongoing fish and
sediment evaluation program, collecting samples
from about 30 stream sites and one lake this year.
The data are a valuable discharge monitoring tool
and also identify areas in which fish may not be fit
for human consumption. The sampling results will
help determine where point and nonpoint source dis-
charges are contributing pollutants that accumulate
in plants, animals, or the soil.
Watershed Activities
The lake enhancement component of the T by 2000
program has been remarkably popular. Program
funds were designated for activities on 73 lakes. For
example, T by 2000 funds were used on 21 LaG-
range County Lakes for preliminary studies by
IDEM and local officials. Six lakes from that group
were selected for an ASCS Water Quality Special
Project. The project will provide $57,400 in cost-
sharing funds for land treatment and other practi-
ces to help reduce pollutant loads to the lakes.
Landowner reactions to the project have been very
favorable. The lakes and surrounding watersheds
selected for the study are Oliver, Royer, Fish, Apple-
man, Adams, and Big Long Lake.
ILLINOIS
Education and monitoring programs are the core of
Illinois' nonpoint source management efforts. In fis-
cal year 1989, educational activities have been aug-
mented by the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's (IEPA) poster contest and educational
packets prepared for teachers.
Illinois water quality monitoring and evaluation
efforts include intensive pesticide monitoring, river
82
-------
XV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION V
basin studies, evaluation of the ambient networks of
208 final stream stations, and a volunteer-run lake
monitoring program.
The state has taken a more aggressive stance on
toxic pollution, initiating a toxic substance control
program and intensive monitoring of toxic pollu-
tants and fish contamination. Illinois also has begun
to participate in the Lake Michigan Pollutant Con-
trol/Reduction Strategy.
The state maintained its Watershed Tracking
System that summarizes the total expenditure of
federal, state, and other funds for watershed pro-
jects. This system includes a summary of the BMPs
in place in specific watersheds and associated reduc-
tions in soil erosion. The state also is evaluating six
state-funded projects to determine the effectiveness
of BMPs on surface water quality.
In addition, the state has adopted agricultural
chemical secondary containment regulations that
are being considered for inclusion in the Illinois
Ground-water Protection Act. Proposed revisions to
livestock waste regulations will be presented to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, as will the proposed
expansion of the IEPA Pesticide Monitoring Sub-
network. Pollution control at construction sites con-
tinues to gain attention from both state and local
governments, both of whom have used the IEPA
Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control.
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
is preparing to develop a model urban nonpoint
source management plan for urban watersheds of
less than 30 square miles. It will be based on field
evaluations of actual in-stream water quality prob-
lems. The Commission also is developing a field
handbook for construction erosion control, evaluat-
ing pesticide use in urban settings, and helping
counties develop storm water management plans.
Several state activities are either continuing or
being developed in response to the increased inter-
est in ground-water protection, including:
¦ monitoring of wells near agricultural
facilities for pesticides;
¦ ground-water data collection and
development of comprehensive standards
for ground-water quality;
¦ establishment of state ground-water
monitoring networks;
¦ revision of the Water Use Act of 1983 to
restrict ground-water consumption in some
Illinois counties; and
¦ a comprehensive statewide education
program.
Illinois took part in revising SCS standards and
specifications related to water quality improvement,
as well as in the development of new USD A stan-
dards and specifications for nutrient and pesticide
control.
OHIO
Ohio state agencies carried out nonpoint source con-
trol activities ranging from water quality monitor-
ing to land treatment in FY 1989. Although all
categories of nonpoint source pollution were ad-
dressed in some manner, Ohio focused on agricul-
tural runoff, which had been identified by the state
assessment as the major source of nonpoint source
pollution.
Statewide Activities
Most of Ohio's nonpoint source programs depend on
voluntary activities, which in turn rely on effective
education, technical assistance, and interagency co-
operation. The state has carried out education and
demonstration projects in 33 watersheds and/or
counties to test various nonpoint source control ap-
proaches. Eight of these projects received over
$112 ,000 in ASCS special project funds (cost-sharing
for BMP implementation), and SCS provided
$20,000 in cost sharing for one project.
Another demonstration project identified sew-
age system and well water problems. As a result, a
group of county commissioners established a sewage
loan fund to correct these problems.
The state also prepared several watershed pro-
files to identify the location and extent of nonpoint
source problems and to recommend pollution con-
trols.
The Ohio General Assembly appropriated $1
million in cost sharing to help introduce water qual-
ity BMPs over the next two years in watersheds
identified as problem areas by the state nonpoint
source assessment. The funds also can be used for
additional technical assistance to develop animal
waste nutrient management plans.
Although the state has relied primarily on vol-
untary approaches, Ohio also has initiated several
regulatory approaches to nonpoint source control.
For example, new rules for livestock waste manage-
ment approved in FY 1989 increase penalties for
polluters. New BMPs also have been specified to
prevent over-fertilization and to encourage the
proper use of animal waste. In addition, new stan-
dards for urban sediment control have been sched-
uled for public hearing.
83
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Legislation introduced to establish storm water
management districts would give the districts the
authority to adopt and enforce standards to control
soil erosion resulting from grading, excavating, and
other land redistribution activities; to manage
storm water runoff; and to control sediment from
agricultural runoff.
A number of other state programs are instru-
mental in controlling nonpoint source pollution. For
example, the Scenic Rivers Program has established
procedures to protect designated scenic rivers in
Ohio from nonpoint source pollution. A tax check-off
program for natural areas generates approximately
$150,000 annually to purchase conservation ease-
ments or make fee-simple purchases of riparian
areas and wetlands. A pilot program in cooperation
with the soil and water conservation districts and
ASCS allows the Scenic Rivers Program to augment
Conservation Reserve Program filter strip payments
to purchase easements along scenic rivers.
The Ohio Department of Transportation has
begun to upgrade existing standards and specifica-
tions for erosion control.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) has contracted with six regional planning
agencies to assist with the nonpoint source program,
including public outreach, remedial action plan de-
velopment, wetland feasibility studies, paired wa-
tershed demonstration projects, assessment report
updates, participation in the volunteer monitoring
program, and development of a homeowner's non-
point source management guide.
SCS continued to support the state's nonpoint
source efforts through P.L. 83-566, RAMP, and the
Water Quality Action Plan. Several conservation
districts have led local nonpoint source efforts (in-
cluding the Conservation Action Project) and the de-
velopment of P.L. 83-566 projects related to water
quality issues, ASCS continued to support the
state's nonpoint source efforts by funding special
small implementation projects, and USGS is helping
monitor a number of nonpoint source projects.
Watershed Activities
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, in coop-
eration with other agencies and organizations, is in-
vestigating the feasibility of developing an artificial
wetland or re-establishing a former wetland to miti-
gate the effects of phosphorus and other pollutants
from agricultural runoff on a northwest Ohio
stream. The project is in the developmental phase.
OEPA helped to develop remedial action plans
for the Maumee, Cuyahoga, Ashtabala, and Black
rivers. Major tributaries of Lake Erie, all are af-
fected by nonpoint and point source pollution. The
plans are in the problem identification stage.
MICHIGAN
Michigan's nonpoint source program includes identi-
fication of water quality problems, technical assis-
tance, education, incentives, and regulatory
programs. The state's Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) is the lead agency for the Michigan
nonpoint source program.
The DNR is using $1 million from the state's
general fund to support watershed demonstration
activities, the Construction Site Training Program,
nonpoint source program administration, and the
Clean Lakes Program. DNR's ongoing activities in-
clude the following:
¦ working with appropriate agencies and
interest groups;
¦ identifying nonpoint source water quality
problems;
¦ evaluating watersheds to determine which
have the most serious pollution problems
each fiscal year;
¦ responding to citizen complaints;
¦ collecting data and conducting water
quality assessments; and
¦ determining compliance with state water
quality standards.
Statewide Assessment Activities
A major activity of Michigan's nonpoint source pro-
gram in FY 1989 was documenting the impact of
nonpoint source pollutants on Michigan lakes and
streams. These efforts, which were undertaken to
verify information in the state assessment, included
the following activities:
¦ Conducting 27 biological surveys to assess
the impacts of nonpoint source pollutants on
fish, aquatic plant life, macroinvertebrates,
habitat, and water quality, A procedure was
drafted to evaluate nonpoint source effects on
fish and macroinvertebrate communities. This
procedure was field-tested at four sites; a final
procedure will be available in 1990.
¦ Expanding the Fish Contaminant Moni-
toring Program to include fish collections
from 54 inland lakes. High mercury concentra-
tions found in fish from other lakes prompted
the expansion of this effort. Other contami-
nants also will be monitored.
84
-------
IV, REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION V
u Conducting a pesticide monitoring
program in cooperation with the Michi-
gan Department of Agriculture. Five
sites that produce runoff containing ag-
ricultural pesticides were selected for
monitoring; 12 surface water samples
taken at these sites will be analyzed for
leachate pesticides.
¦ Conducting a biological survey in
1990 on the Days River to evaluate the
effects of forestry practices (such as
clear cutting) on surface water quality.
Statewide Activities
The Michigan Energy Conservation Pro-
gram for Agriculture and Forestry is a three-
year, multi-agency effort to encourage
farmers and foresters to adopt less energy-
intensive practices. Financial settlements
from court cases involving oil overcharges
provide program funding. Practices encouraged in
the program include conservation tillage, fertilizer
management, integrated pest management, live-
stock waste utilization, irrigation system evalua-
tion, and forester assistance. The SCS works with
farmers to reduce over-application of pesticides, fer-
tilizers, and animal wastes. The program has
prompted farmers to cut their use of chemicals by
1,900 tons and has reduced soil erosion by 189,000
tons. Annual fertilizer use decreased by 2,000 tons
of nitrogen, 3,250 tons of phosphorus, and 2,720
tons of potassium.
Watershed Activities
¦ Sycamore Creek Watershed: The Sycamore
Creek watershed will be a demonstration site
for the state-mandated Comprehensive Basin
Plan. The state requires the establishment of
such plans when state dissolved oxygen stan-
dards are violated — either upstream of point
source dischargers or downstream of the point
source when there is a documented nonpoint
source contribution.
¦ Clam Lake: The Michigan Clean Water In-
centive Program, the Northwest Michigan
Council of Governments, and the Northwest
Michigan Resource Conservation and Develop-
ment Council have developed a nonpoint
source pollution control action plan and imple-
mentation program for the Clam River Basin.
The Clam River and its large basin receive sig-
nificant nonpoint source pollution from nutri-
Photo by Jonathan Simpson shows a tranquil lake, with the
far shore riprapped to prevent erosion.
ents in animal waste, sediments from rural
soil erosion, and various contaminants from
urban runoff.
The project provides cost-sharing and tech-
nical assistance for the implementation of
BMPs such as no-till planting, strip cropping,
and filter strips. Landowner participation in
the cost-sharing program has been excellent.
The project also initiated an aggressive educa-
tion and information program, including a
quarterly newsletter; radio, newspaper and TV
spots; and one-on-one meetings with landown-
ers in the watershed.
The key to the success of the Clam River
project has been interagency cooperation from
the beginning. Development of the action plan
included formation of a local Watershed Steer-
ing Committee to encourage local interest in
the project. The Steering Committee is a vital
link to local agencies and groups in the basin.
Morrison Lake: The Clean Lakes Program,
the Clean Water Incentive Program, and local
lake board's tax assessments provide funding
for the Morrison Lake Project. The project in-
cludes a watershed management plan to re-
duce phosphorus loading to the lake by 25
percent over three years. The project will iden-
tify pollution sources, implement BMPs to re-
duce sources, and measure BMP efficiency.
Conservation plans have been prepared for
more than 60 percent of the cropland in the
watershed and applied to 15 percent.
Because the watershed is small, project
managers met individually with fanners to
85
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: final Report to Congress on Section 319
provide information and assistance. Newslet-
ters provided information to the entire water-
shed community and the local newspaper
published several articles on the project. The
Morrison Lake Project also distributed publi-
cations about the use of BMPs,
MINNESOTA
State and local governments in Minnesota play im-
portant roles in controlling nonpoint source pollu-
tion, The state provides technical and financial
support, while local governments and individuals
are responsible for implementation.
Statewide Activities
Technical support is a major component of
Minnesota's nonpoint source program. The state ex-
panded its Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
model (AGNPS), widely used throughout the coun-
try, to include urban and lake components and also
developed a component to simulate pollutant deliv-
ery to ground water. Modifications to the model will
provide a better understanding of the nature of non-
point source pollutants.
¦ The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA), the state's lead nonpoint source
agency, is investigating the application of bio-
logical criteria to water resource assessment.
MPCA has focused its efforts on developing an
Index of Biotic Integrity. It also developed a
stream habitat evaluation procedure and work
sheet for determining a stream's biological use
potential.
The MPCA also provides public information
and technical assistance. The agency prepared
a slide show and video to complement the non-
point source booklet, Protecting Minnesota's
Waters . . . The Land-use Connection. The'
agency has distributed over 18,000 copies of
the booklet and also has published and distrib-
uted a citizen lake monitoring newsletter and
an agricultural BMP handbook. Urban and
forestry BMP handbooks should be completed
in 1990. MPCA prepared these handbooks
with the assistance of SCS.
¦ The Board of Water and Soil Resources
(BWSR) has a close working relationship with
soil and water conservation districts, which
helps promote nonpoint source control activi-
ties. The BWSR administers state cost-sharing
funds for erosion and sediment control and pro-
vides technical assistance to localities to pro-
tect or manage water and land resources.
¦ The Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources (MDNR) manages several nonpoint
source pollution control programs. It imple-
ments BMPs in state forests, parks, and
wildlife habitats, and, through its permit au-
thority, on non-state lands as well. For exam-
ple, BMPs must be implemented on floodplains
and shorelands, on construction sites located
on beds of public waters, and on public drain-
age ditches.
Watershed Activities
The Clean Water Partnership Program, established
in 1988, ia designed to control nonpoint source pollu-
tants through watershed management. The pro-
gram supplies matching grants and technical
assistance to local governments. Funds are used for
project development (e.g., water quality assess-
ments and monitoring) and implementation (instal-
lation of BMPs and educational activities). The first
grant application period opened in September 1988,
with the MPCA board funding 14 of 39 projects. Pro-
jects include;
¦ Lake Bemicyi: This lake and ground-water
project (wellhead protection project) includes
both rural and urban areas. The project goal is
to protect and improve surface water and
ground-water quality. It involves detailed
chemical, physical, and biological data collec-
tion and analyses of surface waters in the wa-
tershed. The elements of the project include
water quality monitoring, watershed assess-
ment, information and education programs,
data analysis, identification of BMPs, and
completion of the monitoring plan. The county
soil and water conservation district coordi-
nates the project,
¦ French Lake: This project involves a 842-
acre hypereutrophic lake with a 3,400-acre
rural watershed. Planned activities include
assessing farming practices and lake lot activ-
ities in the watershed and monitoring lake
and tributary water. Project sponsors include
St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, the MDNR
and SCS. The project staff has prepared guid-
ance documents describing the watershed and
water quality monitoring to assist these and
other projects.
¦ Minnesota River; The Minnesota River As-
sessment Project has received a funding com-
86
-------
JV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES St STATE PROGRAMS—REGION V
mitment of $700,000 for two years from the
state legislature. The money will fund a coop-
erative study involving the MPCA, USGS,
EPA, SCS, South Central Minnesota Counties
Water Planning Project, Mankato State Uni-
versity, BWSR, and MDNR. The project will
identify those streams that receive the most
nonpoint source loading. That information will
enable planners to estimate the load reduc-
tions necessary to achieve water quality goals
and the money needed to achieve those goals.
The information also will help determine
where future water quality projects should be
conducted.
WISCONSIN
The cornerstone of Wisconsin's nonpoint source ef-
fort is the State Priority Watershed Program (PWP)
administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natu-
ral Resources (WDNR). Since 1978, the state has
spent over $50 million on the program. Most of the
funding is used to cost share the implementation of
BMPs in priority watersheds.
A comprehensive analysis of nonpoint source
pollution in the state's 330 watersheds forms the
basis of the program. In addition, Wisconsin has de-
veloped both urban and rural watershed models
that identify and address the most significant
sources of nonpoint source pollution from land man-
agement.
Each PWP project has a 10-year life span that
includes the initial planning stages, a three-year
cost-sharing sign-up period, a five-year installation
period, and a final evaluation period.
In addition to the priority watershed effort,
Wisconsin has initiated other nonpoint source ef-
forts. For example, in 1987 the legislature enacted a
provision to allow the regulation of all nonpoint
source pollutants that severely and significantly af-
fect Wisconsin's surface water and ground water.
Statewide Activities
Wisconsin revised its statute and administrative
code to coordinate and implement the nonpoint
source program, administered jointly by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) and the Soil and Water Resource Manage-
ment Program of the Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).
The Wisconsin Coastal Zone Management Pro-
gram recently solicited applications for nonpoint
source pollution control programs. The WDNR will
coordinate these projects with the Priority Water-
shed Program.
The "University of Wisconsin Extension and
DATCP completed a nutrient and pesticide BMP
handbook and summary during FY 1989.
Watershed Activities
Forty priority watershed projects, covering approxi-
mately 6,000 square miles, currently are underway
in Wisconsin. WDNR selected seven new projects
and has completed plans for the Milwaukee River
Watershed and the Black Earth Creek Priority Wa-
tershed Plan.
¦ Big Green Lake; The PWP has completed the
final project evaluation for the Big Green Lake
Priority Watershed. The watershed plan, ap-
proved in 1981, established a goal of reducing
nutrient input to the lake from various non-
point sources by 40 percent. The original sign-
up period for cost-sharing funds ended in 1984
but there was a second sign-up opportunity in
early 1988.
The PWP calculated the reduction in pollu-
tant loading for upland soil erosion, animal
waste runoff, and gully erosion. The upland
soil loss control achieved 41 percent of the wa-
tershed plan's goal. The reduction in phospho-
rus loading from barnyard runoff for the
watershed was 75 percent, significantly ex-
ceeding the 40 percent goal. This reduction
was accomplished through controls placed on
36 of the 111 barnyards in the area. The PWP
also estimated that 17 percent of the gully ero-
sion (a small fraction of the nutrient and sedi-
ment load to the lake) was controlled by the
project.
Water quality goals in the watershed plan
included:
~ reducing bacteria levels at the lake's
swimming beaches,
~ increasing average summer water clarity,
and
~ halting the trend of increasing
sedimentation that extends the shoreline.
The evaluation suggested that it is still too
soon for the lake to respond to changes in land
management practices installed under the
project. Any reported water quality variations
probably resulted from climatic changes.
Changes in the lake's littoral area were not
measured, and Seechi disk readings to mea-
sure clarity were inconclusive. However, viola-
tions of bacteria standards declined from 16
percent in 1984 to 4 percent in 1987.
87
-------
-------
REGION VI
Region VI worked closely with the states (Ar-
kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas) during FY 1989 to help revise
the state assessment reports and management pro-
grams and assist them in dealing with nonpoint
source program issues.
The regional staff hosted a state workshop on
nonpoint source implementation funding and pro-
vided guidance on the use of 205(j)(5) funds and
319(h) funds. These efforts resulted in a clearer un-
derstanding by the states of the differences between
state and federal roles in program development and
implementation. The final nonpoint source manage-
ment programs that received approval reflected that
improved understanding.
The Region asked for comments from other fed-
eral agencies on the EPA Federal Consistency Guid-
ance and included those comments in its
presentation to the workshop. In addition, the re-
gional staff maintains contact with a core group of
federal agencies through periodic letters, phone
calls, visits, and invitations to other nonpoint source
workshops.
The Region also participated in a multi-regional
nonpoint source implementation workshop in Nash-
ville, Tennessee. Representatives of states from
three regions met to share their successful imple-
mentation activities; four Region VI states sent rep-
resentatives. The participants returned with
excellent information about programs in other
states. Pennsylvania's manure management pro-
gram, Maryland's urban program, and North
Carolina's cost-sharing program provided a number
of ideas that Region VI states incorporated into their
management programs. Louisiana's explanation of
its Interagency Coordinating Committee (see state
summary) also generated considerable interest in
the states from other Regions.
The rest of the Region's nonpoint source activi-
ties during FY 1989 focused on moving the states be-
yond program, development and into program
implementation — specifically, measures that will
reduce nonpoint source loads and improve water
quality over the next four years of the program, lb
accomplish this, Region VI concentrated its efforts in
two main areas: (1) implementing the Region's fund-
ing policy, and (2) approving only implementation-
phase state management programs.
The Region's funding policy encourages states to
use at least 50 percent of their FY 1988 205(j)(5)
funds for program implementation and requires
that at least 75 percent of FY 1989 funds be allo-
cated to implementation. While the states did not
NEW MEXICO
ARK.
Dallas •
LA.
TEXAS
• Regional Office
achieve the FY 1988 goal, the Region expects that
FY 1989 requirements will be met.
Because the Region's ability to influence the
scope, direction, and content of state management
programs lies primarily in the approval process, the
Region took a very literal view of section 319 re-
quirements for granting approval. Implementation
measures were the only portions of management
programs the Region approved. Consequently, the
management programs contain four years of imple-
mentation of nonpoint source controls.
The 319 assessments are contained in different
documents than the 305(b) report and often contain
more information. The Region expects the 1990
305(b) reports to contain all the information cur-
rently in the nonpoint source assessments as well as
any new data gathered in the interim. The Region
has received work plan commitments to accomplish
this from most states in section 106 grant applica-
tions.
The states still need strong encouragement to
work with other data-gathering agencies to develop
mutually acceptable quality assurance/quality con-
trol (QA/QC) procedures that all agencies can use
and benefit from. The Region is working with the
other agencies to develop QA/QC procedures and
will sponsor a nonpoint source monitoring workshop
in FY 1990 that will focus on these procedures.
There are few indications that land manage-
ment agencies in Region VI are ready to commit sig-
nificant financial or technical assistance to state
management program priorities. Moreover, some
state water quality agencies have been slow in pass-
ing through section 319 or 205(j)(5) monies to eligible
cooperating agencies for actual work.
The Region is encouraging states to direct their
water quality monitoring stations away from compli-
ance monitoring for point source discharges and to-
89
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
ward nonpoint source monitoring. Identification or
verification of suspected nonpoint source problems
should generate new information to add to 305(b) re-
ports for future nonpoint source assessment up-
dates; the Region has provided two states with Clean
Water Act section 106 money for this. The Region
gave three states funds from 205(j)(S» to implement
monitoring to document water quality benefits of
nonpoint source control measures.
While the states have overcome a number of
challenges in developing their assessment and man-
agement programs, some problems remain. These
problems will be addressed in future revisions.
Regional Highlight
Lower Colorado River Authority
The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) oper-
ates its own nonpoint source management program.
The program consists of a three-phase approach to
nonpoint source control:
1. Education. LCRA developed the award-
winning documentary video Pointless Pollu-
tion, narrated by Walter Cronkite, to help
educate state and federal field personnel. It is
distributing the video throughout its area;
EPA Region VI is distributing it to other Re-
gions, states, and federal agencies.
2. Demonstration Projects. The LCRA,
USDA, local soil and water conservation dis-
tricts, and the Texas Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Board have started a rice irrigation
return flow demonstration project. Similar
projects are planned for the future. LCRA ulti-
mately intends to base its water pricing struc-
ture on the quality of water returned to the
river.
3. Performance-based Regulatory Program.
LCRA started a pilot program for perfor-
mance-based regulations in the Lake TVavis
watershed, north of Austin, Texas. The ordi-
nance requires developers to meet specific pol-
lutant load limits from their sites. LCRA
developed the pertinent BMPs and provides
technical assistance to determine which BMPs
can best achieve the load reductions. The
building permits specify only the pollution
load levels necessary to protect water quality.
Even though LCRA began its nonpoint source
management program before the enactment of sec-
tion 319, the program achieves the goals of the
Clean Water Act. LCRA continues steady progress
in implementing its nonpoint source management
program.
ARKANSAS
The lack of personnel and money will continue to
limit effective implementation of nonpoint source
controls in Arkansas. The state decided to spend its
1987 and 1988 205(j)(5) funds on a nitrate study,
and has not clearly indicated how — or even if — it
will spend the 1989 allocation. Future implementa-
tion activities depend upon the results of the nitrate
study.
The state's assessment report identified two
sources of nonpoint source pollution: mining and ag-
riculture. The management prop-am contained in-
formation on both categories but lacked
implementation milestones (especially those ad-
dressing water quality).
Arkansas also revised the animal waste portion
of the agricultural section of its management pro-
gram. The animal waste program contains a permit
program for dairies, swine wastes, liquid poultry
wastes, and a voluntary education/technical assis-
tance program for dry poultry litter.
The programs operate statewide, but more in-
tense efforts are directed to northwest Arkansas
where the poultry industry is expanding rapidly.
The significant limestone deposits and a large num-
ber of sinkholes in the area have created significant
problems in surface water quality (nutrients, fecal
matter) and possibly in ground-water quality (ni-
trates).
LOUISIANA
Louisiana's management program is unique to the
Region*, state and federal agencies (such as the
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service,
Extension Service, State Department of Natural Re-
sources, and State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission) have agreed to cooperate with the Lou-
isiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) through an interagency coordinating com-
mittee. The committee helps LDEQ set priorities for
nonpoint source projects.
The state's nonpoint source problems result
from intensive agriculture, extensive hydromodi-
fication, and oil and gas exploration and extraction.
The surface water is slow, sluggish, and nutrient-
rich; hydromodification by both private and govern-
ment interests has significantly altered its chemical
and physical properties. Urban problems are emerg-
ing, especially in New Orleans, which stands below
sea level and is artificially drained.
With the help of the committee, LDEQ has
started a multi-phase nonpoint source management
90
-------
TV, REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VI
program to address priority areas. The state
has targeted two basins for agricultural con-
trols: the Tangipahoa and the Mermentau.
To restore the Tangipahoa River, which
has been closed to fishing and swimming be-
cause of high fecal eoliform rates, LDEQ has
initiated a pilot program to grant permits for
waste management systems. SCS is providing
technical assistance and ASCS is cost sharing
the construction of lagoons and other remedies
through its special water quality fund. To pre-
vent the lagoons from contaminating the
ground water (which will occur if the clay con-
tent of the soil is insufficient), LDEQ is provid-
ing field oversight through funding from an
EPA grant during construction of each lagoon.
The Mermentau Basin contains a project
that demonstrates the effectiveness of new
SCS BMPs for rice irrigation. This project
(funded by EPA) tests the BMPs on Extension
Service field plots. SCS chose the site for its hydro-
logic unit technical assistance project; ASCS is ex-
pected to provide cost-sharing funds. Through an
EPA grant, LDEQ also is demonstrating the benefits
to water quality from replanting stream banks,
LDEQ expanded its 401 certification procedures
to allow the nonpoint source staff to review revisions
and conditions for new 404 permits. These condi-
tions require a modified side slope to allow natural
plant growth, LDEQ expects that these conditions
will decrease turbidity, total suspended solids, met-
als, and pesticides (which were previously absorbed
into eroding channel banks).
With the exception of the pilot permit program
and the 401 process, nonpoint source management
efforts in Louisiana are voluntary, LDEQ and coop-
erating agencies are escalating education. The state
is committed to evaluating the effectiveness of all
management program activities to reduce nonpoint
source loads and improve water quality and to modi-
fying the program and/or BMPs if proven ineffec-
tive.
LDEQ also is expanding nonpoint source stan-
dards to include nutrients and is modifying ambient
water quality trend stations to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of nonpoint source controls.
NEW MEXICO
New Mexico's arid climate creates an extremely
fragile environment; change or improvement is slow
once damage occurs. For example, the Ojo Sarco
Acequia in the Rio Embudo Watershed has repeat-
edly overflowed its channel over the last 50 years,
Overgrazed and eroded arid rangelands in New Mexico,
Photo by Ann Beier.
creating a canyon-like gully. The Forest Service,
SCS, and the New Mexico Environmental Improve-
ment Division are cooperating on a demonstration
project to prevent future erosion and repair the
present damage. The project involves moving mas-
sive amounts of soil, installing an erosion-prevent-
ing fabric, and developing and implementing soil
conservation plans for private landowners in the
watershed. This is one of four demonstration pro-
jects designed to improve the quality of New
Mexico's water.
Most of New Mexico's water quality problems
result from intense grazing and timbering in high
quality cold water fisheries. Many of the problem
areas are located on federal land controlled by the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Ser-
vice. Significant nonpoint source loads also originate
on privately held land in the area.
The New Mexico State Nonpoint Source Task
Force, made up of state and federal land manage-
ment agencies, will help secure voluntary imple-
mentation of its nonpoint source management
program. The state has revised its 401 certification
procedures to allow the nonpoint source staff to per-
form reviews. This change has resulted in modifica-
tions, conditions, and the attachment of remedial
requirements to the certifications and subsequent
404 permits.
New Mexico is particularly concerned about the
need for a strong federal consistency review. Negoti-
ations with federal agencies have not resulted in
satisfactory environmental protection on the large
amounts of federal lands in the state, Activities of
the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Fed-
eral Energy Regulatory Commission concern the
state most. A strong federal consistency policy would
significantly affect the water quality of New Mexico.
91
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
OKLAHOMA
lb combat nonpoint source pollution in Oklahoma,
the Oklahoma Conservation Commission is relying
on voluntary BMP implementation in targeted wa-
tersheds. The Commission is providing educational
and technical assistance and using section 319
funds to cost share small watershed demonstration
projects.
The state's first demonstration project, located
in the Battle Branch sub-watershed, addresses fecal
coliform and nutrient loads. The project is designed
to demonstrate the effectiveness of BMPs in manag-
ing animal waste and carcass disposal, as well as
the state's ability to administer a cost-sharing pro-
gram. A state program provided the matching funds
for the demonstration projects.
The Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture
(OSDA) administers a statewide regulatory pro-
gram that includes permitting, inspecting, and com-
pliance monitoring for the storage and distribution
of fertilizer (commercial and organic) and pesticides.
This program recently was revised to reflect the
need for actions to improve water quality. OSDA has
made a commitment to evaluate how effectively
these programs improve and/or protect water qual-
ity and reduce nonpoint source loads. It will revise
the programs if they prove ineffective.
Oklahoma's assessment report contained both
monitoring and evaluation information from a wide
variety of sources, including the Oklahoma Conser-
vation Commission's own high-flow data. The report
identifies nonpoint source impacts from almost
every category.
TEXAS
The Texas Nonpoint Source Management Program
addresses ground-water, agricultural, and silvicul-
tural problems in various ways.
¦ Ground Water: Under the ground-water
component, state agencies that belong to the
Ground-water Protection Committee imple-
ment ground-water BMPs that are then
tracked and evaluated by the Ttexas Water
Commission, the lead agency. A modification of
the wellhead protection program also specifies
a four-step implementation of that program:
~ inventoring the area for sources of
contamination,
~ preparing a formal report with
recommendations to the governing
authority (i.e., city council),
~ tracking the implementation of these
recommendations by the responsible
entity (city council, county commissioner,
etc.), and
~ evaluating the effectiveness (water
quality protected, nonpoint source load
reduced) of the voluntary program, with
modifications to improve it.
Seventy-five cities and counties are now partici-
pating in this ground-water program. A portion of
the effort is supported by EPA grants.
¦ Agriculture/Silviculture: The agricultural/
silvicultural component of the management
program is basically voluntary in nature.
Water quality BMPs are encouraged through
technical assistance and educational efforts by
the State Soil and Water Conservation Board
(the lead agriculture agency), SCS, and Exten-
sion Service.
Two areas in the state are targeted for in-
tensive help:
~ North Bosque River (Erath County —
dairy wastes) and
~ Southern High Plains (arsenic in ground
water).
Erath County, the state's top priority, has a se-
ries of demonstration projects to show proper de-
sign, operation, and maintenance of animal waste
management systems (lagoons and land applica-
tion), and the economic advantages of using water
quality BMPs for wash water. These demonstrations
and the expanded educational effort are supported
by EPA funds. The area has applied for SCS hydro-
logic unit technical assistance and ASCS special
water quality funding.
The state's agricultural/silvicultural program
has become considerably stronger over the past
year, clearly demonstrating that over the long term
it will improve water quality and reduce nonpoint
source loads.
92
-------
REGION VII
Nonpoint source pollution caused by agricul-
tural activities is the major focus of Region
VII nonpoint source control projects. State
programs also emphasize agriculture as a priority
nonpoint source category. Agricultural chemicals
and animal wastes are pollution sources that need
particular additional attention.
The regional staff helped the states (Iowa, Kan-
sas, Missouri, and Nebraska) prepare assessments
and management programs. The Region established
specific milestone requirements for all states to en-
sure timely preparation of the reports and programs,
and the regional staff met with all state nonpoint
source staffs to discuss the progress of management
program preparation.
Most of the states had trouble preparing mate-
rial for the assessment reports. A lack of watershed
data and a short amount of lead time made it diffi-
cult for them to identify the impact of nonpoint
source pollution on surface water and ground water.
The lack of specific watershed information also
hampered the states' efforts to determine priorities
for the management programs. Most of the states
need to refine their nonpoint source assessments to
better determine what actions need to be taken and
when. This will occur at the same time limited im-
plementation goes forward in those watersheds
where nonpoint source problems have been identi-
fied.
In any case, the Region and most of the states
agreed that better statewide education and informa-
tion transfer should be given high priority. Unfortu-
nately, the agencies that in the past have provided
educational, technical, and financial support lack
funds to initiate new efforts. However, some opportu-
nities for cooperative efforts exist, and Region VII is
impressed by the willingness of some federal and
state agencies to undertake cooperative efforts
aimed at outreach as well as projects.
Region VII has been particularly successful at
coordinating technical activities with a number of
state and federal agencies, including:
¦ Sponsoring a Pesticides in Ground-water
Workshop in December 1988 with representa-
tives from all four states' environmental and
agricultural agencies.
¦ Conducting a series of workshops on the use of
the Agricultural Nonpoint Source model
(AGNPS). Following the workshops, several
participants have applied the model to projects
in their states.
NEBRASKA
KANSAS {
Kansas City
• Regional Office
¦ Working with SCS on EPA's effort to integrate
the best features of AGNPS with the emerging
technology of Geographical Information Sys-
tems (GIS). With SCS technical and field sup-
port, EPA has produced several generations of
maps of the Cedar Creek Watershed in Bour-
bon County, Kansas. The maps clearly com-
municate agricultural nonpoint source
concepts to owner/operators and can be a pre-
dictive modeling tool to design effective pollu-
tion control management plans.
¦ Developing a pollution prevention project that
demonstrates ways to eliminate or control
nonpoint source problems. The project incor-
porates nutrient and pesticide management,
better and more detailed soil information, and
more efficient application practices to reduce
the volume of chemical inputs and thus the
amount of pollutants available for runoff or
leachate. The Region will conduct pilot pro-
jects over the next several years to demon-
strate how these pollution prevention
principles can reduce impacts on the water
quality and maintain yields.
Regional Highlights
¦ Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project:
This comprehensive interdisciplinary project
in northeast Iowa is designed to track the fate
of agricultural chemicals and devise methods
to prevent or reduce their movement to ground
water and surface water while still maintain-
IOWA
MISSOURI
93
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
ing the farmer's profits. A consortium of fed-
eral, state, and local government agencies,
universities, and agribusinesses developed the
project proposal, and a core group manages
and tracks the activities.
Several state and federal agencies are fund-
ing the project. At the state level, the 1987
Iowa Ground-water Protection Act provides
funds for Big Spring. At the regional level, EPA
has funded the project since 1986 and will con-
tinue to support those project areas not cov-
ered by state funding.
On-farm demonstrations, now in their third
crop year, have shown that average farm input
costs can be reduced by $3,000 to $4,000 per
year. In early 1989, 52 percent of the farmers
involved in the project reported reductions in
the use of nitrogen, phosphorus (39 percent),
and potassium fertilizer, and a 23 percent re-
duction in pesticide use. At the same time they
reported higher crop yields.
Outreach has been an important part of this
project and the Region has ©sponsored the
production of a video that can relate the
project's findings to a larger audience.
¦ Integrated Farm Management Demon-
stration Project: The Integrated Farm Man-
agement Demonstration Program, funded by
oil overcharge and oil stripper well funds
through FY 1992, involves a series of projects
aimed at promoting adoption of the best avail-
able techniques for managing farm chemicals.
The major goal of the project is to develop non-
regulatoiy programs that encourage manage-
ment of farm chemicals for environmental
protection, energy conservation, and farm
profitability.
Since the project started, methods that
focus on energy efficiency and environmental
improvement have been demonstrated in
every county in Iowa. During the 1989 crop
year, more than 300 sites with over 5,000 plots
demonstrated alternate tillage practices, soil
nutrient testing, chemical treatment reduc-
tion, and the economic benefits of such practi-
ces.
Newsletters, news releases, field days, and
special tours are helping get the story out to
the public. In addition, the University of
Northern Iowa has developed ground-water
environmental education teaching modules for
elementary, junior high, and senior high
schools. The materials have been well received
and are being used now in the Iowa school sys-
tem.
Further Actions
Additional water quality standards criteria are
needed to measure and judge the effects of nonpoint
source pollution on surface waters. Although EPA
has developed aquatic life advisories for some mod-
ern pesticides, the development of formal criteria
under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act has
been delayed, in part because of an inadequate
database. Formal criteria for the most heavily used
pesticides and for clean sediment would help the
states determine how well uses are being attained
even though difficult duration/frequency issues exist
because of the flow-variable nature of nonpoint
source pollution.
Any effort to determine the extent to which
water use is impaired by nonpoint source pollution,
and the extent to which BMPs improve water use is
necessarily complex. Such complexity underscores
the need to use biological criteria in state and local
nonpoint source management program evaluations.
The use of such criteria involves formal assessments
of biotic communities and the designation of refer-
ence stream segments from which to determine
water use impairment and improvement. Rapid
bioassessment techniques may help states imple-
ment biological criteria to develop water quality
standards and plan nonpoint source control pro-
grains.
The Region expects a rapid increase in the num-
ber of small watershed projects with focused and ac-
celerated funding for BMP implementation. Past
experience indicates that the demand by landowners
for technical assistance can easily outstrip the abil-
ity of federal, state, and local agencies to provide
such assistance. Programs should place particular
emphasis on getting specific information to landown-
ers in a timely manner — and budgets should reflect
this emphasis. This is especially important in areas
where several watershed projects may be started
and the available technical assistance can quickly be
overwhelmed.
Also needed is more effective guidance for wa-
tershed managers who are working with section 319
projects. The ability of the state to provide such
guidance in a timely manner often ensures the suc-
cess of small watershed projects; unfortunately, the
expected proliferation of watershed projects may
constrain the states' ability to offer such assistance.
Although several national initiatives have es-
tablished a framework for measuring the environ-
mental effects of nonpoint source pollution, the
states need to better understand these measure-
ments and test them under actual field conditions.
The federal government can help improve the states*
understanding of environmental monitoring meth-
ods. A national set of standards for measuring the
effects of nonpoint source pollution could be espe-
94
-------
/V. REGIONAL ACTMTIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VII
cially helpful. An example of such a standard might
be a hydrologic unit type of analysis that is used by
every government agency that addresses nonpoint
source pollution.
IOWA
Although Iowa did not have an approved nonpoint
source management program in FY 1989, coopera-
tion among state and federal agencies is providing
the momentum necessary to start and maintain a
number of projects. Participating agencies include
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR),
the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stew-
ardship (DALS), the Cooperative Extension Service,
Iowa State University, SCS, ASCS, and EPA.
Statewide Activities
Outreach activities are a key component of Iowa's
nonpoint source control program. Through field
days and special tours, over 3,800 people — includ-
ing representatives from at least five foreign coun-
tries — have visited the Big Springs project in the
past 18 months. In 1988, more than 60 magazine
and newspaper articles were published, the project
was featured in 30 radio interviews or announce-
ments and nine TV appearances, and five issues of
the newsletter Water Watch were sent to an 800-per-
son mailing list.
In addition to the ongoing activities under the
Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Pro-
gram and Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project
described earlier, the Iowa legislature appropriated
$600,000 to establish at least five Model Farm Dem-
onstration project areas similar to the Big Spring
project. The legislation states that the projects are
to be designed to enhance the profitability and de-
crease the environmental impacts of row crop pro-
duction. Planning for these projects has been
completed, with work slated to begin in the 1990
crop year.
The Water Protection Fund, another legislative
mandate, authorizes water quality projects to pro-
tect the state's surface water and ground water from
point and nonpoint sources of contamination. The
fund has two accounts: one to pay for projects and
one to pay for cost-share practices. In 1989, eight
projects were funded for a total of $500,000; several
of these tie in with ongoing projects, thereby extend-
ing their effectiveness.
The Resource Enhancement and Protection Act
was enacted in 1989 to protect and enhance Iowa's
natural and environmental resources. The Act pro-
vided funding of $15 million for 1989, with $350,000
designated for conservation education and $3 mil-
lion for soil and water conservation projects. In
1990, REAP will provide $1 million for Water Pro-
tection Fund projects. Another $2 million will be
used by soil and water conservation districts to im-
plement watershed and chemical management
practices designed to improve water quality.
Watershed Activities
A variety of state and federal funding sources
helped ensure considerable progress in BMP imple-
mentation during FY 1989. In the watersheds of 14
publicly owned lakes (totaling 109,276 acres), BMPs
such as conservation tillage, crop rotations, strip
cropping, contour farming, fertilizer management,
integrated pest management, animal waste man-
agement, and structural installations were imple-
mented to control sediment, nutrients, and
pesticides from agricultural sources.
Approximately $113,757 in federal, $305,965 in
state, and $700 in local funds were used to leverage
an additional $140,134 from landowners for instal-
lation of structural BMPs in the 14 watersheds.
Sources of funding for the BMPs included the Iowa
Publicly Owned Lakes Program, the Clean Lakes
Program, ASCS ACP Special Program, and the
Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP).
BMPs to control sediment and pesticides from
agricultural sources were implemented in the North
Cedar Creek trout stream watershed. Funding was
approved for two more trout stream watersheds:
Glovers Creek and Little Turkey Creek, where work
is to begin in FY 1990.
Water quality and watershed conditions/prob-
lems are being analyzed for 29 lakes under a Clean
Lakes Program Phase I grant awarded in FY 1989.
Protection and restoration needs will be assessed for
each lake. Two new Clean Lakes projects that in-
volve nonpoint sources were initiated (Lake
Ahquabi Phase II and Upper and Lower Pine Lakes
Phase I). The Lake Iowa and Green Valley Lake pro-
jects were completed.
Water Quality Improvements
Nonpoint source pollutant load reductions have
been documented throughout the state. Data for the
Prairie Rose RCWP indicate soil losses within the
watershed have dropped 65 permit, while sediment
delivery to the lake fell from an annual rate of
26,300 tons to 9,400 tons over the life of the project.
The Green Valley Lake Clean lakes project reduced
total phosphorus concentration 75 percent, algal
growth fourfold, and sediment delivery to the lake
by half; at the same time, fish growth rates in-
creased.
95
-------
Managing Ncnpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Mulch conserves moisture and smothers weeds in this conservation-tilkd field; low-till reduces runoff and erosion.
Funding Summary
IDNR expected to use $131,704 in 205(j)(5) funding
to support nonpoint source pollution control in FY
1989, This funding was used primarily for develop-
mental work related to the assessment report, man-
agement program, annual report, and
implementation projects previously described. In
addition, IDNR developed a slide-tape that dis-
cusses Iowa's surface water and ground-water qual-
ity problems. The slide-tape will be used for SCS
water quality meetings.
KANSAS
Statewide Activities
Because EPA only recently approved the Kansas as-
sessment and management program, no BMPs have
been installed as a direct result of the management
program. However, the state is conducting two tar-
geted nonpoint source water quality assessments
that will lead to nonpoint source pollution control
projects. The state also has several plans for specific
nonpoint source problems; one plan is to correct at-
razine contamination and two others are for water-
shed protection for water supply lakes.
New legislation, regulations, and rules allow
the state to establish Pesticide Management Dis-
tricts, require certification for a chemigation permit,
and authorize the promulgation of rules pertaining
to spill containment and cleanup at bulk fertilizer
facilities.
With the help of SCS and the Cooperative Ex-
tension Service, the state also conducted six work-
shops for district conservationists and county
extension agents on nutrients and pesticides.
In addition, Kansas has formed Agency Partici-
pation Agreements with 13 federal or state agencies,
drafted a registry of nonpoint source control practi-
ces and an inventory of valuable waters, and pre-
pared criteria for identifying vulnerable waters.
Kansas took a significant step toward achieving
self-sufficiency in water programs by earmarking
revenues for programs recommended by the Kansas
Water Plan (the state planning process). Of the
$15.8 million allocated, $1.5 million has been tar-
geted for the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Fund and another $14.1 million has been reserved
for programs and projects that may contribute to
nonpoint source pollution control.
Water Quality Improvements
Because its management program was developed
very recently, Kansas has not been able to document
any reduction in nonpoint source pollutant loads or
improvement in water quality. Kansas would like
EPA to help state scientists better understand the
relationships between biological observations and
nonpoint source pollution concentrations and to de-
velop technology-based solutions as initial steps in
nonpoint source control.
Funding Summary
Kansas used $66,000 of 205(j)(5) money in FY 1989
to develop its assessment report and management
program. The state received $207,320 in 205(j)(5)
96
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VII
money to apply to the FY 1990 nonpoint source work
effort.
MISSOURI
Watershed Activities
More than 70 watershed-level projects designed to
improve the quality of water impaired by nonpoint
source pollution were underway in Missouri in FY
1989. All of the projects were listed as priorities in
the state management program.
Most of the projects deal with agricultural
causes of nonpoint source pollution. Typical BMPs
include terraces, grassed waterways, water im-
poundments, conversion of cropland to grassland,
no-till or conservation tillage, and animal waste
management systems. Most of the affected waters
are streams or rivers, although some lakes also are
involved.
Specific watershed projects:
¦ Woods Fork Watershed: This five-year,
multi-agency project encompasses the 33,500-
acre watershed of the Woods Fork, headwaters
for the Gasconade River. Land use consists of
forest and pasture with a concentration of
dairies.
The project's goal is to protect water quality
by improving pasture management/soil ero-
sion control and animal waste management
systems. Participants in the project include
local, state, and federal agencies; more than $1
million is being spent.
Fiscal year 1989 activities include construc-
tion of animal waste management systems,
purchase of irrigation equipment for land ap-
plication of animal wastes, improved pasture
management, ground-water monitoring and
surface water studies, and production of edu-
cational materials for information transfer.
¦ Spring Fork Lake: This project has linked
an EPA-funded Clean Lakes Phase I study
with a Missouri Department of Natural Re-
sources (DNR) Special Area Land Treatment
(SALT) project to determine current conditions
for the lake and watershed and develop practi-
cal methods for lake protection/restoration, in-
cluding reducing soil erosion. The Clean Lakes
study will generate lake and watershed data
along with computer-simulated nutrient/sedi-
ment loading rates (using the AGNPS model)
from SALT projects. Following the Clean
lakes study, watershed controls will be
achieved by implementing soil erosion practi-
ces under the SALT program. Although the
project began before the management pro-
gram was completed, activities are consistent
with the program's objectives.
¦ Bootheel Precise Application Project:
This project is designed to demonstrate that
agricultural chemicals can be applied more
precisely than most farmers generally do. The
project divides an entire field into smaller
units by using base maps of agricultural
lands. The maps address soil type, texture, or-
ganic matter, fertility, and water handling ca-
pacity. Recommendations for fertilizer and
pesticide applications will be made based on
the soil conditions reported on the maps.
Longer-term prqject objectives include use
of the base maps to define even smaller areas
within fields (five acres) as a new generation of
computerized spreading and spraying ma-
chines equipped with satellite navigational
systems becomes available. When the three-
year demonstration ends, farmers and
agribusinesses will fund future expansion of
the project. Project planning and initial field
work have been completed. Digitalization of
the field data is underway, and the project is
ahead of schedule.
Water Quality Improvements
Because of insufficient data, no water quality im-
provements have been documented from Missouri's
projects. The long lead time generally required be-
fore water quality improvements can be measured
has forced many of Missouri's projects to rely on in-
direct measures of success such as decreased fertil-
izer or pesticide application and numbers of animal
waste management systems. Water quality monitor-
ing over a long period will be necessary before defin-
itive changes can be noted.
Funding Summary
Dollars committed to the watershed projects include
$254,000 of 205(j)(5) money statewide. On a water-
shed basis, USDA funds account for $450,000; Mis-
souri DNR funds, 181,000; 205(j)(5) funds, $70,338;
314 funds, $23,000; and match from various
sources, $159,000.
97
-------
Managing .Vonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
While cows cool off in this stream, they contribute undesirable nutrients and pathogens to the water.
NEBRASKA
Statewide Activities
Nebraska's Nonpoint Source Task Force, a multi-
agency group with representatives from the SCS,
Corps of Engineers, EPA, ASCS, USGS, Extension
Service, and their state counterparts, continues to
meet and develop specific aspects of the manage-
ment programs.
The Task Force has developed a Wellhead Pro-
tection Program and has recommended designation
of two Special Ground-water Quality Protection
Areas (two more are under study). In addition, the
Task Force has implemented a statewide chemiga-
tion program in response to nitrate and pesticide
pollution.
Nebraska has designated approximately 70 fed-
eral, state, and local programs for consistency re-
view in FY 1990.
Watershed Activities
Nebraska continues to be involved in the Long Pine
Creek RCWP project. Located in north central Ne-
braska, this project involves the installation of sedi-
ment control measures to protect one of the state's
trophy trout streams.
The state started two Clean Lakes Phase I pro-
jects that involve seven lakes: Branched Oak,
Pawnee, Holmes, and Wildwood Lakes in Lancaster
County; Meadowlark Lake in Seward County;
Willow Creek Lake in Pierce County; and
Maskenthine Lake in Stanton County.
Water Quality Improvements
Insufficient data have made it impossible for Ne-
braska to document any reductions in nonpoint
source pollutant loads. The state now is in the
fourth year of an ambitious five-year segment delin-
eation process where not only water quality is char-
acterized but aquatic biota and habitat are also
measured. When complete, this process will ensure
that water quality effects and causes are better un-
derstood, which in turn will mean more effective
control of nonpoint source pollution.
Nebraska also has begun to make entries into
EPA's Waterbody System. Current legislation gives
the state authority to control pollution in 15 non-
point source categories or sub-categories.
Funding Summary
Nebraska used $117,500 of 205(j)(5) money in FY
1989 to develop a nonpoint source management pro-
gram. The state also will receive $100,000 of FY
1990 205(j)(l) money, of which $40,000 will be
passed through to regional planning councils. Of
604(b) funds, $100,000 will be applied to achieving
state nonpoint source control goals.
n
-------
REGION VIII
During FY 1989, the Region VIII staff fo-
cused on helping the states in the region
(Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) integrate the pro-
posed USDA 1990 Water Quality Initiative, the
EPA and USDA initiatives on agricultural chemi-
cals, and the successes of the South Dakota and
Utah Rural Clean Water Program projects into
strong agricultural nonpoint source management
programs as specified under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act.
Specific activities included:
¦ Convening an EPA'USDA/state water quality
staff/state agricultural staff conference on pes-
ticides in ground water;
¦ Supporting the South Dakota Cooperative Ex-
tension Service effort to expand its pesticide
applicator certification training course;
¦ Establishing a Regional Agricultural Chemi-
cals Task Force to facilitate data sharing, en-
sure integration of EPA and USDA programs,
connect the various program grants, and en-
sure a unified approach to dealing with agricul-
tural chemical issues;
¦ Managing a contract to consolidate the state-
of-the-art knowledge on grazing BMPs in the
western United States. The first document to
be produced under the contract identifies
those BMPs that work to address water qual-
ity concerns and those that do not and shows
how fisheries can be protected at the same
time livestock production is enhanced. A sec-
ond document will show range specialists and
ranchers how to implement successful BMPs
both as section 319 demonstration projects
and within programs conducted by other gov-
ernment agencies;
¦ Developing and implementing projects using
201(g)(1)(B) funds in Colorado and South Da-
kota;
¦ Supporting the states' adoption of compatible
silviculture practices based on the Forest Ser-
vice Soil and Water Conservation Practice
Handbook;
N.DAKOTA
S. DAKOTA
UTAH / COLO.
I Denver#
• Regional Office
¦ Supporting Colorado's effort to develop hardr-
ock mining BMPs for abandoned hi^i country
gold and silver mines and tailings (demonstra-
tion projects are now underway); and
¦ Supporting efforts to translate the learning
experiences from the National Urban Runoff
Project into pilot demonstration projects.
The end result of all this activity is that Region
VIII has six approved nonpoint source assessments
and management programs. Demonstration projects
already are being established from various sources
of funding such as section 201(g)(1)(B). The region is
ready to begin a full-scale section 319 program.
Regional Highlight
Oakwood Lakes, South Dakota
— Poinsett RCWP Project
This RCWP project is the first major national
ground-water nonpoint source study to include mon-
itoring of both soil and ground water. Begun in
1981, this 10-year effort is designed to determine
the impacts of agricultural BMPs on ground water
and surface water, but the ground-water aspects are
unique both within RCWP and in the nation.
WYOMING
99
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
With its combination of plot, field, and water-
shed study sites, this project continues to provide in-
formation on surface water and ground-water
quality, and the relationships between surface wa-
ters and ground water in the watershed. The follow-
ing describes activities in FY 1989 and the major
scientific findings to date.
FY 1989 Progress
BMPs employed in this 106,000-acre watershed con-
sist mainly of conservation tillage, fertilizer man-
agement, and pesticide management. These BMPs
are designed to solve the major problems in the wa-
tershed: eutrophication in surface waters and ni-
trate and pesticide contamination of the aquifer.
Monitoring continued on the Oakwood Lakes
System Study, the Agricultural Chemical Leaching
Study, and field sites. Several additions were made
to the monitoring program in each area.
Ground-water monitoring continued through
1989 at six farmed field sites and the unfarmed
Oakwood park site. Well sampling was increased to
better define the movement of pesticides and ni-
trates into the ground water. This was also the first
year of monitoring the epoxy resin wells to detect
pesticides.
Findings
A comprehensive report on the Oakwood Lakes-
Poinsett RCWP project will be made in 1991, Se-
lected findings are presented here as a basis for
recommended actions to protect or reduce water
contamination. In many cases, a complete analysis
of the data has not been made and recommenda-
tions are based upon judgments and inferences from
the monitoring data.
¦ Of 2,411 samples collected from monitoring
wells ranging in depth from 7 to 65 feet, con-
centrations of nitrate as N did not exceed 5
mg/L at depths greater than 20 feet below the
water table.
¦ Three geological settings (geozones) have been
identified with consistently high concentra-
tions of nitrate as N: (1) shallow sand and
gravel with thin topsoils, (2) sand/silt alternat-
ing layers, and (3) shallow weathered till.
¦ Concentrations of nitrate as N found in the
water samples are statistically greater under
fanned sites than under an unfarmed site.
¦ The fate of pesticides in the ground water is
currently unknown; however, 84 percent of the
pesticides found were not found the following
month. This indicates rapid degradation or di-
lution below detection limits.
¦ Nearly 75 percent of the pesticides were de-
tected from May through August; this corre-
sponds to the time of application or shortly
thereafter.
Recommendations
¦ To reduce shallow aquifer contamination, fer-
tilizer management systems should be em-
ployed when farming over sand and gravel
aquifers with overlying weathered till or thin
topsoils.
¦ A combination of high fertilization and no-till
management would not be recommended in
areas where thin soils overlie shallow, uncon-
fined aquifers used for domestic drinking
water. An evaluation needs to be made on a
site-specific basis to determine the impacts
this may have on surface versus ground-water
quality.
These are only a few of the scientific findings
and recommendations made by the RCWP evalua-
tion team. Others address the soil profile, BMP ef-
fectiveness, and surface waters. In addition, several
findings and recommendations have been made re-
garding monitoring protocols, land treatment, proj-
ect administration, and information and education
activities. While this project has had successes as
well as failures, it is clearly on the cutting edge of
the discovery of linkages between BMPs, surface
water, the soil profile, and ground water.
COLORADO
Region VIII approved Colorado's nonpoint source
management programs for agriculture, silviculture,
abandoned and inactive mining, urban runoff, and
construction runoff in May 1989. The state submit-
ted a program to control nonpoint source pollution
caused by hydrologic modifications and the manage-
ment program was fully approved in December
1989.
The Colorado Water Quality Commission re-
quested and received the governor's approval to use
the governor's discretionary fund for nonpoint
source purposes. This fund, established in section
201(g)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act, allows up to 20
percent of each year's construction grant allocation
100
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
to be used for section 319 nonpoint source programs.
In FY 1989, $300,000 was dedicated to nonpoint
source control The governor approved a full 20 per-
cent of the construction grant allocation for non-
point sources in FY 1990 to be used over a
three-year period. This is. a significant step that al-
lows Colorado to pursue implementation of demon-
stration projects and educational programs on a
priority basis. Eight projects, funded at a 60/40
matching level, began during FY 1989.
Statewide Activities
¦ Streambank Erosion Control Education
Program: The Colorado State Soil Conserva-
tion Board and the Colorado Association of
Soil Conservation Districts sponsored this pro-
gram to educate the agricultural, mining,
urban, and construction communities regard-
ing low-cost measures to control streambank
erosion. A symposium was held in the summer
of 1989 in Aspen, Colorado, to inform the pub-
lic regarding low-cost BMPs to control this pol-
lution source. A Streambank Erosion
Handbook and a color brochure on alterna-
tives for treating streambank erosion will be
prepared as a result of the symposium and
made available to the general public.
¦ Irrigation Management Education Pro-
gram: The Northern Colorado Water Conser-
vancy District has expanded the scope of its
current irrigation management service to in-
clude both the Financial and water quality
benefits of sound irrigation and fertilizer ap-
plication. Water quality monitoring of the ap-
plied irrigation water, of soil and water
samples from the crop root zone, and of water
samples from sub-surface agricultural field
drains will be used to estimate fertilizer losses
to deep percolation and runoff. These losses
will be compared to losses expected under best
practical irrigation management technologies.
Milestones include completion of three field
demonstrations and publication of a summary
report in early 1990, The report will be distrib-
uted statewide and a public meeting will re-
view and summarize the project.
In addition to the activities encouraged by sec-
tion 319, a number of agencies at the federal, state,
and local level are planning nonpoint source im-
provements. For example, SCS and the Extension
Service have entered into an agreement to guide the
activities of both agencies in developing materials
and training aids for improving water quality.
Watershed Activities
¦ Peru Creek/Pennsylvania Mine Demon-
stration Project: The Pennsylvania Mine is
the largest of several abandoned mines and is
the major source of heavy metals in the Peru
Creek basin, a tributary to the South Fork of
the Snake River. Peru Creek is acidic with ele-
vated concentrations of heavy metals year-
round. Of particular concern are the high
springtime concentrations of heavy metals ap-
parently caused by the erosion of bare, un-
vegetated mine dumps and mill tailings. Metal
concentrations at most testing sites remained
well above levels considered toxic for sensitive
trout species over the course of the entire sam-
pling season.
The project, which is conducted by the Colo-
rado Mine Land Reclamation Division, in-
cludes the removal of metals and acidity from
the Pennsylvania Mine Drainage. A demon-
stration treatment system that combines a
neutralization system, a sedimentation sys-
tem, and a constructed wetlands system com-
prises the cornerstone of the project. Funding
is derived from the Abandoned Mine Land Act
funds and section 201(g).
¦ Gamble Guleh/Perigo Mine Demonstra-
tion Project: Both the Ferigo and Tip Top
mines contribute to water quality problems in
Gamble Gulch, a tributary to the South Fork
of Boulder Creek. The 39-acre Perigo mine
and wastes are situated on the west side of the
stream, while mine tailings are mounded on
the east side. The Tip Ibp mine contributes
heavy metal pollution to Gamble Gulch,
largely through a collapsed adit.
The Mine Land Reclamation Division is also
conducting this project, again using Aban-
doned Mine Land and section 201(g) funds.
Treatment plans include a multi-tiered wet-
land located well above stream level near the
collapsed Tip Top adit. It is anticipated that
this project will allow brook trout to return to
Gamble Gulch.
¦ Milk and Alkali Creeks Demonstration
Project: These two tributaries to Eagle River
exhibit both high salinity <1,000 mg/L average
during low flows) and high sediment concen-
trations (up to 12,000 mg/L in spring runoff),
resulting in substantial impart to the Eagle
River fisheries. Seventy-five percent of the
steep Milk Creek watershed is BLM-managed
public land, while 48 percent of the Alkali
Creek watershed is public land. The project
101
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
area is confined to the lower central part of the
two drainages,
¦ The Eagle River Council (project sponsor)
focuses on private land while public lands are
targeted for treatment on a priority basis. A
series of drop structures and check dams are
being installed to control sedimentation and
rejuvenate riparian areas. It is anticipated
that the project will greatly reduce sediments
and salinity in the Eagle River, thus improv-
ing the fishery.
¦ Boulder Creek Demonstration Project:
The city of Boulder sponsored this project to
treat 2 of 23.6 miles of Boulder Creek needing
riparian zone and in-stream treatment. The
physical habitat and water quality in this sec-
tion of Boulder Creek are affected by agricul-
tural activities, particularly grazing.
Implementation will include revegetation,
fencing, and streambank stabilization,
¦ Shop Creek Demonstration Project:
Urban runoff into Shop Creek is the primary
source of phosphorus loading into Cherry
Creek Reservoir where aquatic life and recrea-
tional uses are affected by eutrophication.
Storm water runoff drains from the approxi-
mately 640 acres of residential development to
Cherry Creek Reservoir,
Implementation in this 640-acre residential
area includes several phosphorus control facili-
ties. A wet pond of approximately 8 acre-feet
acts as the primary -control to treat both base
flows and storm flows. This pond is followed by
a series of drop structures, which create
wetlands in the reaches between the struc-
tures. Channel stabilization achieved by the
drop structures will stop further erosion and
channel degradation. Local funding sources
have supported this effort.
Under the direction of the Cherry Creek
Basin Authority of the city of Aurora, this proj-
ect should reduce phosphorus in the Shop
Creek drainage by approximately 70 percent,
to 400 pounds per year. This compares to 5,796
pounds per year projected for the year 2010
without controls. Lessons learned from this
project can be used to refine design criteria
basinwide, resulting in more cost-effective con-
trols.
¦ Soda Creek Demonstration Project:
Aquatic life and recreational uses of Dillon
Reservoir are affected by excessive phospho-
rus loading from golf courses, agricultural
sources, residential areas, and other sources.
Urban runoff from the Soda Creek sub-basin
is a significant contributor to this problem.
Summit County is conducting the project; it
consists of using the existing Swan Mountain
Road embankment and installing a new outlet
structure to create a flow-through detention
pond (wet pond) in the Soda Creek channel to
intercept ail flows before they enter the reser-
voir. The wet pond is expected to remove 25 to
50 percent of the total phosphorus load that
would otherwise enter the reservoir from Soda
Creek.
The anticipated benefit from the project is
the removal of 35 to 40 pounds/year of phos-
phorus from Dillon Reservoir. For reference, it
is important to note that if 40 pounds/year are
removed from Soda Creek, that will be more
than twice the amount discharged by the
Snake River wastewater treatment plant dur-
ing all of 1987.
¦ Soil Conservation Service: SCS used P.L.
83-566 watershed program funds for the fol-
lowing sediment reduction projects:
~ Red Wash, a White River tributary,
~ Trinidad Lake watershed, and
~ Highland Breaks,'Limestone-Graveyard
Creeks, located in the lower Arkansas
River basin.
¦ Soil Conservation Service/Bureau of Rec-
lamation Colorado River Salinity Pro-
jects: In Colorado, activities are currently
underway in the Grand Valley Unit, the Lower
Gunnison Unit, and McElmo Creek Unit.
¦ Agriculture Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service-ACP Special Water Quality
Projects: An ACP special water quality proj-
ect is underway on a tributary to the Arkansas
River. It is intended to curb streambank ero-
sion and reduce sedimentation in Currant
Creek and the Arkansas River.
¦ Bureau of Land Management Riparian
Demonstration Projects: BLM is imple-
menting a riparian policy intended to improve
the condition of riparian zones on BLM land in
Colorado. Nine demonstration projects cover-
ing all four districts in Colorado are intended
to determine the best means of restoring and
maintaining these valuable resources.
102
-------
IV, REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
¦ U.S. Forest Service Trout Creek Project,
Chaffee County; This project is improving 22
acres of eroding banks that will rehabilitate
approximately one mile of stream. The project
will include log structures and willow and
grass plantings.
¦ The Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Di-
vision has worked at three abandoned mine
sites in the past year to both abate hazards
and improve water quality.
¦ Town of Alice/Silver Creek: Lime was
added to a filled and capped glory hole to raise
the pH of water percolating through the fill,
which was composed of old mine tailings and
waste rock. This project has substantially
raised the pH of water in nearby Little Creek.
¦ Thompson No, 2 Mine: The Mine Land Rec-
lamation Division renovated a poorly function-
ing passive mine drainage system at this coal
mine in Pitkin County.
¦ Purgatoire Projects: Over the past three
years, the Mine Land Reclamation Division
has completed several erosion and sediment
control projects along the Purgatoire River to
reduce the amount of coal waste bank mate-
rial deposited in Trinidad Lake. Projects in-
cluded streambank/arroyo stabilization and
waste pile reclamation at the old Sopris Coal
Mine, arroyo stabilization and waste pile rec-
lamation at the Frederick Mine, and
streambank erosion control at waste piles
near Tijeros.
¦ Colorado Division of Wildlife—Fishing is
Fun: The Colorado Division of Wildlife spon-
sors the Fishing is Fun Program, which pro-
vides money for habitat improvements. The
program is funded by federal money collected
through the sale of fishing equipment. Local
governments and interested groups may apply
for these funds, but a match is required. Since
the program began in 1987, $1,171,000 in im-
provements have been made.
Colorado has made significant progress in
achieving milestones in three areas: agriculture/sil-
viculture, urban and construction, and mining. Most
notably, demonstration projects are underway or
completed in both the mining and the urban/con-
struction programs. In addition, the Cherry Creek
Basin Authority developed an educational video
about phosphorus loadings.
Water rushes through a field following a rain storm,
resulting in soil erosion, and pesticide and nutrient
runoff.
The nonpoint source subcommittee has been co-
ordinating efforts with the Colorado State Storm
Water Task Force. The urban and construction
BMPs developed by the subcommittee are being
used by the task force, with completion of a storm
water BMP manual scheduled for 1990. Two munici-
palities and a county are using the model erosion,
grading, and sedimentation ordinance developed for
the nonpoint source management program as a
guide in writing their own ordinances.
Further Actions
Needed / Recommendations
Colorado is encouraged by the efforts this past year
to re-establish a permanent nonpoint source control
103
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
program in the state. Three areas that require a
long-term commitment to ensure successful pro-
gram implementation are research, education, and
demonstration.
Research that focuses on BMP effectiveness is
very important, particularly in the areas of urban
runoff and abandoned mine drainage. This is partic-
ularly true for urban runoff in light of the storm
water discharge requirements forthcoming from
EPA, Research into means of treating abandoned
mine drainages is also critical for Colorado's non-
point source program.
BMPs must be demonstrated to promote their
use as pollution-abating techniques. A commitment
to funding demonstration projects through section
319 is essential to the success of the program.
Finally, an educational program that focuses not
only on remediation of existing problems but also
emphasizes prevention of nonpoint sources is criti-
cal. Such a program deserves national and state at-
tention in primary and secondary education.
Federal Consistency
Colorado's approved management program contains
a list of federal programs and activities that are sub-
ject to the Federal Consistency Review. A major pro-
gram activity that Colorado intends to pursue in the
coming year is Memoranda of U nderstanding with a
number of federal agencies. The MOUs will provide
a basis for review of important nonpoint source is-
sues. In particular, the use of BMPs and other man-
agement techniques by federal land management
agencies (BLM, Forest Service) will be a focus of
these MOUs.
Several important nonpoint source federal con-
sistency reviews performed by the Water Quality
Control Division in FY 1989 included the revision to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Regional
Guide, the amendment to the Grand Mesa, Un-
copahgre, and Gunnison National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan, and the environmental
impact statement scoping for cumulative impacts of
oil and gas development on BLM lands in Colorado.
To date, no irresolvable problems have arisen from
these reviews.
Funding Summary
The Water Quality Control Division received a
$141,307 grant under section 205(j)(5) to manage
and operate the state nonpoint source program, and
a second grant under section 201(g)(1)(B) to support
eight demonstration and education projects in accor-
dance with the Colorado nonpoint source manage-
ment program. A total of $199,307 was used for
statewide activities, while $443,046 was spent on
watershed projects.
MONTANA
Montana's nonpoint source management program
emphasizes education, technical assistance, and fi-
nancial incentives for landowners and managers to
voluntarily implement BMPs that will prevent or
mitigate water quality problems. Enforcement au-
thority is exerted where sufficient evident® of non-
point source pollution exists.
The Water Quality Bureau of the Montana De-
partment of Health and Environmental Sciences is
the lead agency for the management program, and a
Nonpoint Source Task Force oversew implementa-
tion. The program stresses a strong, pro-active edu-
cational component to minimize nonpoint source
problems.
Statewide Activities
¦ Riparian Management Education; The
Montana Riparian Education Committee devel-
oped educational materials on riparian man-
agement and convened approximately 20
workshops and tours throughout Montana dur-
ing the past year.
¦ Ground-water Protection Education Pro-
gram; Montana's Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice launched a three-year statewide
educational program concerning ground water.
Extension also is cooperating with EPA to test
the water quality of a number of wells in the
state.
¦ Saline Tour; The Montana Salinity Control
Association sponsored a tour to saline seeps
and identified problems associated with seep
and constraints in controlling it.
¦ Educational Material for Children; The
Water Quality Bureau used section 2G5(j) and
604(b) pass-through funding to provide a grant
to the Missoula County Conservation district to
develop a water quality education program for
junior high school students.
¦ Demonstration Projects: Current demon-
stration projects address agriculture and silvi-
culture, but others will be planned for each
major category of nonpoint source pollution in
Montana.
104
-------
/V. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VUI
Coordination of Monitoring and
merit Activities: The Bureau mailed a survey
to Nonpoint Source Task Force members and
other interested individuals regarding monitor-
ing and assessment needs and opportunities.
The results were compiled and reviewed by the
task force in February,
Forestry Information Bilk The 1989 legisla-
ture passed a bill that requires private land-
owners to notify the Forestry Division of the
Department of State Lands before they sell
timber. The department must provide informa-
tion on appropriate BMPs and review proposed
timber sales in important watersheds.
Watershed Activities
¦ Flathead River Study: This study examines
the effects of past and current logging on water
quality to ascertain if selected BMPs are meet-
ing water quality objectives.
¦ Abandoned Mines Program: The Bureau
has reviewed the list of streams affected by
mining and addressed by the Abandoned Mine
Lands Program. The program was expected to
have completed reclaimed coal projects in 1989.
Beginning in 1990 and continuing through
1995, approximately $5 million will be avail-
able per year to reclaim hardrock mining sites.
Mining BMPs are being reviewed by state
agencies.
¦ Otter Creek; This project is intended to re-
verse the impairment of fisheries resulting
from mass wasting banks, irrigation return
flows, and channel changes. A monitoring
strategy was developed and a fisheries evalua-
tion and census completed. SCS will perform
vegetative surveys before and after project im-
plementation; sediment sampling has already
begun.
¦ShLaawnjKibSBB
A severely eroding logging road.
While there has been no measurable reduction
in pollutant loadings to date, more people and agen-
cies in Montana than ever before are working to-
gether to solve nonpoint source problems.
Funding Summary
During state Fiscal Year 1989, Montana used ap-
proximately $112,000 of 205
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
This extremely important facet of nonpoint source
pollution abatement involves both North Dakota's
adults and youth.
The state has contracted with the North Dakota
State University Cooperative Extension Service to
develop a water quality education program that will
tell the public about agricultural nonpoint source
pollution and its effects on surface water and
ground water. The program, to be coordinated with
the Water Education for Teachers (WET) program
administered by the North Dakota State Water
Commission, will emphasize management and cul-
tural activities to lessen nonpoint source impacts.
Six statewide news releases dealing with nonpoint
source pollution (four for television and two for
radio) will be developed and presented. Nitrogen
and pesticide management guides and videos on
ways to minimize ground-water contamination also
will be developed.
The North Dakota State Department of Health
and Consolidated Laboratories, in cooperation with
the North Dakota Department of Agriculture and
EPA, produced the state agricultural chemicals and
ground-water strategy, which is an overview of na-
tional and state activities. The strategy also reviews
the status of agricultural chemical studies in North
Dakota. Initially, the document will be used to edu-
cate state agencies and legislators.
Watershed Activities
Five 205 (j) projects were conducted during FY 1989.
Four watershed projects involving local soil conser-
vation districts in Stark, Pembina, Grant, and Ran-
son Counties used a technician to promote
agricultural BMPs. These projects are summarized
here.
¦ Patterson Lake; During the past fiscal year,
82 meetings were held with farmers and the
following BMPs were either in progress or com-
pleted:
~ a saline seep management plan,
~ 3 wildlife shelter belts,
~ 10 windbreak shelter belts,
~ 6 grazing management areas,
~ 5 grassed waterways,
~ 2 animal waste systems,
~ 2 diking systems, and
~ 16 grass seeding plans.
Two feedlot operations also were relocated to
lessen water quality impacts.
¦ Ilenwick Dam - Tongue River Watershed:
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
was the starting point for this project in
Pembina and Cavalier counties. Of the 45
farmers contacted regarding CRP enrollment,
six placed 1,026 acres of filter strips under the
CRP. Tree planting within the watershed in-
cluded 37,258 feet of field windbreaks and
12,620 feet of farm shelter belts. An inventory
of critically eroding areas has begun and three
runoff events have been sampled to provide
background water quality data for the project.
An accelerated land treatment plan for the
Tongue River watershed was developed by the
SCS, resource conservation groups, and the
district soil conservation office. Outreach ac-
tivities on chemical management and the dis-
posal of empty containers are in the planning
stage.
¦ Raleigh Dam Watershed Project: The tech-
nician met with seven producers to discuss
conservation planning and seeding assistance
in the immediate watershed area and tree
planting in picnic areas along the dam. Deter-
mination of crop and range land areas and
acreages were completed with soil classes,
grass waterways, tree plantings, and needed
conservation practices identified.
¦ Cheyenne River Improvement Project:
The technician made at least 290 farm con-
tacts, providing technical assistance on grass
seeding and encouraging producers to plant
windbreaks and wildlife food plots, restore
wetlands, and enroll in the CRP. To date,
20,644 acres have been entered into the CRP,
mostly for grass seeding or tree planting. Con-
servation compliance plans having been
written for 19 farmers on 1,474 acres of highly
erodible field.
Other nonpoint source watershed activities in-
cluded two applications for ASCS-ACP Special
Water Quality Projects, a wetland restoration proj-
ect through the State Waterbank Program, Barnes
County Abandoned Well Project, Barnes County
Ecology Education Camp, and water quality moni-
toring of a saline lake to determine the feasibility of
a lake freshening project.
106
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
Water Quality Improvements
Limited water quality data exist for nonpoint source
project areas, and no trend analysis has been com-
pleted at this time.
Recommendations Cor Future
Programs
Compatibility between agricultural conservation
programs and commodity price support programs
needs to be developed. Many producers are engaged
in farming activities mandated by farm legislation
but which adversely affect conservation and water
quality. For example, planting monoculture crops
and maintaining weed-free fields (excessive fallow-
ing) actually increase erosion, thereby degrading
water quality.
Federal Consistency
The nonpoint source task force and North Dakota's
Department of Health and Consolidated Labs have
worked with a number of federal agencies such as
SCS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USGS and
now are working with ASCS on two ACP-Special
Water Quality Projects.
Funding Summary
The state used $60,000 (no state match) under sec-
tion 205
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
construction, urban runoff, resource extraction, land
disposal, and hydrologic/habitat modification.
The state has targeted certain waterbodies for
intensive efforts to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Under this approach, all waterbodies in the
state were listed as priorities for action; the Task
Force then selected those at the top of the list for
rigorous nonpoint source control programs.
Streams, lakes, and aquifers were ranked sepa-
rately and the highest priority waterbodies were se-
lected from each list. The basis for aquifer
prioritization was water quality protection and pol-
lution prevention.
DWNR and the Task Force will use the priority
waterbody list in project development, selection, and
funding, but other factors such as public support,
availability of match funds, and federal program
priorities also will come into play.
¦ Information and Education: The Task
Force directed DWNR to earmark $200,000 of
section 201 (g)(1)(B) funds over four years to
support a statewide nonpoint source informa-
tion and education (I&E) program. The South
Dakota Department of Agriculture has pro-
vided a person to act as the I&E Coordinator.
The objectives of this program are to:
~ create awareness of nonpoint source
pollution problems in the state;
~ educate legislators and others about the
scope, magnitude, and importance of
controlling nonpoint source pollution;
~ transfer information gained at nonpoint
source projects to the general public and
to specific groups that plan to conduct
nonpoint source control activities; and
~ gather information about nonpoint source
activities outside the state to bring to the
Task Force and other decisionmakers.
¦ Focus on Ground Water: Ground-water pol-
lution by agricultural chemicals is a major
state concern. The Oak wood Lakes - Poinsett
RCWP project is being used to determine the
impacts of agricultural practices on ground
water. (See discussion under Region VIII High-
light.) The state also has begun to assess the
presence of pesticides and nitrates in specific
areas. Ground-water sampling of selected pub-
lic water supplies for pesticide analysis has
been performed in two studies since 1985.
¦ Legislation: Several factors (including agri-
cultural and mining impacts on ground water
and several toxic spills) prompted the 1989
South Dakota Legislature to pass the Centen-
nial Environmental Protection Act, which the
governor signed into law on March 15, 1989.
Section 29 of the law formally recognizes the
South Dakota Ground-water Protection Strat-
egy and requires that all state ground-water
activities be coordinated to ensure that com-
prehensive ground-water protection and man-
agement are achieved efficiently. Specifically,
this bill requires public education and technol-
ogy transfer, guidance for a wellhead protec-
tion program to safeguard the public water
supply, water quality analysis for all new do-
mestic wells, certification of individuals re-
sponsible for installation, construction, repair,
and alteration of individual and on-site
wastewater disposal systems, and the regula-
tion of bulk storage chemicals relating to po-
tential contamination of public water supplies.
The bill also calls for continuous evaluation
and modification of nonpoint source BMPs for
fertilizers and pesticides and additional infor-
mation on the cumulative impacts of mining.
In addition, the bill establishes a fund for de-
veloping and implementing ground-water man-
agement and protection. This fund is generated
over five years by fees placed on various poten-
tial contaminants, including:
~ $25 annual registration fee for each
pesticide registered in the state,
~ 10 cents per ton per year for all
commercial fertilizer distributed in the
state,
~ $100,000 annually from the petroleum
release compensation fund, and
~ 2 cents per pound per year of cyanide or
other leaching agent used in surface
mining operations.
Watershed Activities
¦ Big Stone Lake: Big Stone Lake is a shallow
body of water with a 729,000-acre watershed.
Land use in the watershed is approximately
76 percent cropland, 19 percent pasture and
range, and 5 percent other uses. Since 1984,
BMPs have been used to control agricultural
runoff in the watershed. Using Community
Development Block Grants, Clean Lakes Pro-
gram funding, and the CRP, cooperators have
installed 16 animal waste management sys-
tems, retired 12,675 acres of cropland, and im-
plemented other needed BMPs. Project
leaders have also secured approximately
108
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
$600,000 in section 201(g)(1)(B) funds, ACP
funds, and other funds for additional waste
management systems and BMPs through
1990.
¦ Wall Lake: Wall Lake is a shallow, 215-acre
glacial lake that drains 3,680 acres, primarily
agricultural land. About 400 acres of cropland
need BMPs to address water quality problems,
which include fish kills and hypereutrophica-
tion. Section 201(g)(1)(B) grant funds will pro-
vide for sediment removal, wetland restora-
tion, feedlot management, and water quality
monitoring.
Dredging is expected to remove approxi-
mately 950,000 cubic yards of in-lake sedi-
ment, The two five-acre wetlands proposed for
restoration receive runoff from the watershed
before discharging to Wall Lake. Restoration
plans call for removal of enriched sediment,
construction of low-head weirs to retard runoff,
construction of emergency spillways, construc-
tion of berms, restoration of outlet channels,
riprapping, and revegetation with native wet-
land species. Animal waste management sys-
tems will be installed where needed to control
nutrient input to the lake.
¦ Lake Herman: Lake Herman is a 43,000-acre
glacial lake with a well-known history of
water quality problems such as fishkills and
algal blooms. Three sediment control struc-
tures and other BMPs installed under the
Model Implementation and Clean Lakes pro-
grams controlled erosion on approximately 87
percent of the watershed. Shoreline stabiliza-
tion protected eroding banks around the lake.
.However, those measures did not improve the
lake's water quality sufficiently. This
prompted the decision to dredge Herman
Slough, a source of sediments and nutrients to
Lake Herman. Section 201(g)(1)(b) funds have
been secured for this purpose.
A water quality monitoring program was es-
tablished to quantify effects of dredging opera-
tions and spoil on Lake Herman, the Herman
Slough, and the local ground water. Data are
being collected from three in-lake sites, two
sites in the slough, the return flows from the
disposal ponds, and seven monitoring wells
both above and below the dredge spoil contain-
ment structures.
¦ Silviculture: Grace Coolidge Creek and a
stretch of Rapid Creek have been adversely af-
fected by runoff laden with silt, ash, and sedi-
ment. Wildfire burned portions of these
watersheds and destroyed much of the vegeta-
tion that normally would stabilize soils and
minimize erosion.
During FY 1989, projects were started in
both watersheds. SCS and the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks imple-
mented a restoration project using SCS Emer-
gency Watershed Program funds. Approxi-
mately 5,500 acres of "blowout" areas were
treated with 18.5 miles of terraces, reseeding,
and 270 small sediment taps. A few ponds
along the creek also were cleaned out to restore
storage capacity (and indirectly benefit the
trout fishery).
Water Quality Improvements
Because section 319 implementation projects have
just begun, water quality improvements have not
been documented for Big Stone Lake, Lake Herman,
or Wall Lake. Monitoring programs for these pro-
jects will provide data to document future improve-
ments.
Funding Summary
Eight nonpoint source development projects were
under contract in FY 1989, with five more approved
but not funded. Section 205(g)(1)(B) implementation
funds were obligated to three watershed projects
(Big Stone Lake, Lake Herman, and Wall Lake) and
one statewide information and education program.
Approximately $78,400 in nonpoint source pro-
gram development funding was matched with
$3,200 in local funds to provide about $82,000 of
total program development funds in FY 1989. Ap-
proximately $1.1 million in nonpoint source pro-
gram implementation funds was provided ($660,000
federal/$440,000 state,local) in FY 1989.
UTAH
Utah's nonpoint source program is intended to pro-
vide a baseline of nonpoint source pollution control
across the state. Statewide programs are designed
to achieve BMP implementation by raising public
awareness, coordinating government activities, and
educating landowners and managers regarding
BMPs.
The cornerstone for the state effort is the Utah
Nonpoint Source Task Force. The lead agency for ad-
ministering section 319 grants, coordinating state-
wide activities, and monitoring is the Bureau of
Water Pollution Control, Utah Department of Health
(BWPC). The Utah Department of Agriculture
(UDA) implements demonstration projects and the
education program.
109
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Utah's nonpoint source pollution problems con-
sist primarily of sediment, nutrients, and salinity.
Approximately 70 percent of the state's nonpoint
source impairments are attributable to agricultural
activities.
Statewide Activities
Statewide activities to control nonpoint source pol-
lution include local zoning and building regulations
aimed at reducing urban runoff, incentive programs
that promote the voluntary adoption of soil conser-
vation practices, education about correct use of pes-
ticides, and a wide variety of related programs.
While the primary goal of a few programs is to im-
prove water quality, most focus on controlling ero-
sion or conserving water and only secondarily on
improving water quality.
Through its nonpoint source management pro-
gram, the state is trying to consolidate diverse re-
sources and develop a coordinated approach to
controlling this pollution. Central to this approach is
a strategy that not only addresses nonpoint source
problems but also coordinates and complements the
activities of other agencies.
lb maximize and focus nonpoint pollution con-
trol efforts, the BWDC and UDA compiled a list of
priority watersheds. As BMPs are implemented and
problem areas are controlled, the priority list will be
updated and reviewed by the Nonpoint Source Tech-
nical Advisory Committee.
Other agencies also are taking lead roles in
statewide activities. One agency, the Bureau of
Land Management-Utah (BLM-Utah), has started
to plan and build structures for implementing non-
point source controls under section 319. BLM-Utah
also held a training session for all phases of riparian
management. The session resulted in the develop-
ment of riparian management plans for each of the
five BLM-Utah districts. In addition, each soil and
water conservation district is conducting grazing
management activities, including demonstrations.
The Utah State University Cooperative Exten-
sion Service is involved in several areas related to
nonpoint source pollution control, including pesti-
cide safety training, integrated pest management,
irrigation water management, fertilizer manage-
ment, conservation tillage, and low-input agricul-
ture.
The Forest Service, which manages water qual-
ity on National Forest System lands, is responsible
for BMP implementation and compliance with state
water quality standards. The agency and the Utah
Department of Health are negotiating a memoran-
dum of understanding to coordinate water pollution
control activities on National Forest Service lands.
Watershed Activities
¦ Echo Creek Watersheds A tributary of the
Weber River that supplies water to over
500,000 people and also is a eoldwater fishery,
Echo Creek is the only uncontrolled stream in
the Weber basin. Sediment is impairing the
Weber River fishery and water supply — and
up to 70 percent of the sediment entering the
Weber River is from Echo Creek. The creek
water quality has been affected by poor range-
land and weed control, erosion, and extensive
hydrologie modification from road and railroad
construction.
Under USDA's ACP-Special Water Quality
Program, $140,000 in cost-share funds has
been made available to landowners to protect
the stream and grazing land and to improve
the vegetative range. The Utah Department of
Transportation has helped target areas in the
watershed needing assistance for both safety
and sediment control. In addition, progress has
been made with Union Pacific Railroad to iden-
tify areas where cooperative efforts can stabi-
lize streambanks affected by the railroad.
The Weber Basin Conservancy and local
rock quarries contributed to a demonstration
project that showed ways to enhance or restore
streambank stability. Low-drop log checks, rip-
rap, and juniper tree plantings were the BMPs
promoted in this effort.
¦ Little Bear River Watershed Project: Sedi-
ment is affecting two reservoirs formed by the
impoundment of the Little Bear River. Heavy
sedimentation results from thunderstorms,
steep slopes, dry land cropping areas, poor
channel maintenance, and unstable stream
banks. In addition, the Hyrum Reservoir is
impaired by nutrients from animal waste and
organic runoff. The Bear River soon may be re-
classified as a drinking water source, requir-
ing that more stringent water quality
standards be met.
To address both the existing water quality
problems in the Little Bear River Watershed
and the impending water quality needs of the
Bear River, the Little Bear River Watershed
Management Project was started. Planning
has already begun, and limited funding has
been secured from state and local sources. In
addition, a demonstration project is underway
to show landowners ways to reduce stream
channel degradation and streambank erosion.
¦ Deer Creek Reservoir: Monitoring of the
successful Snake Creek RCWP project contin-
110
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
ued in FY 1989. Implementation of animal
waste control measures has kept approxi-
mately 1,000 kg per year of phosphorus from
entering the Deer Creek reservoir. The Deer
Creek Reservoir Clean Lakes program has
continued the effort initiated under the RCWP
project, with additional BMPs constructed at
dairies doubling the phosphorus loading re-
duction.
Salt Lake County; The Salt Lake City-
County Health Department coordinates plan-
ning along the Jordan River, ensuring that
wetlands are maintained to control nonpoint
source discharges. An active program to stim-
ulate awareness of nonpoint source problems
has increased public understanding of and in-
volvement in nonpoint source control activi-
ties.
I Southeastern Utah: The Southeastern Utah
Association of Local Governments' water qual-
ity program strongly emphasizes implementa-
tion programs in the Scofield Reservoir
watershed, Nonpoint source control mea-
sures are being implemented under the Clean
Lakes Program to complement the extensive
sewer construction project administered by
the association. The control measures include
construction of juniper berms on eroding
streambanks, installation of check dams to
raise the water table, riparian fencing to rees-
tablish vegetation, and better livestock man-
agement.
Other nonpoint projects in this area include
the Abandoned Mine Reclamation project
to remove the Price River coal pile. In 1987,
95,000 tons of coal were removed from the pile
and transported to Plateau Mine for storage.
Another 250,000 tons are to be removed, com-
pacted, and stored in an abandoned portal site.
There may be a third phase if the streambanks
are found to be composed of coal. Removal of
this coal and reclamation and revegetation of
the streambanks will greatly enhance water
quality in the Price River, which has been ad-
versely affected by the constant erosion of this
pile.
Another effort is the recently completed im-
provement in the North Hughes watershed
near the Manti-LaSal National Forest. The af-
fected area includes 150 acres in the North
Hughes drainage and 50 acres in the Mud
Creek drainage, which is a tributary to
Scofield Reservoir. The Forest Service esti-
mates that the contour trenching and revege-
tation will reduce nonpoint sediment loading
to Huntington Creek by 40 percent from North
Hughes Canyon and by 15 percent from Mud
Creek.
¦ Salinity Control: Salinity problems have
been identified and evaluated in the following
resource areas: Gand, San Juan, Price, San
Rafael, Kanab, and Henry Mountain. Activity
plans have been written for Sagers Wash,
Round Valley, Pariette Draw, Castle Peak, and
Red Creek, and projects are being imple-
mented in Sagers Wash, Castle Peak, and Red
Creek. Sagers Wash was identified as the
principal source of strongly saline soils on
public lands administered by the Bureau of
Land Management and is Utah's nomination
to BLM for designation as a Comprehensive
Watershed Management Planning and Water
Erosion Protection Project.
River basin studies are in progress in the
Virgin River drainage and Montezuma Creek.
Watershed planning is in place in the Muddy
Creek-Orderville and Rabbit Gulch water-
sheds, SCS is continuing the salinity control
program in the Utah Basin and salinity control
efforts are in the planning stage for the Price-
San Rafael drainage.
These projects focus on the reduction of salt
loading by controlling erosion. Typical BMPs include
grazing management, seeding, structures, contour
furrowing, and fencing.
Water Quality Improvements
Water quality data are insufficient to report im-
provement in nonpoint source program areas. As im-
plementation efforts are realized and water quality
trends are established through monitoring, water
quality can be evaluated for improvement.
WYOMING
The Planning and Nonpoint Source Pollution Con-
trol Section of the Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality's Water Quality Division is
responsible for meeting the requirements of section
319 of the Clean Water Act. The staff of this section
also performs a wide variety of water quality plan-
ning, coordination, and technical support to meet
other federal and state requirements. During FY
1989, Wyoming focused primarily on developing an
approvable nonpoint source management program
using 205(j)(5) fUnding.
Ill
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Statewide Activities
Numerous presentations were given to various
groups and articles were written for newsletters in
an attempt to educate the public about the purpose
of the nonpoint source management program. It is
obvious from public comments that additional edu-
cational efforts must be undertaken. However,
meQar gains are being seen in achieving coordination
and cooperation among the numerous state, federal,
and local agencies involved in combatting nonpoint
source pollution.
In addition to producing a nonpoint source man-
agement program, Wyoming updated its Water
Quality Management Plan Continuing Planning
Process (CPP). The CPP has been adopted by the
Water Quality Advisory Board and is undergoing
final modifications before it is submitted to the Gov-
ernor for certification. The CPP includes public par-
ticipation, the total maximum daily load procedure,
wasteload allocations, planning, and overall water
quality goals for the state.
Because hydromodification could significantly
affect Wyoming's water quality, wetlands initiatives
received increased staff attention through participa-
tion in a state wetlands policy task force and the
section 401 certification process.
Land use and ownership patterns in the state
make implementation of the section 319 program
difficult. Half of the land in framing is owned by the
federal government. Because funds from other fed-
eral programs cannot be used as the local match for
nonpoint source pollution control projects, an inde-
pendent source must provide the match for projects
on federally owned and managed lands.
Compounding these difficulties is the fact that
many of the federal lands are used for agricultural
and range land. While nonpoint source programs
could provide tremendous benefits to such lands,
many ranchers and farmers do not have the funds
needed to cost share BMPs.
Watershed Activities
¦ Flaming Gorge: In 1983, a study team was es-
tablished to identify the sources of phosphorus
contributing to eutrophication problems in
Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Analysis of internal
versus external loading, estimation of point
source and nonpoint source contributions, and
development of a phosphorus budget began in
FY 1989. This multi-agency interstate prqject
has been funded primarily by the Bureau of
Reclamation and the state.
¦ Ocean lake: This lake, an important black
crappie fishery until the mid-1960s, is se-
verely impaired by sediment loads from irriga-
tion return flows. Two irrigation drains were
found to be producing 78 percent of the total
sediment load to the lake. In 1988, the Water
Quality Division contracted with the Riverton
Conservation District to perform a BMP dem-
onstration project. Using $16,926 in section
205(j)(l) pass-through funds, the district built
drop structures, fenced out livestock, and in-
stalled inlets, pipes, water gaps, and diversion
dikes. While before and after photos suggest
dramatic changes, data are not yet available
to quantitatively evaluate water quality im-
provements. This project was initially negoti-
ated as a multi-year project, and further
funding probably will be provided under either
sections 319 or 205(j)(l).
¦ Sloan's Lakes Sloan's Lake in Cheyenne is a
shallow municipal lake in which excessive
macrophyte growth has impaired recreational
use. Using 205(j)(l) funds, the city of Chey-
enne is characterizing the distribution of sedi-
ments and macrophytes, estimating
watershed/storm sewer and ground-water nu-
trient contributions, identifying and mapping
land uses in the drainage area, and developing
a nutrient budget for the lake. The next phase
will identify appropriate lake management
practices to improve the lake's water quality.
¦ Muddy Creek: The Muddy Creek watershed
is a m^jor contributor of sediment to the Little
Snake River. Local ranchers, the Little Snake
River Conservation District, the Department
of Environmental Quality, SCS, BLM, and the
University of Wyoming are evaluating back-
ground erosion rates and assessing the effec-
tiveness of BMPs. The conservation district
will take the lead in developing an overall wa-
tershed management plan for the drainage
area.
¦ Silvertip Watershed Study: The forest fires
of 1988 burned many drainages in the
Shoshone National Forest. Little background
water quality data were available on which to
base water quality impact analyses or recla-
mation success, so a paired watershed study
was established to track water quality im-
provement. The key difference between the
two watersheds is that one was untouched by
fire, while the other was completely burned,
USGS monitoring stations on the two drain-
ages cost approximately $79,000 per year. The
Water Quality Division contributed $23,000 of
205(j)(5) funds in FY 1989 to assess the im-
pacts and the success of reclamation.
112
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION VIII
This project has potentially far-reaching
value for forest fire reclamation efforts
throughout the country, but long-term moni-
toring (at least five years) is necessary to docu-
ment reclamation success. At least $10,000 per
year ($500,000 total) is needed to complete the
monitoring effort.
Federal Consistency Review
Approximately 100 Scoping Statements, Environ-
mental Assessments, Environmental Impact State-
ments, and Resource Management Plans were
evaluated in FY 1989 for nonpoint source impacts.
While it is impossible to quantify the benefits that
have resulted from this up front review, improved
evaluations of water quality impacts, better re-
sponse to state concerns, and improved coordination
between the agencies are evident.
Coordination between the Water Quality Divi-
sion and federal agencies apparently is improving as
a result of increased involvement in the nonpoint
source management program. As implementation
proceeds, even greater gains are likely to result.
113
-------
-------
REGION IX
State assessment reports and management
programs for each of Region IX's states (Ari-
zona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada) and
three of the Island Territories were approved by Au-
gust 4, 1989, Approvals for Arizona, Hawaii, and
Nevada were contingent upon completion of the
public participation requirements. These activities
have been concluded and final approvals were
granted January 4, 1990,
The Pacific Trust Territories did not submit
management programs. However, in October 1986
the Marshall Islands and the Federation of Microne-
sia signed compacts of Free Association that reduced
federal involvement and EPA authority in their af-
fairs. The Free Association process and subsequent
federal devolution was completed in 1988 leaving
only the island of Palou remaining as a U.S. Terri-
tory — now known as the Republic of Palou. Palou
will be developing a management program this year.
The state programs contain a variety of ap-
proaches for managing nonpoint source pollution.
While most build upon existing approaches and au-
thorities, Arizona has begun to develop a new regu-
latory program that emphasizes protecting ground
water and wetlands from nonpoint source pollution.
Probably the most difficult aspect of program
development has been deciding how to select specific
watersheds for treatment and funding. The diffi-
culty results from the lack of good documentation of
waterbody problems —a scarcity noted throughout
the state assessment reports. In all cases, final deci-
sions on priorities were based on a variety of cri-
teria, including the level of public commitment, the
existence of watershed plans, and the complexity of
the problem.
Specific assistance by the Region to the states
included the following*.
¦ Providing section 205QX5) funds to all states
and three territories to develop assessment
reports and management programs.
¦ Establishing specific outputs and milestones
for all state work plans to ensure timely
completion of the reports and programs.
¦ Conducting quarterly management meetings
in all states to determine the progress of
program development.
¦ Assisting and analyzing funding options for
expanded uses of construction grants and
state revolving fund monies for nonpoint
source programs.
NEVADA
San Francisco
ARIZONA
* %
HAWAII &
GUAM "*
• Regional Office
¦ Funding a G1S/AGNPS source model
development on the Verde River in Arizona.
The funding for this activity, which will refine
the AGNPS source model for use in
identifying specific grazing impacts on
riparian areas, comes from EPA's
Environmental Systems Monitoring
Laboratory. This will help the state target
nonpoint source treatment in the areas where
success is most likely.
¦ Helping develop the Truekee River Strategy
in Nevada by preparing a model for
implementing activities to reduce nutrient
and temperature loadings in the Truekee
watershed.
¦ Funding Arizona's effort to identify and map
wetland areas.
¦ Co-hosting a two-day workshop with the
National Association of Conservation Districts
to share information among the states,
conservation districts, SCS, and the Forest
Service.
¦ Developing a cross-program strategy to
enable states to utilize the many often
overlapping federal programs that fund
nonpoint source programs.
AM. SAMOA
115
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
The states in Region IX contain a large acreage
of lands administered by the federal land manage-
ment agencies (Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management for grazing, mining, and silviculture,
and the Department of Defense for grazing and
storm water runoff). Large areas also are affected
by federal programs and activities that have ad-
verse impacts on water quality.
For these reasons, final federal guidance that
supersedes individual agency guidance is crucial to
the success of nonpoint source programs. Such guid-
ance not only provides states with needed assis-
tance for their programs but also reminds federal
agencies of their responsibilities.
Region IX recommends that the A-106 review
process be used to ensure that federal funding is
targeted to the agencies and programs responsible
for generating the nonpoint source pollution that ul-
timately affects state lands. Without the A-106 pro-
cess, there will be little change in the level of federal
resources devoted to nonpoint source implementa-
tion.
The Region also believes that the grass-roots
level exchange of technical information needs to be
expanded. One way to do this would be to establish
an electronic bulletin board that will allow direct ac-
cess to information from around the country as well
as enhance communication between the states —
and eventually anyone with a personal computer
and a modem. Installation of such a system at the
state level, with the use of available commercial soft-
ware, will facilitate the exchange of critical informa-
tion among all levels of federal, state, and local
governments and other entities.
ARIZONA
Arizona's nonpoint source management program
emphasizes public participation, interagency coordi-
nation, and regulatory backup, lb the maximum ex-
tent practicable, existing state, federal, and local
programs have been incorporated into the program.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) is the lead agency for developing and imple-
menting the program.
Arizona's 1986 Environmental Quality Act has
become the basis of the state's section 319 program.
The act addresses the surface and ground-water
problems resulting from nonpoint source pollution
and mandates an Aquifer Protection Permit Pro-
gram and a Nonpoint Source Water Quality Man-
agement Program. Under the act, there are
currently rules relating to nonpoint source control,
wastewater and wastewater reuse, aquifer protec-
tion and enforcement (except for pesticides), and
prevention of pesticide contamination.
Any activity that produces a pollutant that can
reasonably be expected to reach navigable waters is
subject to the ADEQ plan and approval process (un-
less the activity already is covered adequately by an-
other ADEQ program). Plans must be submitted
that describe the processes to be used to protect or
enhance water quality.
ADEQ has established various technical advi-
sory groups to help develop programs to address
nonpoint source pollution resulting from agriculture,
grazing, urban runoff, and resource extraction. Con-
siderable attention has been given to developing the
rules necessary for implementation and compliance.
The program has progressed as follows:
¦ Aquifer Boundaries Certification:
completed July 1989.
¦ Aquifer Water Quality Standards:
adopted June 1989.
¦ Aquifer Protection Permit Program:
certified December 1989. Hydrologic and
habitat modification was identified as the
first priority of the program for 1990.
¦ General permits for regulated
agricultural activities (irrigation and
combined animal feedlot operations):
rules developed; certification expected in
1990.
¦ Hydrologic/Habitat Modification
Program: development expected in 1991.
¦ Nonpoint source planning rules:
approval expected in 1992.
¦ Pesticide Contamination Program:
implemented 1989.
¦ Memorandum of Understanding with
U.S. Forest Service (for possible
delegation of Silviculture program):
draft completed September 1989.
¦ Water quality training for SCS
employees.
¦ Forest Service Integrated Resource
Management System: ADEQ's
participation in this program helped
heighten awareness of water quality issues,
resulting in the implementation of more
effective BMPs for forests in Arizona.
¦ CES/ADEQ Training: The state's
Cooperative Extension Service and ADEQ
jointly provided extensive statewide
training about regulated agricultural
activities and the pesticide contamination
prevention program.
116
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IX
ADEQ has identified a large number of streams
that are affected by grazing on federal lands. Arizona
is concerned over the impact of these programs on
nonpoint source problems; issuance of final consis-
tency guidance should be a priority with EPA.
In addition, the state needs help in finding ways
to use G1S data. An information-sharing system
such as an electronic bulletin board that is accessible
to personal computers and uses standard software
would greatly facilitate gathering information about
existing activities that could enhance Arizona's pro-
gram.
Funding Summary
Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality has
received $255,130 in FY 1987 and FY 1988 section
205ij)(5) grant funds. These funds have been used to
support salaries for ADEQ staff for nonpoint source
program development.
CALIFORNIA
Nonpoint sources are a major cause of water pollu-
tion in California. More effective management of
nonpoint source pollution will require:
¦ an explicit long-term commitment by the
¦ state and regional water quality control
boards;
¦ more effective coordination of existing state
and regional board nonpoint source related
programs;
¦ greater use of regional board regulatory
authorities coupled with non-regulatory
programs;
¦ stronger links among the local, state, and
federal agencies that have authorities that
can be used to manage nonpoint source
pollution; and
¦ development of new funding sources.
The state already has substantial authority to
manage nonpoint source problems. This authority
includes the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, which establishes a comprehensive water qual-
ity control program for both point and nonpoint
sources. The principal means of implementing these
controls is by issuing waste discharge requirements;
these may be applied to both point and nonpoint
sources affecting both surface and ground waters,
including discharges to land. The State Board and
the nine regional boards administer the program.
Rain washes loose dirt from this construction site
down a steep city kill into a stream at the bottom.
The state management program contains three
general approaches to addressing nonpoint source
problems:
¦ Voluntary implementation of BMPs.
¦ Regulatory-based encouragement of BMP
implementation.
¦ Issuance of waste discharge or effluent
requirements.
While the State Board has an ongoing program
to deal with serious nonpoint source water quality
problems, the federal program provides new empha-
sis on the need to direct more effort into abating
nonpoint source pollution. In recognition of the need
for additional money to support the nonpoint source
program, California has reserved $12 million from
Title II discretionary funds and Title VI funds for
nonpoint source implementation activities.
Watershed Activities
Some of the specific activities in California's non-
point source management plan are:
¦ Sacramento River: Efforts to manage herbi-
cides discharged into the Sacramento River are
117
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
continuing, resulting in some success. For ex-
ample, molinate loading has dropped 86 per-
cent since the program started in 1982, and
fishkills have virtually ceased. The effort fea-
tures BMPs targeted to Sacramento Valley rice
growers and strict state regulation of the sales
and application of rice herbicides.
San Francisco Bay Urban Runoff Man-
agement; The San Francisco Bay Regional
Board is working with local jurisdictions to
control runoff from urban development into
the bay, which is the largest estuary wetland
system on the Pacific coast and one of the rich-
est in the country.
i San Joaquin Agricultural Runoff Man-
agement: An effort by the Central Valley Re-
gional Quality Control Board to control
agricultural non point source discharges to the
San Joaquin River system has begun. Surface
and subsurface drainage from intensive agri-
culture results in pollutant loadings from
salts, pesticides, and mobilized naturally oc-
curring trace elements such as selenium and
boron. Water quality objectives for trace ele-
ments have been set.
Newport Bay Watershed Management:
Newport Bay is the largest of Southern
California's remaining coastal wetlands.
Urban and agricultural runoff is threatening
this bay, which is a designated state ecological
reserve. The Santa Ana Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board has worked closely with
other state and local agencies to implement a
management program that includes
~ construction of vessel pump-out facilities,
~ enactment of ordinances to address
marine sanitation in Newport Harbor,
~ dredging controls,
~ creation of an 85-acre sedimentation
basin using joint state, local, and private
funding,
~ implementation of more effective erosion
control ordinances by the three major
local jurisdictions in the watershed,
~ agricultural erosion controls, and
~ channel stabilization.
Rock riprap retains the soil on this slope above a creek.
118
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IX
¦ Timber Harvest Controls: Pursuant to sec-
tion 208 of the Clean Water Act, the State
Board has certified strong and comprehensive
water quality management plans for silvicul-
tural activities both on national forest and
non-federal lands. The U.S. Forest Service and
the State Board of Forestry are managing
these plans, each of which includes detailed
forest practice standards that have been certi-
fied as BMPs by the State Board. Each plan
also includes interagency procedures for BMP
implementation, coordination, and reporting.
To minimize duplication among the growing
number of nonpoint source programs offered at the
state and federal levels, California recommends that
EPA initiate a systematic information transfer pro-
gram. The program would be particularly useful if it
included an indexing system — preferably using
standard software — to help the states identify the
programs that address their specific needs.
The state also encourages cross-compliance be-
tween USDA and EPA programs to support water
quality goals. The soil protection provisions of the
1985 Food Security Act provide a model for such
cross-compliance.
The lack of consistency between some federal
programs and California programs often poses prob-
lems for nonpoint source control. For example, one
of the nonpoint source categories established in
California's management plan is hydrologic modifi-
cation, which is an intrinsic element of hydroelectric
power generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, which licenses hydroelectric facilities,
contends that it has exclusive jurisdiction to control
the diversion and use of water for hydroelectric gen-
eration. However, FERC's assertion of exclusive ju-
risdiction compromises California's ability to
adequately protect in-stream beneficial uses from
the effects of hydrologic modification. California has
initiated litigation to resolve this issue.
Funding Summary
California has received the following grants for non-
point source control;
¦ Section 205(j)(5) federal FY 1987 grant;
Nonpoint Source Program Development,
$347,415; Forest Activities Program
Development, $474,156.
¦ Section 201(g)(1)(B) federal FY 1989 grant
(water quality management for forest
activities): federal grant, $698,594; state
match, $465,729.
HAWAII
Hawaii mandated nonpoint source management ac-
tivities in its section 208 (Clean Water Act) Water
Quality Management Plan. The Hawaii Department
of Health Services (DOH) is the designated state
water quality management agency, with responsibil-
ity for developing water quality standards as well as
monitoring and protecting water quality. As part of
those responsibilities, DOH developed the state's
nonpoint source management program.
Soil and water conservation district representa-
tives form the nucleus of Hawaii's Technical Com-
mittee on Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. The
committee also includes representatives from ASCS,
SCS, the Forest Service, the State Department of
Land and Natural Resources, Department of Hawai-
ian Home Lands, Department of Agriculture, and
the University of Hawaii. The committee's major re-
sponsibilities include reviewing the state assess-
ment report and management plan, maintaining
and facilitating interagency efforts to implement ef-
fective nonpoint source pollution management pro-
grams, and setting priorities for nonpoint source
implementation projects.
Agriculture and construction runoff generate
the largest nonpoint souree pollution loadings in
Hawaii. Construction runoff is addressed through
county grading ordinances that require conservation
plans to be submitted prior to grading or removal of
vegetation. A permit from the appropriate County
Department of Public Works is required for grading,
grubbing, or stockpiling earth materials in urban
areas; ordinances limit the amount of land that can
be bared at any given time. Soil erosion problems
(resulting from the almost daily rainfall in Hawaii"*
are addressed by appropriate BMPs such as mini-
mizing slopes, building sediment retention basins,
and constructing drainage facilities. Local nonpoint
source pollution is managed by the soil and water
conservation districts. In cooperation with SCS, the
districts help land management cooperators, the
general public, and other agencies reduce soil ero-
sion and protect water quality. Specific activities in-
clude the following information and education
programs;
¦ Resource Conservation and Development
and Watershed Protection (P.L. 566)
projects;
¦ technical assistance to farmers and
ranchers; and
¦ participation in the development of
county-level conservation plans.
119
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Eroding range land that has been overgrazed. Photo by Ann Beier.
In addition, the Hawaii Association of Conser-
vation Districts began developing a Conservation
District Water Management Plan in June 1989, The
plan will identify county, state, and federal pro-
grams designed to protect water qualify and recom-
mend ways to maximize their effectiveness. The
plan also will identify additional resources needed
by state and local agencies to reduce nonpoint
source pollution, improve surface and coastal water
quality, and prevent degradation of ground-water
quality. The Hawaii Association of Conservation
Districts will request enabling legislation from the
1991 state legislature.
To promote the USDA Water Quality Initiative,
the SCS Hawaii state office has provided a full-time
staff person to help the Hawaii Association of Con-
servation Districts develop this plan. SCS is the
main federal provider of technical assistance for the
development, application, and maintenance of soil
and water conservation best management practices.
Specific activities included in the management
plan include:
¦ establishing a maximum level of heavy metals
in near- coastal waters;
¦ holding an annual nonpoint source pollution
control workshop;
¦ holding public hearings; and
¦ providing the outreach needed to complete the
assessment report and management program.
In addition, DOH is proposing a mayor research
project to determine the magnitude of nonpoint
source pollution and to evaluate the effectiveness of
BMPs being implemented on the islands of Oahu,
Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Molokai. This project will
include hiring a staff person for each of the islands.
The Hawaii Association of Conservation Districts
and SCS will provide support for these staff persons.
In 1989, the state legislature reserved $50,000
from its allotment under Title VI to fund the DOH
nonpoint source management program. The legisla-
ture also appropriated $64,755 to support the soil
and water conservation district activities.
Although DOH was not successful in securing
state funding from the 1989 state legislature, DOH
and the Hawaii Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts will again support requests for funding of the
following:
¦ to secure a permanent staff position to
implement a statewide nonpoint source
pollution management program;
¦ to manage feral animals in watersheds;
¦ to develop BMPs to prevent soil erosion in
macadamia nut orchards; and
¦ to support a cost-sharing program for the
development of animal waste management
systems suited for tropical environments.
120
-------
IV, REGIONAL ACTV/tTtES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION IX
Funding Summary
The state of Hawaii has received its FY 1987 alloca-
tion of $100,000 in section 205(j)(5) funds and was
awarded the FY 1988 allocation of $177,800 in Sep-
tember 1989, These funds have been used for state
staff salaries and activities discussed under the
milestones.
NEVADA
The primary goal of Nevada's nonpoint source man-
agement program is to control and abate the im-
pacts of nonpoint source pollution on the state's
surface water and ground water. The Nevada Divi-
sion of Environmental Protection (NDEP) leads the
implementation of the state program.
The management program targets agriculture,
silviculture, construction, urban runoff, land dis-
posal, and hydrological and habitat modification for
intensive nonpoint source management. To achieve
program goals, the state will fully utilize existing
programs and develop innovative approaches for
local and regional areas (such as Lake Tahoe and
the Truckee River Basins). Local and regional man-
agement agencies will carry out many of the activi-
ties in the management program.
Limited state funding forces reliance on volun-
tary implementation of BMPs on state and privately
owned land; NDEP facilitates cooperation among
local, regional, and federal activities. The manage-
ment program has identified 17 federal programs
and agencies that offer financial, technical, regula-
tory, and/or educational assistance to private land-
owners, providing the basis for the state's nonpoint
source program.
Statewide Activities
Updating the State BMP Handbook: A coopera-
tive effort is underway currently to update this
handbook, originally produced in the 1970s. The
book, which is based on the results of a survey of po-
tential readers, will focus on implementing BMPs
for grazing, irrigation, silviculture, and construc-
tion. This project is being carried out by the state
soil conservation districts under a section 205(j)(5)
grant.
Watershed Activities
¦ Lake Tahoe; A Water Quality Management
Plan is underway to reverse the beginning
stages of eutrophication in Lake Tahoe and its
basin, which was designated an Outstanding
Natural Resource Water in 1968. Water qual-
ity problems result from urban runoff, con-
struction activities, and other sources of soil
erosion. Three msgor tools will be used to re-
duce nitrogen, phosphorus, and oil and grease
loadings to the lake:
1. Basin-wide implementation of BMPs:
BMPs are monitored for effectiveness and mod-
ified as necessary to ensure that the protective
practices remain appropriate to the water
quality goals of the plan. Monitoring data, col-
lected since 1985, have been used to support
revision of the BMP implementation process,
to schedule the number of building permits is-
sued, and to revise the basin's management
plan.
2. Stream Environment Zone Protec-
tion and Restoration Program: Intrusions
into stream zones may decrease their ability to
filter surface runoff before it enters the lake.
The primary mechanism for protecting and re-
storing these stream zones is land acquisition
and subsequent restoration by federal, state,
local, and private interests. The program also
mitigates stream zone disturbance by requir-
ing BMP implementation by development pro-
jects in and adjacent to the stream zones.
3. Erosion and Runoff Control Capital
Improvements Program: This program is
used to identify projects to control erosion and
surface runoff on public rights-of-way in the
basin. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
then works with the state or local highway au-
thority to implement the project in a manner
that will protect surface water quality.
¦ Truckee River Strategy; The Truckee River
provides water for numerous uses, including
municipal and industrial use in the
Reno/Sparks urban area and irrigation, power
generation, and spawning ground for the
threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and the
endangered Cuiui. The river drains into Pyra-
mid Lake, a major sport fishery.
The Truckee water quality issues are con-
troversial and complex, involving several fed-
eral agencies, the state of Nevada, local
governments, the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe,
Sierra Pacific Power Company, and individual
water users. The Truckee is listed as water
quality limited for nitrogen, nitrite, phospho-
rus, and fecal coliform on several of the
reaches. EPA has required the state to perform
a wasteload allocation and determine total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the constit-
121
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
uents in question. The sources of loading are
disputed and a strategy has been devised to
document the sources and allocate loading re-
ductions fairly among the affected parties.
The strategy includes calibration of the
Truckee River model, collection and evaluation
of data, evaluation of sources and loads using
monitoring data, and amendment of the
Washoe County 208 plan to include a nonpoint
source assessment in Truckee Meadows.
Additional activities in the basin include:
~ Long-range planning for Sparks and
Washoe Counties. Land use maps will be
developed for the counties to project
population and land use trends for the
next 20 years.
~ Evaluation of projected urban storm
water loadings and agricultural runoff
wasteloads.
~ Brookside Golf Course Channel
Improvement project to protect wetlands
and construct sedimentation basins to
reduce nonpoint source pollution in
Steamboat Creek.
~ Paradise Pond Project to construct a pond
system designed for flood control, storm
water detention, and water quality
improvement.
Funding Summary
NDEP received $212,750 in FY 1987 and FY 1988
205(j)(5) funds. The majority of funds were used to
develop the nonpoint source management program.
Funds were used for specific activities, including a
nonpoint source assessment of the Truckee River
and Steamboat Creek, updating the state BMP
Handbook, a study of water quality monitoring on
the Truckee River, and calibration of the Truckee
River TMDL model.
122
-------
REGION X
The Region's nonpoint source program goals
and priorities during FY 1989 were to:
¦ assist states in developing and
implementing effective nonpoint source
assessments and management programs;
¦ assist states and federal agencies in
effectively targeting, leveraging, and using
available resources to solve nonpoint source
problems;
¦ document the basis for and publicize
successful water quality projects.
Nonpoint source assessments were approved for
all Region X states (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington). The lack of monitoring data and quan-
titative information were limiting factors for all
states in developing assessments. States generally
did a good job of supplementing monitoring data
with professional evaluations to develop technically
sound assessments. Alaska's assessment was the
most controversial in obtaining support and credibil-
ity with interested and affected publics.
Riparian area degradation is the common denom-
inator in many of the Region's most serious water
quality problems. The major water uses identified as
impacted by nonpoint source pollution in state as-
sessments are fish habitat, shellfish contamination,
wetlands, and water supply aquifers. State nonpoint
source management programs are designed to ad-
dress these and other water quality impacts.
•Nonpoint source management programs were ap-
proved for Idaho and Washington and partially ap-
proved for Oregon. Alaska has not completed a
management program by EPA's January 4, 1990,
deadline. However, Alaska submitted a management
program that was approved by EPA in September
1990. Oregon's program is completed only for agri-
culture. Implementation of Oregon's program relies
on interagency action plans and agreements for ap-
plying nonpoint source controls.
State funding through the Agricultural Pollution
Abatement Program in Idaho, the Centennial Clean
Water Fund in Washington, and the Governor's Wa-
tershed Enhancement Board in Oregon have been
instrumental in addressing high priority nonpoint
source problems. The approved nonpoint source
management programs rely significantly on these
funding sources. Section 319 and other local, state,
and federal funding will be used to complement the
basic state sources and broaden the application of
nonpoint source controls.
The Region X staff provided a variety of technical
assistance and support to the states, including the
following actions:
ALASKA
WASHINGTON
Seattle
IDAHO
OREGON
• Regional Office
¦ Participating in nonpoint source technical advi-
sory committees in Idaho and Oregon and an
Interagency Committee on Agricultural Water
Quality, and Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Sub-
Committees in Washington. The committees
provide major input in the development and
implementation of nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. EPA's role is to ensure consis-
tency with 319 requirements and guidance.
¦ Providing technical assistance, reviews, and
recommendations to eight national forests in
the development of monitoring plans as part of
the National Forest Planning process to ensure
that nonpoint source controls are applied, eval-
uated, and modified as needed to protect water
quality.
¦ Conducting field reviews of nonpoint source
projects and activities to assess application of
best management practices and their effective-
ness in protecting water quality. Better moni-
toring and evaluation of BMPs for water
123
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
quality effectiveness is a major need that
should be addressed in watershed projects,
¦ Preparing a state-of-science report on Moni-
toring Guidelines for Forest Practices and
Water Quality Protection intended for special-
ists and managers involved in monitoring for-
est practices. A draft report for public review
will be completed in FY 1990; the final report
in FY 1991.
¦ Reviewing the Rock Creek, Idaho, and
Tillamook Bay, Oregon, Rural Clean Water
Programs. Three of the many lessons learned
from these projects are (1) local producers'
leadership and involvement are essential for
success; (2) cost-share funding is an important
incentive for applying BMPs; and (3) docu-
menting the on- and off-farm water quality
benefits of BMPs are long-term and difficult
tasks.
¦ The regional office was involved in a number
of public outreach initiatives designed to reach
affected publics who could become involved in
information exchange and technology transfer.
¦ The Region prepared and distributed 200 cop-
ies of the report, Effective Nonpoint Source
Public Education and Outreach: A Review of
Selected Programs in Region 10. This report
documented successful nonpoint source con-
trol projects. The Region also co-sponsored a
conference on Protecting Our Wetlands: Edu-
cation, Insight, and Action. The objectives in-
cluded providing an initial forum for states to
build upon in carrying out their nonpoint
source management programs.
¦ The Region also developed a pollution preven-
tion initiative for Agricultural Chemicals and
Water Quality Protection to prevent agricul-
tural chemical pollution through research, ed-
ucation, and demonstration of BMPs and
integrated pest management techniques. The
final work plan and projects selected for fund-
ing were to be completed in FY 1990.
ALASKA
Alaska has not completed its nonpoint source man-
agement program proposal. This failure is due to
the low priority assigned to this task by the State's
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
which historically has assigned a low priority to
nonpoint source controls.
Because of the public controversies surrounding
the accuracy and credibility of the draft nonpoint
source assessment, completion of this report is re-
quiring much more time than the agreement be-
tween the state and EPA anticipated. DEC is
continuing to develop a nonpoint source manage-
ment program and intends to submit it to EPA in
1990.
IDAHO
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare's Divi-
sion of Environmental Quality (IDHW) is the state
agency that implements section 319 programs in
Idaho. Other agencies that manage the control of
nonpoint sources are described in the state nonpoint
source management program, which was developed
by a technical advisory group representing a wide
range of public interest in the issue.
The goal of the program is to develop and imple-
ment effective nonpoint source control strategies to
protect existing beneficial uses, restore affected wa-
ters to the extent practicable, and maintain high
quality waters, lb accomplish this goal, the state is
building on existing programs and authorities, iden-
tifying program needs, and listing opportunities for
federal financial assistance.
Specific objectives include developing a coordi-
nated nonpoint source monitoring program, devel-
oping BMPs for nonpoint source categories not
currently listed in the state's management program,
and evaluating BMPs to determine how well they
protect ground-water quality.
Implementation of nonpoint source controls for
agriculture and forest practices continued concur-
rently with the completion of the management pro-
gram. The agriculture program is voluntary and
relies largely on the, Agricultural Water Quality
Cost-share Program, which helps farmers apply
BMPs. The forest practice program is regulatory
and is based on the state's Forest Practices Act.
Nonpoint source implementation efforts since 1980
have focused primarily on nonpoint source controls
for agricultural and forest practices. Following is a
list of specific activities:
¦ Antidegradation Policy: a policy supported
by the enabling legislation that requires public
participation in efforts to identify stream seg-
ments of concern in each basin in the state. The
final list of segments of concern will be com-
pleted in FY 1990 and will be the basis for the
state's Clean Water Strategy.
¦ State Agricultural Water Quality Cost-
share Program: includes the funding of 21
124
-------
rv: REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION X
A shallow creek tumbles over rocks.
planning projects and 25 implementation pro-
jects since 1980 and financing the treatment of
approximately 600,000 acres to reduce water
quality impacts. Of the 25 implementation pro-
jects, 20 are in non-irrigated areas, five in irri-
gated areas. High priority needs identified in
the management program include broadening
of the program's application to include live-
stock grazing, riparian area management, and
livestock management. Section 319 funding
will be used to assist in evaluating and re-di-
recting the Agricultural Water Quality Cost-
share Program.
¦ Forest Practices: The Idaho Forest Practices
Water Quality Management Plan was revised
in 1988. The revisions made the plan consis-
tent with changes in agency programs and up-
dates in the state's water quality standards for
nonpoint source activities.
The 1988 field audit of 25 sites throughout
the state found that compliance with the For-
est Practices Rule was generally high on fed-
eral, state, and industrial forests but poor on
non-industrial private land. BMPs were effec-
tive in preventing delivery of sediment to
waterbodies; water quality declined when
BMPs were not used.
¦ Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program:
demonstrated that serious nonpoint source
water quality problems can be effectively ad-
dressed. Results to date indicate that BMPs
implemented under the RCWP have improved
water quality in Rock Creek. The sub-basins
with the greatest percentage of BMPs also
show the greatest reductions in suspended
sediment and other agricultural pollutants.
Fish populations in Rock Creek have in-
creased since the beginning of the project.
Preparation of the management program
was completed in November 1989. However,
except for the Rock Creek RCWP, water qual-
ity improvements have not been documented.
A coordinated statewide water quality moni-
toring program is a high priority for the man-
agement program.
OREGON
The goal of Oregon's nonpoint source program is to
prevent or control nonpoint source pollution so that
none of the designated uses of water is impaired by
that pollution. In pursuit of this goal, the state non-
point source program identifies issues and prob-
lems, assesses levels of designated use support,
defines solutions, sets priorities, contributes to pub-
lic education programs, assists with funding, coordi-
nates interagency cooperation, and evaluates
program achievements. Actual implementation of
appropriate land management praetiees generally is
done by other agencies or by groups of agencies
working together.
The state's nonpoint source program workplan
for 1990 includes over 25 program elements, many
of them designed to coordinate with or provide di-
rect assistance to other water quality protection or
natural resource management programs in the De-
partment of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and in
other local, state, and federal agencies.
Statewide Activities
¦ Agreements and Action Plans: nonpoint
source agreements with the migor forestry, ag-
ricultural, and grazing agencies will facilitate
nonpoint source control programs on most
lands in Oregon. New memoranda of agree-
ment with ASCS, SCS, and the Oregon De-
125
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
partment of Agriculture were signed in the
spring of 1989. New MOAs are expected with
BLM and the Forest Service in February 1990
and with the Oregon State Department of For-
estry in the spring of 1990. Attached to each
MOA is an action plan that describes and
ranks the site-specific projects that address
the most important nonpoint source issues
within each agency's jurisdiction.
¦ Monitoring, Assessment, and Evaluation:
Oregon's Department of Environmental Qual-
ity is developing a statewide nonpoint source
assessment and monitoring strategy that,
when implemented, will give DEQ the infor-
mation it needs to describe nonpoint source
problems in detail and with a high degree of
confidence. A major component of the strategy
will be the use of various bioassessment tech-
niques to provide affordable yet relatively de-
tailed assessments of designated use support
levels and trends. DEQ also will help other
agencies develop and implement nonpoint
source assessments and monitoring programs
and will analyze data collected by these agen-
cies.
¦ Coordinated Resource Management and
Planning: Interagency coordination is a prin-
cipal vehicle for integrating and applying the
goals of the nonpoint source management
plan. Through this coordination, DEQ is able
to take the lead on identifying problems, rank-
ing projects, selecting solutions, and monitor-
ing the effectiveness of resource management
operations throughout the state.
¦ Intergovernmental Reviews; Many federal,
state, and local project proposals are routed to
the department's nonpoint source program
each year for evaluation. These reviews pro-
vide an excellent opportunity to raise water
quality issues and prevent pollution problems
before work has begun on a site. Intergovern-
mental reviews are a major vehicle for imple-
menting nonpoint source controls and rely
heavily on effective assessment and monitor-
ing.
Watershed Activities
¦ Critical Basins: are those in which a water-
body has been identified as "water quality lim-
ited" under section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
The nonpoint source program's contribution to
the critical basins program is to work with
local designated management agencies to pre-
pare watershed management plans addressing
forestry, agriculture, grazing, and urban storm
water runoff.
Oregon is in the very early phase of implement-
ing the agricultural element of its approved nonpoint
source management program. Water quality im-
provements have not been documented. Section 319
funds were used in FY 1989 to develop and begin im-
plementation of the section 319 reports.
Funds available through section 319 are a criti-
cal element in turning Oregon's nonpoint source
management program into water quality protection
realities in watersheds throughout the state. The de-
partment has identified eligible projects and re-
quested funding from EPA.
WASHINGTON
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) is
the lead agency for developing and implementing
section 319 projects in the state. The state's non-
point source management program consists of four
levels based on available implementation funding,
with each level adding more complex and costly pro-
grams. Tbgether, the four levels will result in a com-
prehensive statewide nonpoint source program.
Level 1 of the management program will be im-
plemented in Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990, The pro-
gram priorities for this level are:
¦ Developing a statewide education program
covering nonpoint source pollution that
affects both surface water and ground water.
¦ Reducing water quality impacts of irrigated
agriculture on the lower Yakima River
Basin by funding watershed planning and
technical assistance.
¦ Coordinating state nonpoint source
programs with Indian tribes.
¦ Ensuring federal program consistency with
the state management program.
¦ Developing and implementing a state
pesticide and nutrient management plan for
ground-water protection.
¦ Providing ongoing coordination of state
programs for ground water, forest practices,
and agriculture.
The state has hired staff to administer education
programs and to provide for the agency coordination
called for in the management program.
126
-------
IV. REGIONAL ACTIVITIES & STATE PROGRAMS—REGION X
To address one of the state's major sources of
nonpoint source pollution, an interagency commit-
tee for agricultural water quality has been formed.
The committee, which first met in July 1989, has
been instrumental in helping DOE develop its FY
1990 work program for section 319 funding.
Implementation of a memorandum of agree-
ment on agricultural compliance between DOE, the
State Conservation Commission, and local conserva-
tion districts continues. Staff positions critical to im-
plementation have been filled and the coordination
necessary for the MOA to work effectively at the
local level is progressing. Most conservation dis-
tricts have signed the MOA, and there is a general
attitude of optimism as water quality problems re-
sulting in complaints begin to work their way
through the process.
Conservation districts provide technical assis-
tance to operators. The commission provides policy
and financial and coordination assistance to dis-
tricts. DOE provides the regulatory compliance
backup to ensure that water quality is protected.
Centennial Clean Water Funds, administered by
DOE and the Conservation Commission, continue to
support watershed planning and water quality pro-
jects throughout the state. Project proposals from
not-for-profit groups are requested and funded an-
nually.
Section 319 funds will supplement state monies
and allow additional nonpoint source controls to be
applied. In addition to supporting existing water-
shed management work, these funds allow addi-
tional watersheds to begin the planning process.
Projects providing direct technical assistance to
landowners dealing with such concerns as livestock
waste management, irrigation water management,
and dryland erosion control have been initiated or
continued with these funds.
The Timber, Fish and Wildlife agreement is a
cooperative effort by Indian tribes, industry, envi-
ronmental groups, and state agencies to protect re-
sources during forestry operations. This agreement
is more than halfway through its second year; its
major accomplishments for 1989 were:
¦ Establishing 16 projects to study the effects
of various silvicultural activities upon water
quality and fish habitat. Tbtal budget is
about $1.9 million.
¦ Establishing interdisciplinary teams to
review plans of operation under the
agreement. About 1,200 plans were
reviewed in 1989, with field reviews done on
about 20 percent of them.
¦ Developing a morphology-based stream
classification system for the state. The
system will be used to assist in reviewing
forest practice operation plans.
Only funds from existing state programs were
available for watershed projects in FY 1989. Never-
theless, the state made progress in implementing
the program. For example, as a result of the Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Plan, all water-
sheds in the Puget Sound basin were ranked to set
priorities for a plan to control nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Concurrently, 12 "early action" watershed
management plans were developed by local commit-
tees. These plans are in varying stages of review, re-
vision, and implementation.
Implementation in FY 1989 concentrated on:
¦ increasing public awareness of the need for
nonpoint source controls;
¦ providing information to residents on their
roles in preventing or correcting nonpoint
source problems; and
¦ working with technical assistance agencies
to establish priorities and target areas for
their work.
Actions identified in the watershed plans range
from education and information outreach to provid-
ing technical assistance to landowners. The water-
shed plans are reviewed by the public and approved
by the DOE.
Washington is in the very early phase of its non-
point source management program and is using fed-
eral nonpoint source grants to develop the section
319 reports and begin implementation. The man-
agement program includes an extensive list of ac-
tions needed to solve nonpoint source problems. It
will be some time before water quality improve-
ments stemming from the program can be docu-
mented.
127
-------
-------
V. Related EPA
Programs
It is impossible to obtain a complete picture of EPA and state efforts to
control nonpoint sources by focusing solely upon section 319 programs
and their implementation. One must also consider the broad range of
other activities conducted by EPA and the states, including:
. ¦ establishment of criteria and standards,
¦ monitoring and data analysis,
¦ control of storm water runoff, concentrated animal feeding area
runoff, mining runoff, and other activities that lie at the interface
of point and nonpoint source programs,
¦ resource protection programs (e.g., Clean Lakes, Wetlands Protec-
tion, and Marine and Estuarine Protection programs),
¦ watershed protection programs (e.g., the Great Lakes and Chesa-
peake Bay programs), and
¦ drinking water, ground-water protection, and pesticides programs.
This section discusses some of EPA's national programs and activities
that assist in nonpoint source pollution control.
129
-------
-------
Ground-water Protection Programs
EPA's Ground-water Protection Programs
provide technical and financial support to
several state ground-water programs re-
lated to nonpoint source pollution control. Since
1984, Ground-water Protection has provided tech-
nical and financial assistance to states for the de-
velopment of state ground-water strategies and,
more recently, Ground-water Protection Programs,
In addition, Ground-water Protection administers
the Wellhead Protection Program and the Sole
Source Aquifer Program under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
In many states, the institutional structure for
ground-water programs is in a developmental
phase. Ground-water Protection places emphasis on
activities that promote the development of institu-
tional capacity, including technical assistance and
grants to states for the development of data man-
agement systems, techniques for ground-water re-
source assessments and classification, and other
technical information related to ground-water pro-
tection. These activities by states can be supportive
of state nonpoint source programs, particularly for
selecting priorities for source mitigation efforts.
Other Ground-water Protection activities support
EPA's nonpoint source pollution control efforts. For
example, Ground-water Protection is conducting an
analysis of methods used for estimating nonpoint
source contamination of ground-water discharge to
surface water. Ground-water Protection is also pre-
paring a technical assistance document that reviews
methods of determining aquifer sensitivity to agri-
cultural sources of pollution.
Wellhead Protection
Program
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) established a Wellhead Protection Pro-
gram. This program was created to protect ground
waters that supply wells and wellfields that contrib-
ute to public drinking water supply systems.
Under SDWA section 1428, each state was re-
quired to prepare a Wellhead Protection Program
and submit it to EPA by June 19,1989. Although the ,
law requires that every state program must contain
specific elements, EPA recognizes that states should
be given flexibility to tailor program details to best
suit their individual needs and circumstances. lb
assist states in developing Wellhead Protection Pro-
grams, EPA has provided numerous technical assis-
tance documents, held a national wellhead
conference, and is sponsoring workshops in several
locations throughout the country.
Where the Wellhead Protection Program is
linked to state nonpoint source management pro-
grams, section 319 implementation activities for
ground water can support these ground-water ini-
tiatives. If properly targeted, the nonpoint source
program can be an effective tool to help control
sources of ground-water pollution. Likewise, control
efforts to protect wellfields complement nonpoint
source efforts to prevent surface water degradation.
131
-------
Drinking Water Programs
Watershed Control
Program
Drinking Water Programs promulgated the final
Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) on June 29,
1989. That rule required operators/owners of public
drinking water systems using surface water sources
(or ground-water sources under the direct influence
of surface water) to establish and maintain effective
watershed control programs as one condition of
avoiding water filtration requirements. The objec-
tive is to minimize potential watershed contamina-
tion so as to prevent contamination of drinking
water. The control programs, prepared by the utili-
ties responsible for the systems, are subject to state
approval, review, and annual evaluation.
Under the new regulations, the watershed con-
trol program must, at a minimum:
¦ characterize the watershed hydrology and
land ownership;
¦ identify watershed characteristics and
activities detrimental to water quality,
including natural occurrences
(precipitation, soil types, and land cover)
and point and nonpoint sources of pollution;
and
¦ identify, monitor, and control activities that
may have an adverse effect on source water
quality.
After receiving approval of a watershed control
program, the utility must submit annual reports to
the state identifying any special concerns (e.g., new
construction) or activities in the watershed that
have the potential to affect source water quality and
must describe how such concerns were or will be
handled. In addition, the report must project future
possible adverse impacts on the watershed and de-
scribe how the utility expects to address them.
Although there are currently 3,000 unfiltered
surface systems serving 21 million people, it is esti-
mated that less than 500 systems will meet all the
criteria — including preparation of a watershed con-
trol program —.necessary to avoid filtration. Drink-
ing Water Programs hope states will encourage
utilities that must use filtration to prepare water-
shed control programs to address other water qual-
ity concerns that may affect the utilities' water
treatment costs.
State nonpoint source control programs are
likely to benefit from the activities required in de-
veloping, maintaining, and reporting on watershed
control programs. These programs will help protect
surface water quality, and annual reports to states
on watershed activities will assist state nonpoint
source control agencies in assessing statewide water
quality and documenting improvements resulting
from these activities. States may choose to monitor
the utilities' success while targeting state resources
and federal funds for nonpoint source control to
other watersheds (e.g., those serving public water
systems that are filtering and thus are not required
by the SWTR to have a watershed control program).
132
-------
Pesticide Programs
Pesticide Programs have released the Pesti-
cide and Ground Water Strategy, which de-
fines EPA's pesticides management goal as
the prevention of unacceptable contamination of
ground water and defines the management ap-
proach.
Pesticide Programs and the Drinking Water
Programs jointly conducted a two-year National
Pesticides Survey of drinking water wells to deter-
mine the frequency of pesticide contamination (and
other parameters, including nitrates) and to exam-
ine how contamination patterns relate to pesticide
use and ground-water vulnerability. The National
Pesticide Survey sampled 750 domestic and 600
community drinking water wells for 126 pesticides
and analytes. EPA released the survey results in
1990.
An EPA report based on results of the National
Survey estimates that 10 percent of the nation's
community drinking water wells and about 4 per-
cent of rural domestic drinking water wells have de-
tectable residues of at least one pesticide. But less
than 1 percent of the wells have pesticide residues
above levels considered protective of human health.
In the report, EPA also estimates that more than
half of the nation's wells contain nitrates, with
about 1,2 percent of the community wells and 2.4
percent of the rural wells showing detections above
the 10 parts per million maximum contaminant
level established to protect human health. Addi-
tional publications associated with the survey in-
clude:
¦ technical advisories and one-page summaries
on 60 primary pesticides covered by the
survey, and
¦ a brochure entitled Pesticides in Drinking
Water, scheduled for release in FY 1990,
Pesticide Programs have also prepared a Pesti-
cides in Ground-water Database that contains re-
ports on monitoring studies carried out over the
past 10 years by pesticide registrants, universities,
and governmental agencies in the United States.
Pesticide Programs recently released an interim re-
port on the number of pesticide detections in ground
water. That paper reported that over 70 pesticides
have been detected in the ground water of 38 states.
Of these, 46 pesticides in 26 states were found to be
in ground water from normal agricultural use, while
32 were attributed to point sources in 12 states.
The Pesticide Monitoring Inventory is a compi-
lation of monitoring projects being performed by fed-
eral, state, and local governments and private
institutions. Reports are collated by Pesticide Pro-
grams and the information is publicly available by
direct access using a modem.
Pesticide Programs require ground-water and
surface water monitoring studies for targeted pesti-
cides as part of the registration process. Pesticide
Programs provide guidance to registrants for the de-
sign and implementation of monitoring studies and
provides the expertise to assess the adequacy of the
data generated. Pesticide Programs guidelines for
monitoring studies include:
¦ requirements on the types of studies and
when to conduct them;
¦ designs for different types of monitoring
studies;
¦ information on monitoring well construction,
well sampling, soil sampling, and quality
assurance measures; and
¦ information on how to conduct leaching
assessments.
Pesticide Programs has proposed a rule to ex-
pand the restricted use classification of pesticides on
the basis of a pesticide's potential to contaminate
ground water. The rule proposes to add criteria re-
garding particular physical characteristics of some
ingredients and actual detection in ground water of
those ingredients to existing criteria for classifying
pesticides, lb be eligible to apply a restricted use
pesticide, the user must complete a specific training
program.
Pesticide Programs will continue to coordinate
with the various EPA, USDA, and USGS offices that
address ground-water contamination by pesticides
to ensure that research, education, and policy com-
plement each other.
133
-------
Clean Lakes Program
The Clean Lakes Program was created in
1976 to establish methods and procedures to
protect and restore publicly owned freshwa-
ter lakes. In 1980, the Clean Lakes Program regu-
lations were issued and since then over 400
cooperative agreements have been awarded to
states for the classification, assessment, study, and
restoration of lakes. These agreements are subject
to the General Grant Regulations (40 CFR Part 30),
the Clean Lakes Regulations (40 CFR Part 35 Sub-
part H), and the Clean Lakes Program Guidance
(December 1987),
Four types of cooperative agreements are avail-
able under the Clean Lakes Program:
¦ Cooperative Agreements for State Lake
Water Quality Assessments: The purpose of
these grants, awarded in FY 1989, is to fulfill
the reporting requirements under section
314(a)(1) of the act.
¦ Cooperative Agreements for Phase I: Di-
agnostic/Feasibility Studies: These studies
investigate the causes of the decline in quality
of a publicly owned lake and determine the
most feasible procedure for protecting and re-
storing the lake.
¦ Cooperative Agreements for Phase II
Projects: These projects implement the rec-
ommended methods and procedures for con-
trolling pollution entering a lake and for
restoring or protecting a lake. Phase II agree-
ments follow Phase I studies or equivalent in-
vestigations.
¦ Cooperative Agreements for Phase III
Studies: Post-restoration monitoring coopera-
tive agreements offer selected projects the op-
portunity to conduct long-term, post-restora-
tion monitoring studies to verify the longevity
and effectiveness of various restoration tech-
niques.
Program Interaction
The Clean Lakes regulations require that any lake
project must be consistent with the state Water
Quality Management Plan (40 CFR Part 35). This is
to ensure that EPA and the states coordinate a vari-
ety of programs under the Clean Water Act, the Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and other laws administered by
EPA. The Clean Lakes Program is conducive to inte-
gration with other water quality management pro-
grams because of the natural linkages between lake
management and other environmental efforts.
As specified in the Clean Lakes Program Guid-
ance, Clean Lakes projects need to be developed and
implemented on a watershed basis. The Guidance
further states that this geographical approach to
water quality management has been identified as a
key element of success in nonpoint source control,
ground-water protection, water quality-based per-
mitting, storm water permitting, estuarine protec-
tion and cleanup, and wetlands protection. In
awarding cooperative agreements under the com-
petitive Clean Lakes Program, those projects with a
watershed-based approach to water quality man-
agement are favored.
A comprehensive approach to lake management
is essential because pollutants generated by both
nonpoint sources and point sources affect lakes. To
ensure success, lake restoration projects often re-
quire nonpoint source control activities. In fact,
many states have used the Clean Lakes Program as
a nonpoint source management tool. For example, a
number of projects have included best management
practices to prevent pollutants originating in the
watershed from entering lakes. Several projects
have used storm water retrofitting to control urban
runoff. Still others have used wetlands to buffer and
filter pollutants that might enter lakes from agricul-
tural, silvicultural, and urban areas.
Although section 314 funds can be applied to
control nonpoint sources of pollution, the Clean
Lakes regulations prohibit using Clean Lakes funds
to control discharge of pollutants from a point
134
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
Vegetation has been plugged into this slope to prevent erosion.
source where the cause of pollution can be alleviated
through actions authorized by sections 201 or 402 of
the Clean Water Act.
The Implementation Memorandum for the FY
1990 Clean Lakes Program suggests that EPA re-
gional offices (who have been delegated authority to
enter into Clean'Lakes cooperative agreements with
the states) encourage states to integrate their Clean
Lakes projects with other state and federal pro-
grams. This memorandum also encourages states to
consider technical and financial assistance that may
be available through section 319 state nonpoint
source programs for targeted watershed demonstra-
tion projects. Finally, the memo mentions that U.S.
Department of Agriculture P.L. 83-566 projects may
offer assistance in watersheds significantly affected
by agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Regional allocations for the Clean Lakes Pro-
gram appropriation for FY 1990 were determined
based on various factors, including the relative im-
pacts of nonpoint source pollution on lakes. This fac-
tor was considered important because of the high
percentage of the nation's lakes affected by nonpoint
source pollution.
135
-------
Marine and Estuarine
Protection Programs
Nonpoint source pollution is a major contrib-
utor of contaminants to estuary and
coastal waters around the country. Estuar-
ies, bays, and the coastal ocean are the receiving
waters for runoff from city streets, golf courses,
suburban developments, parking lots, and farms lo-
cated within coastal watersheds. These watersheds
drain not only coastal areas but also those far up-
stream.
Nonpoint source pollution of estuaries and
coastal waters is of concern because these environ-
ments are highly productive and sensitive ecosys-
tems. They provide habitat for many commercially
and recreationally significant fish and shellfish as
well as endangered birds, marine mammals, and
other wildlife.
They are also home and playgrounds for an in-
creasingly larger proportion of our nation's popula-
tion — 75 percent are expected to live in coastal
areas by the year 2000.
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), author-
ized under section 320 of the Clean Water Act of
1987, is a national demonstration program that uses
a comprehensive watershed management approach
to address water quality and habitat problems in 17
estuaries spanning the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific
coasts. Under the act, management conferences—
consisting of federal, state, and local agencies, scien-
tists, citizens, industry, and environmental
groups—are to develop Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plans within five years. These
plans should address toxic and pathogen contamina-
tion, nutrient overenrichment, habitat loss or alter-
ation, impacts to living resources, and other
problems from point and nonpoint source pollution
and physical alterations (e.g., dredging, construc-
tion).
NEP demonstration projects are already under-
way; they address a wide range of nonpoint source
issues in their estuaries:
¦ The Buzzards Bay Project in Massachusetts
is installing two different kinds of storm water
detention systems to test ways to reduce bacte-
rial contamination of a small embayment, But-
termilk Bay.
¦ The Land Management Project in Rhode Is-
land is conducting three mayor nonpoint source
projects for Narragansett Bay involving water-
shed planning and technical assistance to local
communities on state-of-the-art BMPs and in-
novative regulatory activities.
¦ The Long Island Sound Study is evaluating
methods to reduce storm water flow into
Mamaroneck Harbor with the goal of achieving
water quality levels that will keep nearby
beaches open for swimming. Through the proj-
ect, the Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection, SCS, and the Litchfield
County Soil and Water Conservation districts
are helping 27 farmers develop nutrient and
erosion control plans.
¦ The Delaware Estuary Program is funding
the Chester County Conservation District to
work with farmers to reduce pesticide use in
the Red Clay Creek Basin. Technical assistance
is being provided by SCS and Extension Ser-
vice.
¦ The Albemarle/Pamlico Project is cooperat-
ing with Virginia's SCS to institute animal
waste BMPs in the Chowan River basin.
¦ The Sarasota Bay Project in Florida is
working with the two counties in the bay's wa-
tershed to establish storm water utilities. The
project has also published a Bay Repair Kit for
the public on reducing nonpoint source pollu-
tion.
¦ The San Francisco Estuary Project is test-
ing the feasibility of using created wetlands to
treat storm water before it enters the bay.
136
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
This pkotograph taken in the Albemarle I Pamlico Sound, illustrates both the human and aquatic resources
nurtured by the nation's estuaries.
¦ The Santa Monica Bay Program has held
workshops for local governments on urban
storm water and has produced a Ninja Turtles
comic book for the public on improper disposal
of materials into storm water drains, The pro-
gram is using 319 funds to contract with Los
Angeles County to conduct a public opinion
poll on the impact of nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The poll will be used to evaluate educa-
tional needs and determine which BMPs
succeed most with the public.
¦ The Puget Sound Water Quality Author-
ity in Washington State has developed a
handbook for local governments and instituted
an early action watershed program for non-
point source management for the Puget Sound
Estuary Program. The program has three
demonstration projects dealing with storm
water:
~ a wetland acquisition and storm water
treatment project to control drainage
from a shopping mall,
~ a storm water diversion and sediment
entrapment project for a creek in the
watershed, and
~ a project to develop measures for
protecting shellfish beds from nonpoint
source bacterial contamination.
EPA also funded several pilot demonstration
projects that address nonpoint source pollution
problems in selected coastal waterbodies. The Cor-
nell Extension Service is constructing a small artifi-
cial wetland to treat street runoff in Peconic Bay,
New York, A project involving county governments
around Monterey Bay, California, is demonstrating
the use of agricultural BMPs to reduce pesticide
runoff into the Salinas River. Follow-up monitoring
will assess the effectiveness of the BMPs. An ongo-
ing project in Oregon's Coquille Estuary received
extra funding under USDA's water quality initiative
to address identified nonpoint source impacts from
livestock grazing.
137
-------
Research and Development Programs
Research and Development Programs have a
long history of support for nonpoint source
control programs. One of the more popular
products of this effort has been the development
and support of a series of models for quantification
of urban, agricultural, and mining sources of pollu-
tant runoff to lakes and streams. During FY 1989,
Research and Development's nonpoint source re-
search efforts were largely directed to providing
maintenance and user support for those models, to
developing a global environmental assessment tool
known as EMAP, and to providing direct technical
assistance to state and local nonpoint source deci-
sion-makers. This year also saw the beginning of ef-
forts to develop the basic spatial framework and
data-bases to validate models and/or proper model
weighting coefficients on a regional basis. An illus-
trative list of activities follows:
¦ Minnesota River Assessment Project: a
comprehensive study to define existing physi-
cal, chemical, and biological conditions and the
nonpoint source loadings in the Minnesota
River Basin. This project is directed at one of
the immediate needs of the Office of Water; to
develop methods and protocols to detect and
assess the impacts of nonpoint source pollu-
tion. The first phase was diagnostic assessment
and problem identification. Phase two begins
with an implementation plan describing best
management practices to reduce nonpoint
source loadings.
¦ Microbial Biological Control Agents: Re-
search and Development is engaging in a se-
ries of studies to determine how micro-
organisms affect freshwater ecosystems. Re-
search and Development's immediate goal is
to develop acute and chronic laboratory tests
that expose target and non-target inverte-
brates and fish to bacteria used to kill insect
pests that live in water. These tests include
both single species and microcosm level tests.
The data from these tests are being evaluated
by measurements in natural systems cur-
rently being treated to control the pests. The
long-range goal is to understand how popula-
tions and communities respond to the intro-
duction of microorganisms. This information
will be useftil in understanding the impact of
natural and genetically engineered microorga-
nisms introduced from any source.
¦ Sediment Quality Criteria: Research and
Development has undertaken research to es-
tablish safe sediment concentrations of chemi-
cals by determining the sediment chemical
concentration that will result in acceptable
tissue residues in aquatic organisms. Specific
toxic and/or bio accumulative components from
impacted ecosystems will be identified and
quantified. Based on water and sediment cri-
teria, predicted acceptable and unacceptable
conditions will be determined and evaluated
using ambient toxicity tests and bioaccumula-
tion and ecological survey data.
¦ Protocol for Assessment of Pesticides: Re-
search and Development has begun field vali-
dation of a protocol for assessing the effects of
pesticides on ecosystems. The test protocol
calls for using littoral enclosures. Under the
protocol, at least 12 littoral enclosures are re-
quired to evaluate a pesticide. One can mea-
sure both primary and secondary (ecological)
effects of a pesticide application on selected
fish species. The system is designed to investi-
gate changes at the population and commu-
nity levels in plants, decomposition of
invertebrate leaf litter, and nutrient cycling.
Decomposition rates can be measured and
used to estimate ecosystem stress resulting
from pesticide application.
¦ Ambient Toxicity Tests: Laboratory ambi-
ent toxicity tests are being conducted using
both overlying surface water and sediment
pore waters from the Fox River/Green Bay wa-
tershed and the upper Illinois River water-
shed. Evaluations are using both animal and
plant protocols. Results from these laboratory
138
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
tests will be compared with other in-stream bi-
ological results to determine levels of agree-
ment on impaired waterbody reaches. The
laboratory tests may serve as short-cuts to de-
termine impairments,
¦ Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands: Re-
search and Development's laboratory in Du-
luth has the responsibility to develop and
evaluate wetland water quality criteria. This
laboratory is assessing (1) the applicability of
current aquatic life criteria to wetlands, (2)
the effects of pollutants of concern on wetland
health, and (3) the effects wetlands have on
the water quality of aquatic resources down-
stream. The intent is to use the criteria to pro-
tect the structural and functional integrity of
the wetland. A secondary goal is to establish
pollutant loading rates that will neither dis-
rupt the long-term health of the wetland nor
jeopardize its value to the ecosystem.
¦ Nonpoint Source Modeling; A report was
prepared that reviews and discusses nonpoint
source assessment procedures and modeling
techniques for both urban and non-urban
areas. Overview and detailed reviews of spe-
cific methodologies and models are presented.
Simple procedures such as constant concentra-
tion, regression, statistics, and loading func-
tion approaches are described along with
complex models such as SWMM, HSPF,
CREAMS, SWRRB, and others. Brief case
studies of ongoing and completed modeling ef-
forts are described. Recommendations for non-
point runoff quality modeling are presented to
elucidate expected directions of future model-
ing efforts.
¦ Development of a Research Approach for
Separating the Impacts from Point and
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution; This new
project, now in the early stages of develop-
ment, could become a keystone in the nonpoint
source control effort.
Research will be conducted to develop and
improve diagnostic methods for comparing
point and nonpoint source pollution on a wa-
tershed basis. Laboratory toxicity, habitat
identification, physical and chemical analyses,
land use, and biosurvey procedures will be
used to identify sources and the severity of
degradation. Fluxes of major pollutants into
and out of watershed ecosystems and their eco-
logical impacts will be modeled for use in de-
termining BMPs and setting regulatory
strategies.
¦ Development of Freshwater Quality Cri-
teria: Guidelines have been established for
deriving water quality criteria and advisories
for freshwater and saltwater organisms. Pres-
ently, criteria development may be approached
on a chemical-specific or whole effluent basis.
Using the chemical-specific approach, criteria
can be applied directly to develop water qual-
ity standards. Using the whole effluent ap-
proach, the chemical causing adverse effects is
identified and then concentrations are reduced
to an acceptable level by some physical means.
Once mechanisms are established to identify
nonpoint sources of toxic chemicals and their
potential adverse effects, nonpoint source
chemicals can be regulated through these ap-
proaches. New procedures now being devel-
oped, such as biocriteria and wildlife criteria,
will also be used to develop a framework and
strategy for nonpoint sources of pollution.
This has been an organizing year for nonpoint
source research. In consideration of the five themes
of the Nonpoint Source Agenda, Research and De-
velopment has begun to focus on Number 2, Suc-
cessful Solutions, and Number 5, Good Science.
Successful Solutions activities will, in particular, de-
velop measures of effectiveness for predicting and
quantifying success of individual management
practices, such as agricultural practices like low-till
and no-till. Under the theme Good Science,
decisionmaker tools will be developed for implemen-
tation needs, including determining TMDLs and es-
tablishing water quality standards that better
address nonpoint source problems with a focus on
narrative, numeric, sediment, and biological cri-
teria.
Research and Development proposes to begin
developing defensible methods for designing best
management practices that will specifically protect
water quality against pesticides, nutrients, low dis-
solved oxygen, sediment loadings, and other pollu-
tants. Assessment of the extent of nonpoint source
problems and the effectiveness of remediation has
been problematic because of natural environmental
variability. Therefore, at the heart of the Agency's
research strategy is a plan for developing a data
analysis and interpretation framework based on
natural biogeoclimatic similarities of the landscape.
Around this framework, Research and Develop-
ment proposes to structure assessment methods to
evaluate proposed agricultural management policies
and production techniques and to identify environ-
mentally relevant and attainable water quality in
intensively farmed watersheds and basins. Evalua-
tions will produce lab and field protocols for measur-
ing pollutant reductions as functions of BMP type
139
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
and regional characteristics. The basis of design cri-
teria for effective BMPs, these protocols will help al-
leviate one of the mayor problems identified as early
as 1984 in the nonpoint source report to Congress—
no suitable framework for interpreting results.
Where BMPs fail to produce reasonably attainable
regional water quality conditions, alternative crop-
ping practices and land uses will be revaluated.
The Agency has a wealth of single-issue and sin-
gle-medium databases, representing a tremendous
investment. Future Research and Development sup-
ports will include development of a systematic pro-
gram of data integration and analysis. The objective
is to produce GIS-based support for environmental
decision modeling so that EPA will have the tools
needed to develop optimal management alternatives
for national or regional environmental challenges.
This information system will support assessing agri-
culture management scenarios tailored to specific
regional ecologic/economic conditions. The tools will
be geared to both state and local decisionmakers
and oriented to pollution prevention and contin-
gency management. Available and newly developed
software will be used to meet the spatial analysis,
statistical analysis, modeling, and data conversion
needs of the system.
140
-------
Solid Waste Programs
EPA's Solid Waste Programs are active under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) pertaining to the management
of hazardous waste at land disposal facilities and of
solid waste at mining sites and at oil and gas explo-
ration and production sites throughout the United
States. Solid Waste is working with the states to
develop national programs for improved manage-
ment of mining, oil, and gas wastes under RCRA
Subtitle D. These programs will have impacts on
the control of nonpoint source pollution.
EPA issued two final rules regarding mineral
processing wastes (54 FR 36592, September 1,1989,
and 55 FR 2322, January 23, 1990) and released a
mineral processing waste report to Congress on July
31, 1990. The related regulatory determination for
mineral processing wastes was made in June 1991.
For mining waste, Solid Waste is participating
in a policy dialogue committee to develop an ap-
proach to mining waste management that will be
safe, cost effective, and flexible. Solid Waste has also
worked with the Office of Water during the develop-
ment of the storm water runoff rule, particularly in
how it would affect mining.
EPA's Report to Congress on wastes from explo-
ration and production of crude oil and natural gas
was released in December 1987. The subsequent
regulatory determination was published on July 6,
1988 (53 FR 25446). The regulatory determination
indicated that EPA would (1) improve federal pro-
grams under existing authorities in Subtitle D of
RCRA, the Clean Water Act, and Safe Drinking
Water Act, and (2) work with states to encourage
changes in their regulatory and enforcement pro-
grams.
Solid Waste Programs have provided a grant to
the Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC) to
develop a set of IOCC guidelines for states to con-
sider in making improvements to their existing pro-
grams pertaining to oil and gas exploration and
production wastes. These guidelines were completed
in 1991. A number of follow-up activities by IOCC
for implementation of the guidelines have also been
funded by Solid Waste.
Solid Waste also has developed an extensive
regulatory framework under RCRA to regulate the
land disposal of hazardous wastes. These regula-
tions are found in the Title 40 Code of Federal Regu-
lations (CFR) Parts 264, 265, and 268. A number of
the Solid Waste regulatory programs potentially im-
pact nonpoint source pollution by providing controls
on waste units and by providing for cleanup of con-
taminant releases. These programs include technol-
ogy standards for landfills and surface
impoundments (RCRA section 3004[oJ), pre-disposal
treatment of waste under the land disposal restric-
tion regulations, and location standards for hazard-
ous waste management units (40 CFR 264.18).
Solid Waste is currently working on a notice of
proposed rulemaking that will strengthen the exist-
ing standards for locating and siting hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to
further mitigate the potential effects of contaminant
releases caused by natural disasters at waste man-
agement units. Additionally, a corrective action rule
has been proposed (55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990) that
would provide for cleanup of contaminant releases
from solid waste management units.
141
-------
Wetlands Protection Programs
In addition to acting as natural filters for non-
point source pollution, wetlands also provide
many other benefits, including aquatic habitat
for commercial fisheries, wildlife habitat, flood and
erosion Control, and shoreline stabilization. While
they are valuable resources to be protected from
nonpoint source impacts (i.e., agricultural and
urban runoff, hydrologic modifications), they also
provide a nonpoint source control function.
Wetlands have been demonstrated to prevent sedi-
ment, nutrients, and organic contaminants from
entering adjacent waterbodies such as lakes, rivers,
and estuaries. While monitoring and research are
needed to ensure that wetlands used to buffer non-
point source pollution are not adversely affected
themselves and the use of such wetlands does not
result in pollutants entering ground water, the use
of artificially created wetlands can be a cost-effec-
tive means of achieving nonpoint source control
goals.
Section 319 requires states to perform nonpoint
source assessments that identify "waters of the
U.S." that are impaired or threatened by nonpoint
source pollution as well as the activities causing the
imparts. Even though the definition of "waters of
the U.S." includes wetlands, only a few states have
included wetlands in their assessments of waters
imparted by nonpoint source. State assessment ef-
forts have been hampered by inadequate data de-
signed specifically to address nonpoint source
impacts to surface waters. Data on nonpoint source
impacts to wetlands are particularly lacking. State
section 319 programs should continue to improve
assessments of nonpoint source impacts to wetlands
as part of their wetlands and nonpoint source pro-
grams.
Wetlands Protection
Nonpoint Source-related
Activities
¦ Efforts with Other Federal Agencies; The
Wetlands Program is working with several
agencies to explore ways to protect and restore
wetlands in ways that can be expected to re-
duce nonpoint source impacts on surface water.
~ Wetlands Protection is currently
developing joint agendas with the
Soil Conservation Service, Extension
Service, Forest Service, and Bureau
of Land Management to improve
wetlands and riparian habitat
management on public and private lands
through outreach and information
transfer.
~ Wetlands Protection is working
actively with members of the
Interagency Task Force on
Floodplain Management to better
protect and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of the nation's
floodplains,
~ Wetlands Protection has been
working with the National Park
Service and a nonprofit group
(Association of State Floodplain
Managers) to promote the concept of
comprehensive or multi-objective river
corridor management. Managing river
corridors for multiple uses provides the
opportunity for communities to
simultaneously address nonpoint source
pollution, water quality, flooding,
recreation, habitat, and any number of
needs and challenges.
~ Wetlands Protection is initiating a
pilot project with the Marine and
Estuarine Protection Programs and the
National Park Service to link river
corridor activities high in the watershed
with the National Estuary Program.
¦ Development of Curricula and Outreach
Materials: lb equip educators with the tools
necessary to improve student awareness of the
important role wetlands play in improving
water quality, Wetlands Protection is working
142
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
with other EPA offices such as the Office of
Community and Intergovernmental Relations,
the state of Maryland, and other organizations
outside of government to develop curricula and
teaching materials that focus on the beneficial
values of wetlands. In addition, Wetlands Pro-
tection has produced outreach materials that
discuss the ability of wetlands adjacent to
waterbodies to improve water quality. For ex-
ample, Livestock Grazing on Western Riparian
Areas, produced in a cooperative effort with the
Nonpoint Source Branch and Region VIII, pro-
vides technical guidance for developing grazing
strategies to restore and protect riparian areas.
(Nonpoint source pollution resulting from live-
stock grazing practices poses a significant
threat to the water quality functions of ripar-
ian areas). Beyond the Estuary1: The Importance
of Upstream Wetlands to Estuarine Processes
focuses on the beneficial effects that upstream
wetlands have on the downstream water qual-
ity in estuaries.
¦ National Guidance on Water Quality Stan-
dards for Wetlands: This guidance was
jointly developed by Criteria and Standards
and Wetlands Protection to provide program
guidance to states on how to ensure effective
application of water quality standards to
wetlands. Water quality standards for
wetlands are necessary to ensure that the pro-
visions of the Clean Water Act applied to other
surface waters are also applied to wetlands.
The development of standards provides the
foundation for a broad range of water quality
management activities including, but not lim-
ited to, monitoring under section 305(b), per-
mitting under sections 402 and 404, water
quality certification under section 401, and the
control of nonpoint source pollution under sec-
tion 319.
¦ Criteria to Address Nonpoint Source Pol-
lutants. Wetlands Protection will provide sup-
port for the development of criteria to address
the many types of nonpoint source pollutants
including nutrients, clean sediment, and or-
ganic contaminants (e.g., pesticides). Wetlands
Protection efforts will be focused on assisting in
the development of biological and wildlife cri-
teria applicable to all waterbody types and
those specifically related to wetlands.
¦ National Guidance on Wetlands and Non-
point Source Control Programs; The objec-
tive of this guidance, developed jointly by
Wetlands Protection and the Nonpoint Source
Branch, is to encourage coordination of the
nonpoint source and wetland programs, both
within EPA and the states. The guidance de-
scribes opportunities that exist for the transfer .
of data and other information between the two
programs to support the programs' shared
water quality goals. State nonpoint source pro-
grams can be directed toward preventing run-
off to valuable wetlands. Wetlands programs
can provide data and information on wetlands
to state nonpoint source programs and use in-
formation generated from nonpoint source as-
sessments to protect and restore wetlands
through regulatory and nonregulatory actions.
143
-------
Water Enforcement and
Permits Programs
The Clean Water Act requires that point
source discharges of pollutants to waters of
the United States are unlawful unless the
discharge is authorized by a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System's (NPDES) permit,
NPDES permits are issued by 39 states with au-
thorized NPDES programs and in states without
authorized programs by EPA regional offices. The
Water Enforcement and Permits Programs oversee
the implementation of the NPDES program, and
take the lead in developing the regulatory frame-
work defining the scope of the program.
The term "point source," which defines the juris-
diction of the NPDES program, can be interpreted
broadly to address components of many sources of
pollution that have traditionally been characterized
as nonpoint sources, including discharges associated
with urban runoff, resource extraction, land dis-
posal, construction, and concentrated animal feed-
lots. However, because of limited resources, efforts
to control water pollution under the NPDES pro-
gram have traditionally focused on controlling pollu-
tants in discharges from publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) and industrial process wastewaters.
In addition to establishing a framework for de-
veloping nonpoint source programs under section
319 of the Clean Water Act, the Water Quality Act of
1987 added section 402(p) to ensure that the
NPDES program adequately addressed storm water
discharges. (EPA is also addressing discharges from
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in a more compre-
hensive manner.) Section 402(p) requires EPA to de-
velop a phased approach to addressing storm water
discharges under the NPDES program. Under the
initial phases of the storm water program, the
Agency is to begin to develop requirements for:
¦ storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity,
¦ discharges from municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100,000 or more, and
¦ discharps which are designated by EPA or
an NPDES-approved state as needing an
NPDES permit because the discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States.
The Clean Water Act also clarifies that permits
for discharges from municipal storm sewers are to
require municipalities to implement a control ap-
proach (that is in many ways similar to that taken
in traditional nonpoint source control strategies) by
requiring controls to reduce the discharge of pollu-
tants to the maximum extent practicable, including
management practices, control techniques and sys-
tems, design and engineering methods, and such
other provisions as the director determines appro-
priate for the control of such pollutants.
EPA or NPDES states cannot require a permit
for storm water discharges not addressed in the ini-
tial phase of priorities until October 1, 1992. (Agri-
cultural storm water discharges are excluded from
the Clean Water Act definition of point source and
cannot be addressed under the NPDES program
even after 1992.) Prior to that time, EPA, in consul-
tation with the states, is required to conduct two
studies on storm water discharges. The first study
will identify those storm water discharges or classes
of storm water discharges for which permits are not
required prior to October 1, 1992, and determine, to
the maximum extent practicable, the nature and ex-
tent of pollutants in such discharges. The second
study is for the purpose of establishing procedures
and methods to control storm water discharges to
the extent necessary to mitigate impacts on water
quality.
Based on the two studies, EPA is required to
issue regulations no later than October 1, 1992, that
designate additional storm water discharges to be
regulated to protect water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such designated
sources. The program must, at a minimum, (1) es-
tablish priorities, (2) establish requirements for
144
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
state storm water management programs, and (3)
establish expeditious deadlines. The program may
include performance standards, guidelines, guid-
ance, management practices, and treatment re-
quirements, as appropriate.
Section 319 efforts to control storm water dis-
charges potentially covered by the NPDES program
should be coordinated with activities required under
storm water discharge permits to ensure that all
major sources of storm water runoff are addressed.
State programs under section 319 should focus
on controlling urban runoff that will not be subject
to storm water permitting requirements. For exam-
ple, information/education and control efforts di-
rected at preventing urban runoff (e.g., proper
application of fertilizers and pesticides in urban set-
tings, automobile oil changing and handling practi-
ces, and urban development controls) seem
appropriate for assistance under section 319. Other
activities include developing and implementing
BMPs to control runoff prior to entry into storm
water systems and developing and promulgating
state and local ordinances to control sediment and
erosion. Furthermore, because section 402(p) does
not apply to storm water impacts to ground-water
resources, section 319 will be used to protect ground
water from urban runoff.
Section 402(p) requires EPA to prepare two re-
ports to Congress on storm water. The first, will
identify sources of storm water and pollutants asso-
ciated with discharges. The second will analyze
means to address runoff from the those sources not
subject to the initial permitting regulations. Experi-
ences under the initial round of storm water permit-
ting may suggest consideration of alternative means
to address runoff from those cities or facilities not
subject to regulation until after October 1992.
Information contained in section 319 assess-
ments and their biennial updates conducted through
the section 305(b) reporting process should indicate,
to some extent, where the most serious municipal
and industrial storm water runoff problems are lo-
cated. Additional permitting efforts could be di-
rected to those waters.
145
-------
Municipal Pollution Control
Programs
Municipal Pollution Control Programs
manage efforts to assist communities in
constructing new or upgraded municipal
wastewater facilities necessary to achieve compli-
ance with federal surface water discharge stan-
dards as well as protect public health and ground
water. Traditionally, grants were awarded to com-
munities through the wastewater construction
grants program. More recently, Congress decided to
substitute a loan program for the construction
grants program.
This transition was initiated by the 1987 Clean
Water Act Amendments. Title VI of the Amend-
ments instituted the State Revolving Fund (SRF)
program. Under the SRF program, EPA provides
capitalization grants to the state to establish SRFs.
The SRFs are designed and managed by the states
with a minimum of federal regulation and oversight.
SRFs are authorized to make loans, loan guaran-
tees, and other "credit enhancements," but not
grants.
EPA made significant progress in implementing
the SRF program in FY 1989. In 1988, the first year
of the program, eight states received capitalization
grants. During the year, an additional 35 states es-
tablished SRFs, bringing the total to 43. By the end
of FY 1990, all states had received at least their ini-
tial capitalization grants.
Title VI gave states the flexibility to provide fi-
nancing assistance not only to municipal wastewa-
ter facilities but also to "expanded uses," including
activities such as nonpoint source management and
ground water and estuarine protection. Such flexi-
bility recognizes that states and local communities
must address a variety of water pollution problems
and have differing priorities for allocating scarce re-
sources.
Most states have included provisions in their
SRF enabling legislation and operating policies and
procedures that authorized their SRF programs to
provide assistance for not only municipal waste-
water treatment facilities but also state nonpoint
source management programs (including provisions
for ground-water control) and for the development
and implementation of estuary Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plans (section 320). Be-
cause of pressing needs for municipal wastewater
projects, however, most states do not contemplate
providing SRF assistance for expanded uses within
the next couple of years.
Several states are taking the lead in providing
SRF assistance to expanded uses. The first activity
likely to receive SRF assistance is a lake restoration
project in Salisbury, Maryland. The Intended Use
Plan for the state of Washington includes several ex-
panded uses likely to receive funding during FY
1990 (e.g., urban runoff control). The Washington
SRF specifically reserves 10 percent of its funds
each for section 319 and 320 activities. The Intended
Use Plan of the Delaware SRF includes numerous
expanded uses. The state of Wyoming has largely
met its municipal facilities needs and plans to use
its SRF primarily to assist expanded uses, such as
underground storage tanks. Other states in Region
VIII may also emphasize SRF funding of expanded
uses.
States are not required to provide SRF assis-
tance for expanded uses. During FY 1989, the Office
of Water issued guidance that explained the oppor-
tunities and procedures for funding expanded uses
under various provisions of the Clean Water Act
Amendments. During the year, the acting assistant
administrator for water also sent a letter to each
governor encouraging the states to consider using
SRFs for funding expanded uses and for improving
coordination among state water programs.
Efforts are also underway to improve coordina-
tion between the SRF program and other water pro-
grams within EPA. The Office of Water has
encouraged closer coordination within the regional
offices, including the possible establishment of
interprogram task forces. During FY 1989, Munici-
146
-------
V. RELATED EPA PROGRAMS
pal Pollution Control Programs established the Ex-
panded Uses Council, composed of the office direc-
tors of each of the Office of Water program offices.
Further coordination and improved inter-program
communication was provided at the staff level
through an Expanded Uses Workgroup.
The SRF program requires assistance recipients
to repay loans from a "dedicated repayment source."
Many expanded uses do not have readily available
revenue sources. As a result, some states and others
have expressed concern about the feasibility of pro-
viding SRF assistance to expanded uses. However,
communities may consider a wide variety of revenue
sources to meet the SRF repayment requirements.
Municipal Pollution Control Programs prepared a
guidebook that discusses options for repayment of
SRF assistance for expanded uses. The guidebook,
Funding of Expanded Uses Activities by State Re-
volving Fund Programs: Examples and Program
Recommendations, was distributed to the Regions
and states in September 1990.
147
-------
-------
VI. Related Federal
Programs
rogram, the activities of other federal departments and agencies
are critical to the success of national efforts to control nonpoint source
pollution.
¦ Federal departments and agencies such as the Bureau of Land Man-
agement, the Forest Service, and others own approximately one
third of all lands in the United States, Land-disturbing activities on
these properties can create nonpoint source pollution.
¦ A number of federal departments such as the Department of Agri-
culture provide a great deal of educational, technical, and financial
assistance to landowners whose operations can cause nonpoint
source pollution.
¦ Many federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, administer or oversee regulatory programs
that may control nonpoint sources.
The following section describes some of the growing number of federal
programs being used to support EPA and state nonpoint source control
efforts. These descriptions do not discuss the Ml range of federal programs
but provide an overview of the types of programs that are available to
control nonpoint sources.
Ithough this Final Report to Congress focuses on EPA and state
activities to implement the section 319 nonpoint source control
149
-------
-------
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) carries
out its statutory authority related to land
management, administration of land rights,
and permitting jurisdiction under section 26a of the
TVA Act so as to protect or enhance the quality of
the environment on its reservoir properties. In con-
ducting its own operations and construction activi-
ties, TVA ensures the use of BMPs to control
nonpoint source pollution.
In compliance with section 401(a) of the Clean
Water Act, TVA requires that applicants proposing
activities that may result in discharges into naviga-
ble waters provide state certification that they will
comply with applicable provisions of the Clean
Water Act. In addition, TVA requires that any per-
mit approval, contract, license, or other authoriza-
tion of any activity required by TVA that will disturb
the land contain the following condition:
The applicant will conduct all
land-disturbing activities in accordance
with best management practices as defined
by section 208 of the Clean Water Act and
implement these practices to control
erosion and sedimentation so as to prevent
adverse water quality and related aquatic
impacts. Such practices shall be consistent
with sound engineering and construction
principles; applicable federal, state, and
local statutes, regulations, or ordinances;
and proven techniques for controlling
erosion and sedimentation.
TVA has established erosion control measures
that help to mitigate nonpoint source pollution on
the agency's lands (over 20,000 acres). Control mea-
sures include no-till cropping, crop rotation, contour
plowing, terracing, winter cover crops, and unculti-
vated buffer strips along TVA reservoirs and
streams. Only land that is not highly erodible and is
not hydric is licensed for row crop use. Best manage-
ment plans for cropland and grassland are reviewed
by Soil Conservation Service personnel.
TVA is a msoor participant in the Land and
Water 201 project, TVA uses low-altitude, color in-
frared aerial photography to assess nonpoint source
pollution in several watersheds in the seven-state
region. This includes low altitude aerial inventories
of the Chatuge Reservoir (North Carolina-Georgia),
Little Tennessee River (North Carolina-Georgia),
and Oostanaula Creek (Tennessee) watersheds.
Demonstration Projects
The Land Between the Lakes is TVA's 170,000-acre
recreation, environmental education, and natural
resource management demonstration area in
western Kentucky and Tennessee. Activities there
include the establishment of cover crops on row-
cropped lands and BMPs for harvested forestlands.
Demonstration projects also include the Copper
Basin in Tennessee where TVA has cooperated with
industry to reclaim land denuded by copper smelt-
ing in the 1850s. Soil erosion from this 50-square
mile area pollutes receiving waters in Tennessee
and Georgia, increasing TVA hydroelectric produc-
tion costs and causing flood storage losses in TVA's
three Ocoee reservoirs. Early revegetation research
and application were conducted by TVA and others
beginning in the 1930s. Over the years, about two-
thirds of the acres have been planted. In 1984, TVA
began new practical demonstrations with Tennessee
Chemical Company and others that have restored
1,855 acres (300 acres in FY 1989). About 10,700
acres remain in need of revegetation, Tennessee
Chemical Company was selected by the National
Wildlife Federation as winner of the 1988 Corporate
Conservation Council's Environmental Achievement
Award for this effort.
As part of the South Fork Holston River Basin
rehabilitation plan, TVA is alleviating nonpoint
source water pollution impacts in Virginia and Tfen-
nessee by reclaiming abandoned manganese mines.
This mining, which occurred prior to state non-coal
mineral mining and reclamation laws, has contrib-
uted to water quality problems. TVA has assumed a
lead role in addressing the land stabilization activi-
ties needed to improve water quality in the system.
Through cooperative efforts with the U.S. Forest
151
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Service and private landowners, 276 acres in Vir-
ginia and Tennessee have been treated since FY
1985. In FY 1989, 10,000 tree and shrub seedlings
were planted as part of remedial work, along with
touch-up aerial fertilization of selected sites,
TVA also has worked closely with USDA agen-
cies, local soil and water conservation districts, and
landowners to install agricultural BMPs to specific-
ally improve off-site water quality in the Middle
Fork Holston River (Virginia) and Bear Creek
Floatway (Alabama) watersheds.
Other Activities
To reduce nonpoint source pollution from crop pro-
duction, TVA conducts fertilizer research and devel-
opment at its national laboratory at Muscle Shoals,
Alabama, and works with the land grant universi-
ties and USDA. Among environmentally significant
current or planned projects are:
¦ development of BMP technologies such as
controlled release fertilizers and approved
fertilizer application equipment,
¦ refinement and evaluation of soil tests for
more efficient nitrogen use,
¦ coordination of regional, unified approach,
and targeted research,
¦ whole-farm demonstrations of methods to
reduce nonpoint source contamination of
waters, and
¦ construction of a wetlands research facility
to study and demonstrate treatment of
wastewater from the fertilizer industry
using constructed wetlands technology.
Other TVA activities include participation in
several interstate and local water quality commit-
tees to address water resource and nonpoint source
issues involving watersheds of the Clinch and Pow-
ell Rivers (Virginia and Tennessee), Middle Fork
Holston River (Virginia), Sand Mountain (Alabama),
Bear Creek Floatway (Alabama), Oostanaula Creek
(Tennessee), and Nolichucky River (Tennessee).
At the request of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, TVA has conducted aerial nonpoint source in-
ventories for Beaver Creek (Arkansas), East Sydney
Lake (New York), and Puncoteaque and Assawoman
Creek watershed (Virginia). TVA also conducted a
workshop for the Idaho Environmental Health Asso-
ciation on TVA's use of remote sensing to detect fail-
ing septic systems.
TVA is involved in several other activities re-
lated to water quality, including;
¦ Reclamation of the Double Tbp abandoned
coal mine in Fentress County, Tennessee.
¦ Farm waste management demonstration
projects.
¦ An innovative technology farm
demonstration program that also includes
methods to manage animal wastes.
¦ Resource management conservation
demonstration farms that illustrate to
farmers how soil erosion can be reduced to
acceptable levels without adversely
affecting net farm income. An evaluation of
resource management conservation farms
in west Tennessee shows that soil erosion
on croplands was reduced by 65 percent by
using conservation practices such as no-till,
terraces, grass waterways, and silt basins.
Annual top soil losses on some fields have
been reduced from 15 to 20 tons per acre to
tolerance (less than 5 tons per acre).
¦ A new program of soliciting and funding
competitive cost-share proposals related to
agriculture, which includes several
nonpoint source control projects. Proposals
funded included two for reducing the
nonpoint source pollution caused by
applying too much poultry litter on
cropland. The litter will be processed and
marketed over a wide area as a soil
amendment, organic fertilizer, and cattle
feed. Another project will involve irrigating
from a lagoon to better manage hog wastes,
and still another will compost dead chickens
instead of burying them in a
ground-water-polluting pit.
152
-------
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Ser-
vice (ASCS3 administers farm commodity,
conservation, environmental protection, and emer-
gency programs.
Several ASCS programs contribute to reducing
nonpoint sources pollution. For example, the
¦ Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP)
has several goals, including;
~ conserving soil and water,
~ improving water quality,
~ protecting and maintaining productive
farm and ranch land, and
~ preserving and developing wildlife
habitat.
The ACP cost shares with farmers and
ranchers to install environmental protection
practices that result in long-term public bene-
fits. The FY 1991 appropriation for the ACP
was $190,150 million.
¦ The Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) is designed primarily to protect the
nation's most erodible and fragile croplands
(see discussion under SCS). The 1985 Food Se-
curity Act included authorization for the CRP.
It reimburses farmers for retiring highly erod-
ible and environmentally sensitive croplands
from production under 10-year contracts.
Water quality improves because fewer pesti-
cides, herbicides, and fertilizers are used and
less erosion significantly decreases the annual
sediment load reaching water courses.
Pesticide and herbicide use have declined
by an estimated 1.5 pounds per acre annually
(51 million pounds per year), and fertilizer use
has diminished by an estimated 1,224 thou-
sand pounds per year on the 34 million acres
enrolled. Erosion reduction saves 655 million
tons of soil per year or 19.2 tons per acre per
year. The CRP expanded program criteria to
include environmentally sensitive tods such
as filter strips, wetlands, and flood-prone scour
areas,
USDA agencies and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service cooperated to publish and dis-
tribute a pamphlet, Bottomland Timber Estab-
lishment on Wetlands. The SCS has funded
several university studies of CRP-related ac-
tivities addressing the effects of filter strips,
water quality runoff, and other pertinent sub-
jects. The FY 1991 appropriation for the CRP
was $1,815 billion.
¦ The Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP)
provides financial and technical assistance to
agricultural landowners and operators to test
policies and procedures for controlling agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution in 21 project
areas, lb aid in the development of best man-
agement practices (BMPs), ASCS plans to use
the RCWP water quality data to evaluate
BMPs.
¦ The Colorado River Salinity Control Pro-
gram (CRSC) provides financial assistance
to:
~ identify salt source areas in the Colorado
River Basin,
~ install conservation practices to reduce
salinity levels,
~ carry out research, education, and
demonstration projects, and
~ carry out monitoring and evaluation
activities.
The FY 1991 appropriation for the CRSC pro-
gram was $14,783 million.
153
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Strip cropping to prevent soil erosion, and pesticide and nutrient runoff.
¦ The Water Bank Program is designed to
preserve, restore, and improve the wetlands of
the nation and thus to:
~ conserve surface waters,
~ preserve and improve habitat for
migratory waterfowl and other wildlife
resources,
~ reduce runoff and soil and wind erosion,
~ contribute to flood control,
~ contribute to improved subsurface quality
and reduce stream sedimentation,
~ contribute to improved subsurface
moisture,
~ reduce acres of new land coming into
production and retire lands now in
agricultural production,
~ enhance the natural beauty of the
landscape, and
~ promote comprehensive and total water
management planning.
The FY 1991 appropriation for the Water Bank
Program was $13,62 million,
¦ Under the Forestry Incentives Program
(FIP), funds are used to develop, manage, and
protect eligible forest land. Emphasis is on
producing softwood timber and enhancing
other forest resources such as clean water,
wildlife habitat, and recreational resources.
FIP practices contribute to conservation objec-
tives by protecting land from wind and water
erosion, conserving water, reducing upstream
flood damage, and improving water quality.
The FY 1991 appropriation for FIP was
$12,446 million.
¦ The Emergency Conservation Program
(ECP) provides assistance to farm and ranch
owners to restore land damaged as a result of
natural disasters. In restoring such areas, the
¦ECP helps to assure that conservation and
pollution abatement measures continue to
help reduce and, if possible, stop pollution of
the nation's waters. The FY 1991 appropria-
tion for the ECP was $10 million.
ASCS plans to place additional emphasis on
nonpoint source pollution by encouraging conserva-
tion review groups at all levels to:
~ identify and rank known nonpoint source
problem areas,
~ develop cost-effective special practices
necessary to solve the identified nonpoint
source water quality problems, and
~ propose selected water quality projects
for special funding.
154
-------
Soil Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
President's Water Quality Initiative
Water quantity affects water quality in
terms of how quickly and in what con-
centrations pollutants enter streams,
lakes, and aquifers. Water quality obviously affects
the quantity of water available for human con-
sumption, agriculture, and other uses (especially in
areas with sole-source aquifers or in regions short
of water),
SCS' goal is to provide the best available pro-
gram information and technology to rural and urban
decisionmakers so they may respond effectively to
farm water quality concerns and state environmen-
tal requirements. The SCS operations plan identi-
fies five action elements:
¦ demonstration projects,
¦ technical assistance in nonpoint source
hydrologic unit areas,
¦ regional projects,
¦ technology development, and
¦ database development.
Demonstration Projects
SCS and USDA Extension Service provide joint
leadership for demonstration projects that will be
completed over a three-year period. The objective is
to demonstrate the effectiveness of selected conser-
vation practices in treating specific nonpoint source
pollution problems and to promote the use of these
practices in other areas. Each project represents dif-
ferent sets of agricultural, soil, and geologic condi-
tions, and each is located in an area where
agriculture's effects on water resources are a major
concern.
Nonpoint Source
Hydrologic Unit Areas
In selected agricultural watersheds or aquifer-
recharge areas called "nonpoint source hydrologic
unit areas," SCS, Extension Service, and cooperat-
ing agencies will provide conservation planning and
technology assistant®. This assistance helps farm-
ers and ranchers meet state water quality goals
without undue economic hardship. Hydrologic unit
planning and treatment will be a coordinated effort
by federal, state, and local agencies and will include
public involvement. Projects will be selected on the
basis of:
¦ significance of the agricultural sources of
pollution,
¦ relative predominance of designated
pollutants such as pesticides, nutrients, and
animal wastes, and
¦ conformance with other water quality
efforts.
SCS will evaluate each project to determine the
effectiveness of the selected conservation practices.
Findings on water quality effects will provide a
basis for expanding application to other districts
with similar water quality problems.
Regional Projects
SCS will accelerate ongoing technical assistance to
multi-state regional projects that include water
quality treatment objectives. Examples are the Gulf
of Mexico Program, Chesapeake Bay Program,
Great Lakes National Program, Land and Water
201, and the National Estuary Program. This assis-
tance will further the development of nonpoint
source pollution management plans to meet project
water quality objectives.
Technology Development
and Transfer
Updating the field office technical guide with the
best available technical information is an essential
part of SCS technology development. SCS will de-
155
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
velop progress assessment procedures to evaluate
the effects of agricultural activities on water quality
and quantity and formulate conservation systems to
improve water quality. SCS plans to link assess-
ment procedures to concurrent economic evalua-
tions and expand the technology for determining
sources of pollutants in watersheds and aquifer-
recharge areas.
Elements of technology transfer include:
¦ expansion of field office technical guides,
field trials, conservation experience, and
cooperation with other agencies, with the
support of area and state staffs,
¦ National Technical Center support to state
staffs, and
¦ establishment of a National Headquarters
Water Quality Technical Advisory Board to
provide guidance and set priorities for
national technology development.
Database Development
Database and software development to integrate
National Resources Inventory information,
agrichemical data, and soil surveys are essential for
an analysis of farm program policy. Specific
database efforts will include:
¦ soils-pesticides interaction characteristics,
¦ national Resource Inventory data,
¦ national climatological data,
¦ soil survey database for modeling, and
¦ plant materials database.
Increased Technical
Assistance
SCS is participating in a number of ongoing joint
programs (with USDA, U.S. Department of Interior,
and EPA) that evaluate and remedy water quality
programs from agricultural nonpoint sources. These
programs help improve water quality with conserva-
tion and management practices for erosion, agricul-
tural chemicals, animal waste, and irrigation water.
Other joint programs address field runoff reduction,
water table management, and water conservation.
The farmer or rancher, assisted by a conservation
planner, voluntarily develops conservation systems
and then implements the combination of practices
that best meets the conservation objective and com-
plements the farm or ranch operation.
•V . ^^ JL J ~
intormation
Dissemination
In 1990, SCS and Extension Service conducted a
National Water Quality Conference, four Regional
Water Quality Workshops, and an SCS/EPA Water
Quality Program Workshop. The conference and
workshops are part of the efforts to increase the
SCS capability to solve water quality and quantity
problems.
Additional outreach activities will include news
releases, newsletters, technical notes and papers,
videos, slide tapes, workshops, and field days. SCS
will report progress quarterly.
156
-------
The Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The National Forest
System
The Forest Service manages 191 million acres of
public forests and rangeland for multiple-use pur-
poses. These lands comprise the National Forest
System.
In managing these lands so as to minimize im-
pacts on water quality, the Forest Service has devel-
oped a nonpoint source management strategy. This
strategy involves the design and implementation of
preventive land management practices designed to
protect beneficial uses, monitoring to determine ef-
fectiveness of design, and adjustment of practices as
determined necessary. Best management practices
(preventive land management practices) are used as
project performance standards.
To help integrate this management strategy
with land management programs, the Forest Ser-
vice and the Bureau of Land Management are hold-
ing a series of joint training sessions for field
personnel in the various states.
In Fiscal Year 1989, the Forest Service sup-
ported section 319 through a number of mecha-
nisms:
¦ nine regional nonpoint source coordinators,
¦ three full-time technical forest water
quality specialists who worked with 42
state foresters and water quality agencies,
¦ several technical workshops devoted to
nonpoint source monitoring programs, and
¦ implementation of 145 national forest land
and resource plans.
The Forest Service is working to develop agree-
ments with the states that will provide for coopera-
tive state/federal programs to control nonpoint
sources for forests and rangeland. In many states,
the Forest Service has been recognized as the desig-
nated lead agency for nonpoint source control.
In addition, cooperative programs are being de-
veloped to ensure that BMFs are developed accord-
ing to the Forest Service Nonpoint Source Strategy
to meet state water quality program requirements.
The Forest Service has been active in assisting
states to develop practices that can be applied state-
wide and a monitoring program that will help refine
the BMP's design.
The Forest Service policy is to monitor the im-
plementation of BMPs on all its projects where
water quality may be at risk. The intent is to pro-
vide rapid feedback on the effectiveness of BMPs on
a given project so that any water quality problems
can be detected at their source and corrections made
quickly where necessary.
Some examples of the specific activities under-
way in the Forest Service to improve water quality
are:
¦ The watershed improvement program pro-
vides funding to rehabilitate lands and restore
favorable conditions of flow. Revegetation,
runoff control, and channel checks are among
the measures used. In fiscal year 1990, pro-
jects were completed to improve 30,383 acres.
¦ The Knutson-Vandenburg Act allows some of
the money received from the sale of timber to
be used to restore and enhance the lands that
were harvested. A significant amount of this
funding is used to improve watershed condi-
tions and water quality.
¦ The emergency burn rehabilitation program
has spent an average of $5 million dollars per
year over the last three years to control runoff
and sediment from lands severely burned by
wildfires. These treatments have been highly
successful in reducing immediate impacts of
wildfire until ecosystems regain their han-
dling capability.
157
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
m Healthy riparian areas are a key factor in
maintaining water quality. The Forest Service
has undertaken a national strategy to improve
riparian areas damaged by chronic overuse.
¦ The USDA and Forest Service have provided
increased emphasis and funding over the last
three years to make our facilities comply with
current environmental protection laws, A
major emphasis has been abatement of known
nonpoint pollution problems. In 1989, 203 pro-
jects were completed, costing in excess of $3.5
million.
¦ The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit was
set up and continues to work in controlling
water pollution in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Sen-
sitive lands that threaten the clarity of the
water in Lake Tahoe have been acquired and
are being rehabilitated and managed by the
Forest Service. A cooperative effort involving
other federal, state, and local agencies in Cali-
fornia and Nevada, this is a major success
story in water quality management.
State and Private Forestry
The Forest Service cooperated with the National As-
sociation of State Foresters and other organizations
to publish and distribute a brochure on nonpoint
source pollution control. The brochure encourages
private landowners to seek assistance before under-
taking an activity that may cause pollution.
Regionally and locally, the Forest Service con-
tinued to work with state forestry organizations in
developing the input to 319 assessments and pro-
grams. The Southern Region in Atlanta took the
lead in establishing a position to work with state
foresters. Activities included assisting states in de-
veloping 319 assessments and programs, coordinat-
ing with the Dallas and Atlanta EPA regions on
forestry issues, and distributing information on the
economics of siivicultural BMPs.
Many state forestry organizations conduct sur-
veys to determine compliance with BMPs, For ex-
ample, Florida completed its fifth annual survey in
1989. A compliance rate of 94 percent was calculated
from field checks on 128 operations. Florida has
used survey results to identify areas that need addi-
tional technical assistance.
Nonpoint source control has been incorporated
into the ongoing landowner training programs con-
ducted in cooperation with agencies such as the Ex-
tension Service. For example, Virginia conducted 30
BMP training workshops between November 1988
and April 1989. Approximately 1,900 people were in-
volved.
Foresters are available in most counties with a
forest land base. Beginning with the 208 programs,
they have included advice on BMPs in their recom-
mendations to landowners. Maryland, with its focus
on the Chesapeake Bay, has added 16 bay foresters
to work in counties adjoining the bay. Pennsylvania
foresters have established demonstrations on the
use of forest buffers in mitigating the runoff from
agriculture lands.
One goal of the Forest Service is to strengthen
state programs. The Northern Region has provided
financial assistance to state foresters in Idaho and
Montana to help them establish water quality posi-
tions.
The State and Private Forestry branch of the
Forest Service is also promoting a Forest Steward-
ship initiative to small non-industrial landowners
who collectively own and manage 75 percent of the
nation's forested land. This branch also supports ef-
forts by state foresters to improve soil and water
management of private forest lands.
Research
Significant work is being done at Caspar Creek in
California in gaining an understanding of erosion
processes and their relationship to timber harvest-
ing. A major effort to understand the relationship
between roads and harvesting on streams and fish-
eries is continuing at Boise, Idaho. Research pro-
jects in Moscow, Idaho, and Tempe, Arizona, are
actively working to develop the water erosion pre-
diction model for forested lands,
A new project at the Pacific Southwest Station
will address cumulative effects of forest manage-
ment. Projects in Kentucky are developing technol-
ogy to reduce pollution from abandoned mines
producing toxic acid.
Projects in the Pacific Northwest Station are ad-
dressing slope processes and the relationship to
channel and fisheries impacts. Many other projects
across the nation are focusing on aspects of forest
management that influence water quality.
158
-------
Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of Interior
During FY 1989, the Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice (FWS) focused attention on nonpoint
source pollution problems in a number of
areas. The service
¦ continued research to define the scope and
effect of pollutants from urban and
agricultural runoff, mining, silviculture,
and hydromodification on fish and wildlife
species and their habitats.
¦ conducted special information and
education efforts to encourage farm owners
to participate in the USD A Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), (planting schemes
that establish cover for wildlife on CRP
lands were emphasized in specially
developed brochures), and
¦ worked with the University of Maryland
Agricultural Extension Service to develop a
pamphlet emphasizing the benefits of
riparian vegetation in reducing nonpoint
source pollution. The pamphlet, entitled
Streamside Forest: The Valuable Beneficial
Resource, is being distributed by the USDA
Agricultural Extension Service.
Runoff from agricultural land, discharge of nu-
trients as a result of draining impoundments, and
shoreline erosion were identified as problems on
several wildlife refuges in the Chesapeake Basin.
Suggested remedies include expanding vegetative
buffer strips, reducing the amounts of pesticides and
fertilizers used, using impoundments as sedi-
ment/nutrient traps, and stabilizing erodible shore-
lines.
Pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, FWS provided a formal opinion for pesticide use
on certain crops, forests, pasture, and rangelands to
provide protection from runoff and/or drift of pesti-
cides from agricultural lands. Specific measures
were recommended to avoid endangering listed spe-
cies.
FWS completed the draft Pest Management Pol-
icy to provide guidance in FWS adoption of pest
management practices that have the least adverse
impact on other organisms and the environment.
When in final form, the policy will apply to pest
management activities on FWS lands, in FWS pro-
jects, and to non-FWS personnel on FWS-owned or
controlled lands and facilities.
In accordance with the Department of Interior's
Irrigation Drainwater Program, FWS is determin-
ing the causes (and degree) of problems associated
with excessive levels of micronutrients (e.g., sele-
nium, boron) in irrigation wastewaters in arid
western states. Controls and alternatives to help
mitigate these problems are under development.
Studies underway in a number of refuges are exam-
ining the potential for nonpoint source pollution
from agriculture, mining, and oil and gas activities.
New solutions are developed and implemented as
specific problems are verified and their nature and
extent ascertained.
FWS routinely provides recommendations on
BMPs to control nonpoint source pollution when re-
viewing permit/license applications, federal project
construction and operation plans, resource manage-
ment plans, conservation easements, and other
types of land management activities. Measures to
mitigate damage to fish and wildlife resources or
their habitats are included in these recommenda-
tions.
159
-------
Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of Interior
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fo-
cuses its efforts on assisting states to iden-
tify affected bodies of water and develop
nonpoint source management plans. The founda-
tion for these efforts was provided by the Glean
Water Act section 208 program.
The Bureau and the U.S. Forest Service jointly
developed a training program for managers, plan-
ners, and natural resources staffs on the role and re-
sponsibility of each agency in nonpoint source
pollution control. Guidelines for meeting the federal
consistency requirements of section 319 and Execu-
tive Orders 12088 and 12372 were issued to all field
offices. Field office programs were evaluated in FY
1990 as part of an overall evaluation of the effective-
ness of nonpoint source management efforts.
Congress provided specific funding for the
Bureau's Riparian Management Program. This pro-
gram has had and will continue to have a significant
effect on improving water quality on stream reaches
under Bureau management and will remain one of
the Bureau's highest priorities.
Specific State Activities
¦ Arizona: In an active riparian management
program in Arizona, the Bureau has coordi-
nated with the state and others to establish
special designations to protect high value
streams (including Cienega Creek, the San
Pedro River, the Bill Williams River, and Bo-
nita Creek).
Bureau personnel served as members of
state subcommittees on rangeland and BMP
development and anticipate participating on
other pertinent subcommittees as they become
active. A cooperative agreement between BLM
and Arizona is being developed to implement
the nonpoint source management program,
and the Bureau will be named as the desig-
nated management agency for BLM-managed
lands.
¦ California: Bureau personnel assisted in iden-
tifying streams affected by nonpoint source pol-
lution and reviewed the nonpoint source
management plan format and content. BLM
anticipates signing a cooperative agreement
similar to that between the state and the U.S.
Forest Service and being appointed the desig-
nated management agency for BLM-managed
lands.
¦ Colorado; The Bureau provided technical ex-
pertise, plan review, and commentary to work
groups charged with designing and implement-
ing a nonpoint source plan. BLM participated
in the development of agricultural BMPs for
the Grand Valley, in the inventory and monitor-
ing of affected streams, and in the placement of
erosion control structures.
¦ Idaho: The Bureau participated fully in the de-
velopment of the state's nonpoint source man-
agement plan. BLM was the principal agency
in the generation of grazing BMPs and partici-
pated in work groups for minerals, agriculture,
and hydrologic modification. BLM districts im-
plemented riparian management projects that
include anti-degradation requirements and the
state-designated BLM as the lead agency for
BLM-managed lands. BLM updated the section
208 plan for agricultural development and is
developing guidelines for implementation of
agency-approved projects.
¦ Montana: The Bureau cooperated in the devel-
opment of the state nonpoint source manage-
ment plan and related BMPs. BLM is also
participating in the implementation of BMPs
for timber harvesting. These BMPs are manda-
tory on BLM lands, but the state program is
voluntary.
¦ Nevada: Materials and information submitted
by BLM will be incorporated in the state's non-
160
-------
VI. RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS
point source management plan. The state has
not yet responded to offers for further partici-
pation by BLM.
¦ New Mexico; Bureau personnel participated
with the state's Environmental Improvement
Division to develop the nonpoint source man-
agement program, and BLM is the designated
management agency for nonpoint source pol-
lution on BLM-managed lands. Erosion con-
trol structures were placed on the Cruces
River and the Rio Puerco (named as highest
priority affected waterbodies by the state),
and the BLM produced a watershed manage-
ment plan that includes nonpoint source con-
trol measures. The plan will serve as a model
for future efforts to address nonpoint source
pollution issues.
¦ Oregon; The Bureau has long assisted this
state in assessing waterbodies and developing
and implementing nonpoint source control
programs. Bureau personnel serve on EPA's
technical advisory committee for Region X and
helped produce the document, Effectiveness of
Agricultural and Silvicultural Nonpoint
Source Control. The Bureau participated in
the revision of the state's timber management
practices program and is developing a Memo-
randum of Understanding with the state to
name the Bureau as designated management
agency for BLM-managed lands. The BLM
also participates on the Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board and its technical advi-
sory committee and provides technical advice
to the Citizens' Advisory Committee for sec-
tion 319.
¦ Utah: The Bureau participated on the Non-
point Source Pollution Committee, the group
charged with developing the nonpoint source
management plan for Utah. The plan was re-
cently forwarded to EPA for approval. The
BLM anticipates designation as the manage-
ment agency for BLM-managed lands.
¦ Wyoming: The Bureau participated in work-
ing groups for road construction, range, and
forestry to develop the state's nonpoint source
management plan and maintains an active in-
terest in implementation of the plan. BLM an-
ticipates approval as the designated
management agency for BLM-managed lands.
161
-------
Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior
The Bureau of Reclamation operates under
the authority of the 1902 Reclamation Act
and Amendments and Executive Orders.
In 1987, Reclamation announced a redirection
in its mission. Instead of concentrating primarily on
water resource development, Reclamation is placing
greater emphasis on more efficient operation of ex-
isting projects and resource management issues,
such as water quality, environmental restoration,
conjunctive use of surface water and ground-water,
and hazardous waste management and cleanup.
Among these are several initiatives that address
nonpoint source pollution.
¦ Irrigation Drainage Research: At the
Oakes Test Area in North Dakota, Reclama-
tion is developing best management practices
for irrigated agriculture. Under the guidance
of a steering committee composed of represen-
tatives from the state, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Reclamation has developed a
guidance manual that has been used by the
state of North Dakota to develop its nonpoint
source management program.
¦ Technology Development: Reclamation is
working with the Tennessee Valley Authority
and the University of Iowa to develop new
technologies that will address water quality
concerns associated with reservoir releases.
An ongoing project involves self-venting tur-
bine research to increase the dissolved oxygen
content of hydropower releases in situations
where releases do not meet water quality
standards.
¦ Cooperative Basin Water Quality Studies:
Reclamation is undertaking technical studies
with other federal and state agencies to iden-
tify nonpoint source pollutants that are, or
could be, causing water quality problems in
Reclamation reservoirs. Cooperative studies
are being pursued with the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, the Bureau of Mines,
and the state of Colorado on the Dolores and
Arkansas rivers, which suffer from toxic met-
als contamination from abandoned mine
lands. The projects are located in Colorado.
¦ National Irrigation Water Quality Pro-
gram (Department Irrigation Drainage
Program): The program is administered by a
departmental program manager in the Office
of the Secretary (assistant secretary for water
and science) and is a cooperative effort be-
tween Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, National Park Service, and the
Bureau of Land Management.
The objectives of the program are to identify
areas that are being adversely affected by toxic
elements in the irrigation return flows (drain-
age). The program has been divided into five
phases. The U.S. Geological Survey is the lead
agency in the first three phases. Reclamation
is the lead agency in Phases IV and V.
Since 1986, over 600 sites have been re-
viewed. The sites relate to areas where Recla-
mation has developed federally funded
irrigation that could affect a national wildlife
refuge, state wildlife management areas,
and/or threatened fish or waterfowl The site
review was conducted as part of Phase I stud-
ies in which areas were evaluated based on
personal knowledge of the soils, water quality,
and wildlife conditions. For projects that could
not be readily deleted or were included in fur-
ther phases, an audit report was prepared
from agency files to help make that decision.
162
-------
VI. RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS
If Phase I determined a potential for problems,
a reconnaissance study (Phase II) was conducted.
Water quality, bottom sediment, and biota data were
collected to determined if adverse impacts were oc-
curring or likely to occur. If Phase II reconnaissance
data were positive, Phase III began.
Phase III work determines what problems are
occurring and identifies toxic elements, their loca-
tion, and the mechanisms making them available to
the injured fish and wildlife. A detailed report is
generated for remediation work in Phases IV and V,
if necessary.
In Phase IV, Keclamation would plan remedia-
tion. Reclamation's regional offices will coordinate
this planning with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice, state fish and game agencies, state water qual-
ity control agencies, local governments, irrigation
districts, and landowners. When the plan of action is
developed and ap-eement is reached, the project re-
mediation work (Phase V) would be initiated.
Commencing in 1991, four areas now under de-
tailed Phase III investigations (Stillwater Wildlife
Management Area, Nevada; Saltan Sea Area, Cali-
fornia; Kendrick Project Area, Wyoming; and Middle
Green River Area, Utah) will move into the planning
and project remediation phases.
Reclamation will be the lead agency in plan-
ning, engineering, and remedial activities. Irriga-
tion water management to reduce and consequently
retain flows is the principal remedial action that
could be applied to control nonpoint source drainage
problems. This may involve both delivery system
and on-farm improvements, water table manage-
ment to minimize contact with leachable pollutants,
interception of drainage .water immediately below
the root zone to minimize contamination, retirement
of the land, and possible collection and treatment of
the drainage. Each area's remedial action will be
based on impacts, toxic elements, and environmen-
tal harm. The final remediation will be based on
site-specific conditions and will likely include a com-
bination of treatments to represent best manage-
ment practices.
Individual projects are usually addressed in
Reclamation's regional offices, which work directly
with the local sponsors of the irrigation project.
They also interface directly with the state water
quality agency's nonpoint source coordinator. In ad-
dition, Reclamation's staff is working with the
states in preparing nonpoint source assessment re-
ports and management plans to determine how to
address other nonpoint source issues at Reclama-
tion projects. This may also include representation
on specific state nonpoint source committees.
Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control program
affects all seven basin states —Colorado, Wyoming,
Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Califor-
nia. Salinity standards for the Colorado River were
developed by the Colorado River Salinity Control
Forum in its 1975 report. Each of the basin states
has adopted the 1975 report as its standard for sa-
linity, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency has approved these state salinity standards:
total dissolved solids (TDS) are 723 mg/L below Hoo-
ver Dam, 747 mg/L below Parker Dam, and 879
mg/L at Imperial Dam.
As the Colorado River flows downstream, the
salinity concentrations progressively increase as a
result of water diversion, evaporation from reser-
voirs, and salt contributions from both human-in-
duced and natural sources. About half of the present
salinity concentration in the Colorado River at Hoo-
ver Dam is human-induced, with about 37 percent
attributable to irrigated agriculture. In June 1974,
Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act, P.L. 93-320, with the Secretary of the
Interior to proceed with a program to enhance and
protect the quality of water available in the Colo-
rado River for use in the United States and the Re-
public of Mexico. Reclamation is working with the
seven basin states, the Colorado River Salinity Con-
trol Advisory Council, the Colorado River Salinity
Control Forum, and several federal agencies to
achieve the water quality standards for the Colo-
rado River.
Costs associated with the salinity program (both
Reclamation and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's portions) are cost shared by the basin
states. Reclamation's program consists of construct-
ing and planning specific projects to deal with non-
point sources of salinity pollution. These activities
include canal and lateral lining, improved drainage,
other delivery system improvements, and control of
nonpoint source saline inflow such as mineral
springs and seeps. Reclamation's current program
consists of four construction projects and two inves-
tigations that could lead to additional construction.
Three of the construction projects involve lining ex-
isting canals and the fourth project involves inter-
cepting saline water and deep well injection of the
brine.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, one of the
participating federal agencies, is cooperating with
Reclamation to reduce salt loading to the Colorado
River. USDA's program is presently being imple-
mented in the Grand Valley, Lower Gunnison, and
McElmo Creek in Colorado; the Big Sandy River
163
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
area in Wyoming; and the Uinta Basin in Utah. In
these areas, USDA is providing technical and cost-
sharing assistance to farmers for the application of
salinity reduction practices.
USDA's program focuses on reducing salt load-
ing from on-farm irrigation and the associated irri-
gation water distribution systems. This is accomp-
lished by improving surface irrigation systems or by
converting to sprinklers to reduce on-farm irrigation
drainage. The reduction of seepage from lateral ca-
nals is accomplished by ditch lining or installation of
buried pipelines. In addition, farmers are using a
higher level of on-farm irrigation water manage-
ment by controlling the timing and amount of irriga-
tion water applied to meet crop needs.
164
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
encourages coastal and Great Lake states to
develop and implement management pro-
grams to achieve wise use of land and water re-
sources in the coastal zone and authorizes NOAA to
issue grants for state coastal management pro-
grams, Although at the time this report was
written, the Coastal Zone Management Act did not
yet specifically address nonpoint source pollution,
many states have begun to implement nonpoint
source controls in their coastal zones. The following
are land and water use programs to control non-
point source pollution under several state Coastal
Zone Management programs.
¦ New Jersey's Coastal Management Pro-
gram reviews coastal construction permit ap-
plications to ensure that coastal waters will be
protected from development runoff. Permits
may be issued by local governments to require
that the best available technology is used to
treat or prevent runoff. Required techniques
include providing water retention basins on
construction sites and maintaining permeable
surfaces.
¦ Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Man-
agement Council requires a minimum 50-foot
development setback from coastal waters (ex-
cept in the case of water-dependent uses). In
many cases, the Council requires that the 50-
foot buffers be kept in natural vegetation
rather than in lawns or gardens, which could
increase fertilizer and pesticide runoff.
¦ Massachusetts Areas of Critical Environ-
mental Concern Program includes a num-
ber of coastal rivers and estuaries and protects
over 145 miles of shoreline. Proposed develop-
ment projects in these areas are subject to in-
tense state review. For example, every
application for construction of a dock or pier lo-
cated in these areas is reviewed for potential
nonpoint source pollution impacts.
¦ South Carolina's Coastal Council has
taken a number of steps to address water
quality problems. The Council has funded
studies on the effectiveness of commonly used
storm water management techniques and de-
veloped storm water management regulations
and a model storm water ordinance for local
government use. The Council has also devel-
oped two manuals to provide marina develop-
ers with technical guidelines for marina
construction and operation. Construction of
coastal marinas in the state cannot begin until
the applicant prepares a Marina Operations
and Maintenance Plan acceptable to the Coun-
cil in consultation with the state's water qual-
ity agency and the U.S. Coast Guard.
¦ North Carolina's Division of Coastal Man-
agement and Coastal Resources Commis-
sion requires development permits in areas of
environmental concern, including tidal
wetlands, primary nurseries, shellfisheries,
and pristine waters. Nine of the 20 coastal
counties have developed storm water runoff
policies as part of their Coastal Areas Manage-
ment Act Land Use Plan. The Department of
Health, Environment, and Natural Resources
enforces storm water regulations to ensure
that water quality standards are not violated
and shellfish waters will not be adversely af-
fected.
The state's Outstanding Resource Waters
program includes several estuaries. Regula-
tions have been developed to further protect
water quality in these waters through the
state's coastal management permit process.
165
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
¦ Delaware's Coastal Management Pro-
gram has been instrumental in implementing
the state's erosion and sedimentation control
program and in developing a new statewide
storm water management program.
¦ Florida's Coastal Management Program
has played an important role in implementing
the state's Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act (SWIM), The act was de-
signed to clean, restore, and protect Florida's
water resources. Since the act's passage, the
coastal program has provided $1.8 million to
support SWIM efforts, including development
of SWIM plans by state Water Management
districts. The plans must ensure provision of
recreational opportunities and protection of
habitat and drinking water sources.
¦ Washington's Coastal Zone Management
Program funded the citizen-based Willapa
Bay Water Quality Coordination Council to
help reduce herbicide and pesticide pollution
in the bay. In addition, seven counties and cit-
ies received Coastal Zone Management Act
funding to develop or enhance local action
plans to protect and/or restore water quality.
The projects included a monitoring and pollu-
tion source identification program for an oys-
ter harvesting area and a study of state efforts
to address agricultural sources of nonpoint
source pollution in a number of watersheds,
¦ New York's Coastal Management Pro-
gram has addressed a number of nonpoint
source pollution problems. The development of
Local Waterfront Revitalization programs al-
lows municipalities to refine state Coastal
Zone Management program policies to meet
local objectives. For example, municipalities
can adopt site-specific water quality objectives
and require BMPs as part of local land use
'regulations.
During 1989, the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment program sponsored a series of workshops
on surface water quality problems on Long Is-
land. Other workshops discussed the problems
and solutions associated with boater pollution,
storm water runoff, and septic systems. The
program is also funding a comparative assess-
ment of two stream corridors, one urban and
one rural, to determine how land use patterns
and regulatory practices have affected water
quality in Great South Bay watersheds.
Other NOAA Activities
Eutrophication Study
NOAA's Strategic Assessments Branch (SAB) identi-
fies and assembles comprehensive information
about environmental quality as it relates to estua-
rine and oceanic resources. These data are used for
national and regional assessments and to develop
practical strategies to balance conservation require-
ments and use demands.
SAB will conduct a nationwide assessment of
120 estuaries with dangerously high nutrient levels
(eutrophic estuaries). Using a standard question-
naire survey, the assessment will characterize the
type of estuarine problems {algal blooms, low dis-
solved oxygen, fishkills, etc.), how long they last, and
the size of affected areas. The results will improve
the understanding of the relationship between eutro-
phication status and nutrient inputs.
National Coastal Pollution
Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
The NCPDI is a database and framework for calcu-
lating estimated pollutant discharges. It concerns
point, nonpoint, and upstream sources affecting es-
tuarine, coastal, and oceanic waters of the contigu-
ous United States (excluding the Great Lakes).
¦ Database Updates: SAB undertook a series of
projects in FY 1989 to perfect the estimates for
selected pollutant source categories in coastal
areas of the Gulf of Mexico. The projects in-
clude:
~ expanding the study area to incorporate
more inland areas with estuarine
drainage basins,
~ updating the base year to 1987 (especially
the inventory of point source
dischargers),
~ assessing the impact of management
practices on nonpoint source pollutant
discharges, and
~ improving the methods used to estimate
pollutant discharges from urban areas
and upstream sources.
In addition, projects are underway to develop
computer applications that allow users better access
to the NCPDI databases. These data sets represent
the best available information on pollutant dis-
charges to coastal waters.
166
-------
VI, RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Agricultural Pesticides
NOAA released Agricultural Pesticide Use in Estua-
rine Drainage Areas: A Preliminary Summary for
Selected Pesticides in January 1989, summarizing
the use of 28 environmentally important pesticides
on 71 crops in the 92 original National Estuarine In-
ventory drainage areas. The report presents data on
agricultural pesticide use and "toxicity-normalized"
pesticide use that can be employed to estimate the
relative effects of specific pollutants on various estu-
arine systems.
SAB began work in FY 1989 to update this in-
formation. The database contains estimates of use
for 35 important pesticides, relating to the base year
1987. SAB will expand the study area to include all
coastal areas in the-country. Information from this
database is now being used to identify estuarine
systems that are at greatest risk from pesticide resi-
dues in agricultural runoff.
Nutrients
A series of reports completed in FY 1989 examine
the levels of nutrients in estuaries of the Northeast,
Southeast, and Gulf Coast. Flushing dilution char-
acteristics, rate of freshwater inflow, estuarine vol-
ume, and estimated nutrient loadings signify a
potential for eutrophication-related problems. SAB
developed the information to assist the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency identify systems at
risk.
The reports contain a one-page summary of
physical dimensions, pollution susceptibility indices,
estimated loadings, predicted concentrations status,
land use, and point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen
and phosphorus for each estuary in the region. SAB
interprets the information for each estuary and esti-
mates the effect of minor changes in nutrient load-
ings.
167
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nonpoint source pollution control efforts by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers include
those made by the agency in its own oper-
ating projects and support of state nonpoint source
management programs.
Efforts within the agency's operating projects
focus on sedimentation and water quality in flood
control reservoirs and navigation channels. With
EPA, the Corps established a network of informa-
tion exchange to facilitate nonpoint source manage-
ment efforts. These projects have benefited from
increasing knowledge and cooperation with the non-
point source program.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
section 1135, authorized the Corps to examine exist-
ing projects to identify improvements for the pur-
pose of improving the environment. Nonpoint source
pollution control activities may be incorporated into
such projects.
The Corps has reviewed state assessments and
management programs for nonpoint source control
to:
¦ plan future steps for federal projects,
¦ provide for technical coordination so that
the best practicable control measures can be
achieved, and
¦ facilitate the review of consistency between
such projects and state nonpoint source
management programs. The mechanism for
checking consistency is based on the
development of necessary checks for
consistency with state Coastal Zone
Management Plans.
168
-------
EPA's Efforts to Coordinate
Nonpoint Source
Programs and Activities
Given the number of federal departments
and agencies with roles to play in imple-
menting a comprehensive nonpoint source
program and the likelihood of substantially in-
creased federal nonpoint source activity during the
next few years, it will become increasingly difficult
and yet crucially important to coordinate and inte-
grate the disparate federal nonpoint source pro-
grams and activities. Section 319 provides a
framework for integrating all of these federal activ-
ities into the state nonpoint source management
programs. This in turn will allow integration of
these activities into the comprehensive national
framework for water pollution control established
by Congress in the Clean Water Act. The central or-
ganizing principles are described in the following
paragraphs.
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act establishes a
national program to control nonpoint sources of
water pollution, the pollution caused by a variety of
land-altering activities that result in runoff of pollu-
tants to waters of the United States. Leading
sources of nonpoint source pollution include agricul-
ture, silviculture, grazing, mining, water supply de-
velopment, drainage, and numerous activities
associated with urban development and growth.
Many federal and state agencies and programs
play a role in addressing nonpoint sources of water
pollution such as agriculture, silviculture, coastal
zone management, grazing, and mining. The broad
variety of nonpoint sources of pollution, as well as
their relationship to point sources often located in
the same watersheds, necessitates a coordinated
and comprehensive approach that integrates water
pollution protection activities at the federal, state,
and local levels.
EPA and state water quality agencies imple-
menting the Clean Water Act have traditionally pro-
vided the institutional framework for coordinating
our nation's water quality activities. They have es-
tablished water quality criteria and standards, di-
rected construction of sewage treatment plants, im-
plemented the national point source and wetlands
permit programs, and led monitoring and evalua-
tion efforts to assess water quality trends and as-
sure that control efforts improve water quality.
EPA also implements many other water pollu-
tion programs in which point and nonpoint source
controls are integrated, including
¦ the Clean Lakes Program,
¦ the Great Lakes Program,
¦ the Chesapeake Bay Program,
¦ the National Estuary Program,
¦ the Wellhead Protection Program,
¦ the establishment of total maximum daily
loads, wasteload allocations for point
sources, and load allocations for nonpoint
sources, and
¦ water quality inventories and lists.
These and other programs are discussed in
more detail elsewhere in this report.
Recognizing the many nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion and their interrelation to other aspects of water
pollution control, Congress assigned EPA the role of
establishing and coordinating the national nonpoint
source control program. Section 319 establishes a
three-stage approach for states, with EPA oversight
and assistance, to control nonpoint source pollution.
Section 319 provides a mechanism for federal
agencies to assure that their nonpoint source control
activities are targeted toward identified water qual-
ity problems and coordinated with other point and
nonpoint source control programs. States' section
319 management programs provide a means to es-
tablish and implement a consistent set of activities
169
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
within each state to achieve state-established water
quality objectives. Working with state nonpoint
source control agencies, with other state and local
entities, and with each other, federal agencies can
assure that nonpoint source control activities are in-
tegrated at all levels of government to assure that
highest priority water pollution problems are identi-
fied and addressed in a coordinated fashion, EPA
and the state water quality agencies can help as-
sure, in turn, that these nonpoint source control ac-
tivities are well integrated with other watershed
protection measures such as point source controls,
wetlands protection, and watershed modeling and
monitoring.
170
-------
VII. Other
Organizations
Many public and private organizations have ongoing programs
to address the problems of nonpoint source pollution. Some
are directed at raising the level of public consciousness,
others at implementing actual programs and practices.
A group of these organizations agreed to write position papers for
this report. These presentations appear in this section.
These organizations include the Izaak Walton League, the North
American Lake Management Society, the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission, the National Association of Conservation
Districts, Ohio EPA, the Conservation Technology Information Center,
and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The views expressed by the authors of each position paper should
not be construed as reflecting the Administration's position. They
belong to the authors alone. Readers should once again be mindful that
these papers were written in 1989 and so some statements may be
dated.
171
-------
-------
The Izaak Walton League of America
Karen Firehock, Saue Our Streams Coordinator
The Izaak Walton League of America, formed
in 1922, is one of America's oldest nonprofit
conservation organizations. Today, the
League has 50,000 members working together to
protect and improve the nation's soil, air,
woodlands, water resources, and wildlife.
The League
¦ promotes citizen involvement in local
environmental protection efforts,
¦ educates the public about emerging
resource threats,
¦ represents sportsmen's conservation
concerns, and
¦ helps enforce natural resource protection
laws.
Save Our Streams
For the past 20 years, the League has administered
a nationwide river protection program called Save
Our Streams (SOS) that involves thousands of peo-
ple, including environmentalists, teachers, govern-
ment officials, farmers, scientists, and private
citizens. SOS provides help for those people who
want to prevent the deterioration of our nation's wa-
ters by adopting a stream of their choice and becom-
ing its active guardian.
SOS participants register their stream projects
with the League's national office and are put on the
League's national database of river protection pro-
grams. They receive regular issues of the SOS quar-
terly newsletter, Splash; updates on pending
national legislation, conferences, and issues of con-
cern; and an SOS kit that explains how to recognize
pollution problems in a stream and monitor water
quality using a biological approach and suggests
corrective actions.
Recent additions to the kit have included non-
point source pollution materials highlighting section
319 of the Clean Water Act and calling for citizen
participation in their state's nonpoint source pro-
gram. A major feature on this same issue also ap-
peared in the spring 1989 Splash newsletter, and
the League's national office promoted citizen atten-
dance at public reviews of section 319 management
programs.
Biological Monitoring
SOS groups use biological monitoring to determine
the health of their adopted stream. A simple technol-
ogy that is both inexpensive and easily followed, bio-
logical monitoring involves determining the
diversity and number of insects found in a stream.
These two statistics are used in combination to esti-
mate stream quality.
The League has conducted biological monitoring
since the early 1970s and believes it provides a valu-
able method for citizens to gauge the quality of a
local river. Biological monitoring gives an immediate
indication of a river's health and provides an invalu-
able tool for states to assess the impacts of nonpoint
source pollution. Citizen monitors assess trends in
stream quality by observing changes in their sam-
pling results over time. Monitors sampling in con-
junction with a League chapter or other
environmental group can send their monitoring data
to a central location. For example, in Virginia and
West Virginia, monitoring information is sent to the
League's national office in Arlington, Virginia. The
national office then uses the data to compile assays
of river health. In cases where results seem unusual,
participants are called to determine if the monitor-
ing was performed correctly, if a problem was found,
and if the proper authorities have been alerted.
Training
In the League's Virginia and West Virginia SOS pro-
grams, participants are trained in day-long biologi-
cal monitoring workshops that teach them pollution
identification, biological monitoring techniques, and
ways to promote participation in state nonpoint
source programs.
173
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Helping States
Several states, because they cannot afford to moni-
tor all state waters, have expressed increasing in-
terest in using citizen monitoring data to assess the
health of rivers. For example, the League makes its
monitoring data available to Virginia's State Water
Control Board for use in its section 305(b) report
and to the State Department of Conservation for use
in its section 319 nonpoint source program. In West
Virginia, the State Department of Natural Re-
sources will also use SOS data as part of its non-
point source program.
Ohio uses data gathered in its citizen monitor-
ing program to gauge the quality of its scenic rivers,
Maryland, Kentucky, Georgia, Oklahoma, and other
states are also planning to establish citizen monitor-
ing programs to augment their statewide monitor-
ing activities. The League assists and advises those
states on setting up monitoring programs and pro-
vides free SOS kits and samples of kick-seines.
Local League chapters also help set up networks.
Citizen Involvement; The
Key to Successful
Nonpoint Source Programs
Because section 319 of the 1987 Clean Water Act
Amendments calls for voluntary participation and is
not regulatory in nature, cooperation between state
governments and private organizations offers vast
benefits for both groups. In addition, working with
citizen groups allows states to actively promote
their programs. For example, the partnership
formed between the League and Virginia allows
more comprehensive river quality assessment by
the state and participation of state scientists in the
League's program; the League also becomes aware
of and promotes state programs. Finally, the grass-
roots involvement in state water quality monitoring
programs provides states with an environmentally
aware citizenry supportive of state clean water
goals and programs. Anyone wishing more informa-
tion on the League's monitoring program can con-
tact Karen Firehock, Izaak Walton League of
America, 1401 Wilson Blvd., Level B, Arlington, Vir-
ginia 22209.
174
-------
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission
Gary C. Schaefer
Voluntary measures implemented by local
government ordinances have long been the
primary means for managing nonpoint
source pollution. However, the establishment of vol-
untary local nonpoint source control programs has
been hampered by;
¦ lack of understanding and/or appreciation of
the potential uses of water resources and
how nonpoint source pollution affects those
uses,
¦ competition for funding between water
quality programs and other government
programs,
¦ lack of recognition of potential benefits
because the nonpoint source management
programs are so new,
¦ lack of development of enforcement policies
where nonpoint source management
controls have already been established,
¦ concern over ability to control pollution
from older urban areas, and
¦ uncertainty about local enforcement
authority.
Such concerns must be addressed if local com-
munities are to become meaningfully involved in
controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Successes and Failures
At present, there is no adequate measure of success
for nonpoint source management programs. Lacking
specific criteria to define achievement, few success
stories are available to help promote public aware-
ness and interest. Yet such interest is essential to
the effective development and implementation of
nonpoint source management programs. Public
awareness is growing and some management pro-
grams are taking shape, but progress is sluggish at
best.
The lack of an adequate measure of success also
prevents the recognition, understanding, or mea-
sure of failure. Monitoring programs are generally
too gross and unscientifically focused to allow
proper evaluation. Given these limitations, it is ap-
parent that current approaches have not generated
sufficient enthusiasm to cause local governments to
voluntarily designate funds for nonpoint source con-
trol programs.
Local government authority to implement many
nonpoint source control programs is poorly defined
and, in some cases, lacking entirely. "Public health,
safety, and welfare" is far from the explicit mandate
needed to allow local communities to confidently im-
plement management programs that may require
private expenditures or confiscation of private prop-
erty. Existing state and federal statutes generally
reserve water quality protection authority for state
and federal authorities.
Conclusions
The effort to control nonpoint source pollution at the
local level would be enhanced by the following:
¦ The determination of scientific means for doc-
umenting sources and causes of water re-
source use impairments that is developed at
the national level and at a scale meaningful to
communities expected to implement manage-
ment practices (i.e., small watersheds). The
statewide assessments mandated by section
319 do not provide the scientific validity to
draw conclusions about which management
practices are needed and which would be cost
beneficial.
175
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
¦ The development of a national policy for clas-
sifying streams on the basis of water resource
assessments to be used in cory'unction with
local input on relative benefits of stream uses.
It is important that such a policy recognize
that sufficient resources are not available at
any level of government to restore the lost
uses of many waters.
¦ The development of blueprints for success that
emphasize problem identification, selection of
solutions to fit the problems, and demonstra-
tion of the protection or restoration of water
resource uses. The section 314 Clean Lakes
Program is a good starting point for finding
examples of such an approach,
¦ Clarification of federal and state statutes and
regulations to grant local governments the
specific authority to address water quality.
The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
examined the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency's "Nonpoint Source Assessment" ratings of
northeastern Illinois stream quality versus water-
shed population density. Virtually all of the water-
sheds with existing population densities greater
than 750 people per square mile were in the two
worst of four categories. And nearly all watersheds
with population densities less than 750 people per
square mile were in the two best categories. This ob-
servation was not affected by the presence (or lack)
of point sources. The very fact that the urbanization
of a watershed has signaled the deterioration of its
water quality indicates that present national policy
requires greater focus on urban water resources.
176
-------
North American Lake
Management Society
The North American Lake Management Soci-
ety (NALMS) is a national organization of
citizens, scientists, lake associations, and
water pollution control professionals concerned
with the protection and restoration of water quality
in our nation's lakes.
EPA's 1989 Report to Congress: Water Quality of
Our Nation's Lakes shows that 76 percent of the pol-
lution affecting lakes comes from nonpoint sources.
Nutrients and siltation,'turbidity were identified as
being the most significant impairment factors.
Disturbing as this situation is, it can be
changed. This optimism emanates from two factors.
First is the increasing commitment of state and
local governments and grass-roots groups to accept
a partnership role with the federal government for
nonpoint source control and lake management. Sec-
ond is a greatly improved ability to organize, ana-
lyze, and interpret the effects of nonpoint source
remediation measures that have emerged over the
past 10 years.
The Growing Partnership
Ten years ago (when NALMS was born) there were
only four state lake management organizations in
the nation. Today, there are at least 15 such associa-
tions actively involved in managing their state lake
resources. Of these, California, Florida, Michigan,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washing-
ton, and Wisconsin are NALMS Chapters. Lake as-
sociations continue forming throughout the nation,
providing evidence of grass-roots support and
willingness to accept responsibility for managing
"their" lakes.
These lake associations also are working closely
with their states, encouraging the development of
the new state lake and nonpoint source manage-
ment programs, many of which are modeled on the
partnership philosophy of the section 314 Clean
Lakes Program. Local groups, cognizant of the
"ownership" role all individuals share for nonpoint
source pollution, are encouraging a similar working
partnership in the new nonpoint source programs.
These groups have supported innovative legislation
and taxing mechanisms to fund nonpoint source pol-
lution control in such diverse states as Washington
and Indiana.
Even though state and local governments and
grass-roots organizations are accepting a responsi-
ble role in the management of the nation's lake re-
sources, much remains to be accomplished to meet
the goals of the Clean Water Act. Federal commit-
ment to solving the nation's nonpoint source prob-
lems is imperative to meet these goals because
nonpoint source problems more than any other type
conform with reasons for enacting the Clean Water
Act: the problems are national in scope and do not
comply with state geographic boundaries. Lack of
federal support confuses the issue and promotes a
disjointed effort.
Continued federal support of demonstration
grants under section 319 will move toward problem
solutions in an orderly manner such that improved
guidance can be issued as more is learned about the
effects of nonpoint source remediations under vary-
ing conditions. Only through evaluation of their ef-
fectiveness can we address and resolve issues
concerning nonpoint source pollution control mea-
sures.
Congress has made a commendable start to-
ward restoring health to our nation's waters in the
Clean Water Act, The message to the American peo-
ple is indisputable: clean water is an important part
of our quality of life and needs to be protected, re-
stored, and maintained. Americans clearly want and
deserve clean lakes and reservoirs for safe drinking
water, recreation, industrial use, and aesthetic en-
joyment. These waterbodies are vital ecologically to
fish and wildlife; and economically, to our communi-
ties. Ninety-nine percent of the nation's population
lives within 50 miles of a publicly owned lake; more
than half within five miles.
Yet we continue to abuse this important re-
source—and nonpoint source pollution is by far the
greatest abuser. NALMS believes, however, that
with the help of the Clean Water Act, we have made
significant progress toward understanding lake and
watershed processes. Institutional infrastructures
begun at the state and local level will, when com-
pleted with federal support, restore the quality of
our nation's lakes and reservoirs.
177
-------
National Association of
Conservation Districts (NACD)
Ernest Shea, Executive Director
As public awareness increases, so does public
concern for surface and ground-water con-
tamination. In recent years, communities
have developed increasing appreciation of the im-
pact water quality has on existing social and eco-
nomic institutions.
While many sources of pollution corrupt our
nation's waters, NACD and conservation district ac-
tivities focus primarily on those from nonpoint
sources related to agricultural activities. However,
urban, mining, silvicultural, and other nonpoint
sources are also addressed by conservation district
programs.
State and Local Activities
Federal programs addressing agricultural nonpoint
source problems have been slow to materialize, but
state and local governments have been moving
swiftly to develop nonpoint source programs.
By the time section 319 was enacted in 1987, 25
states had already established and funded technical
assistance and cost-sharing programs to address
nonpoint source pollution. These programs were
aimed at helping land users apply best management
practices to control agricultural nonpoint sources of
pollution. In 1989 alone, state governments appro-
priated over $120 million to fund these endeavors.
NACD Activities
In response to the needs of its members and others
in the conservation community, NACD has been in-
strumental in bringing nonpoint source issues to the
forefront of the public agenda, NACD has conducted
a number of special projects since 1978 to assist pro-
gram managers and policy makers in developing
and carrying out nonpoint source water quality pro-
grams.
Most recently, in April 1989, NACD and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a
national nonpoint source conference that brought to-
gether nearly 500 conferees from both the public
and private sectors. The conference was one of the
first national meetings to provide a dedicated forum
to review policy decisions and discuss innovative
program ideas in the nonpoint source arena. It also
demonstrated very clearly that state and local gov-
ernments, as well as the private sector, are already
working vigorously to tackle nonpoint source pollu-
tion problems.
Nonpoint Source Program
Needs
One essential component in building a national
framework for solving nonpoint source problems is
still missing: a strong commitment from the federal
government to provide overall national leadership
in pursuing America's clean water goals. Many con-
servationists hailed the inclusion of section 319 in
the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments as a signal
that the federal government was at last going to
provide much needed leadership in this arena, lb
their disappointment, however, progress has been
painfully slow.
What is clearly needed is a message that Con-
gress is ready to follow up its words with actions.
The 1987 amendments authorized $400 million to
help states carry out their nonpoint source manage-
ment programs. To date, only $40 million has been
appropriated specifically for section 319 — a figure
far short of that needed.
Three specific elements must be in place to meet
the challenge of the nation's nonpoint problems:
¦ state leadership in developing programs
and standards that reflect individual state
needs,
178
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
m local community involvement in the
coordination of technical and financial
assistance with local program
requirements, and,
¦ financial support and overall program
guidance from the federal government.
A coordinated effort on the part of federal, state,
and local governments, private industry, landown-
ers, and managers is needed to protect water sup-
plies from agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution.
Several federal agencies, including EPA and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, have been moving
along these lines in the past two years.
NACD Recommendations
NACD recommends that EPA follow the lead of the
states and develop a cooperative, nonregulatory ap-
proach for addressing agriculture-related water
quality problems.
¦ Initiate msgor local level outreach efforts to
educate farmers and ranchers on the ways
agricultural practices cause water quality
problems.
¦ Provide financial and technical assistance
and other incentives to encourage land
managers to adopt best management
practices to protect their soil and water
resources.
¦ Integrate nonpoint source control initiatives
with ongoing erosion control and water
quality programs to ensure that
comprehensive and balanced natural
resource management programs are applied
at the farm level. For greater effectiveness,
current farm conservation BMPs need to
address both nutrient and pesticide
management along with other natural
resource management issues.
The real key to success does not lie in a stronger
federal regulatory framework. Success will be
achieved in working cooperatively with farmers and
ranchers, helping them adopt management practi-
ces that meet social, economic, and environmental
protection goals. Incentive-based approaches most
effectively persuade farmers to adopt new manage-
ment techniques. Further, most states have the au-
thority to deal with situations where individuals fail
to respond to incentives. The necessary authority is
also present to handle situations in which contami-
nation poses an immediate threat to the public
welfare or environmentally sensitive areas,
Congress enacted the section 319 nonpoint
source program with a "five-year lease on life." If
significant progress isn't made by 1992, what comes
next? A burdensome regulatory program? NACD;
suggests that the section 319 program be given a
fair chance to succeed. Give the program the oppor-
tunity to get off the ground and become operational
before deciding its fate.
The three elements discussed here form the core
of a workable strategy for addressing agricultural
nonpoint source pollution, and the first two are al-
ready largely in place. Only when the third is pres-
ent will our nation's water quality goals be within
reach.
179
-------
Conservation Technology
Information Center
Lyn Kirschner, Water Quality Specialist
As concern over water quality continues to
increase, the Conservation Technology In-
formation Center (CTIC) continues to de-
velop new products and methods to keep up with
the information demand. Established in 1982 as a
special project of the National Association of Con-
servation Districts (NACD), CTIC gathers and dis-
seminates information on soil conservation, water
conservation, and water quality as it pertains to
cropland. In January 1989, a water quality special-
ist was added to the CTIC staff. Producing factual
water quality information is one of the primary
goals of the Center.
The Center's newsletter, Conservation Impact
(circulation 28,000), includes a regular section dedi-
cated to information about nonpoint source pollu-
tion. This section highlights programs, individuals,
best management practices, and initiatives that are
having an effect on the improvement of water qual-
ity.
CTIC also provides the more than 3,000 conser-
vation districts with water quality information
through its association with its parent organization,
NACD.
CTIC publishes a National Directory of Non-
point Source Agency Contacts annually as an insert
to Conservation Impact, which includes: state water
quality agency contacts, EPA nonpoint source re-
gional coordinators, and USDA-SCS state water
quality coordinators.
Another CTIC project is the fact sheet series.
Nitrogen Facts, the first of the series, was released
in the fall of 1988 (distribution: 15,000). Pesticides
Facta was completed in the spring of 1989 and an
initial run of 30,000 copies distributed. Ibpics for fu-
ture fact sheets include a phosphorus and nitrogen
budget.
Raising the public awareness of water quality
matters is the ultimate goal of CTIC. Through water
quality education, CTIC landowners and operators
are able to make wise land use and management de-
cisions to protect the environment as a whole.
180
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Chris O. Yoder
Chemical monitoring techniques have tradi-
tionally been used to assess the impacts of
water pollution. Designed to protect water
quality for aquatic life and human uses, these tech-
niques are based on numerical criteria for chemi-
cals. This chemical-based approach to pollution
control has led to reduced point source loadings
overall, particularly conventional pollutants. Fur-
ther refinement of chemical criteria and the use of
emerging bioassay techniques have also controlled
toxic substances from point sources. As with any
single tool, however, the chemical-based approach
has important limitations.
The Problem
Traditional environmental assessments based upon
chemical monitoring (e.g., biennial 305b reports)
has revealed the need for holistic tools that measure
an end result of environmental regulatory efforts (a
U.S. Government Accounting Office review in 1986).
While indicators such as the amount of money spent
on treatment facilities or the number of point source
discharge permits issued may give the impression of
progress toward the goals of the Clean Water Act,
neither actually measures environmental results.
Chemical and toxicity evaluation tools can measure
changes in water quality, but both indirectly mea-
sure biological integrity. Furthermore, nearly all en-
vironmental impacts are dynamic and often evade
the steady-state assumptions inherent in these
tools, thus limiting their accuracy.
In addition, biological integrity is not deter-
mined by water quality alone. It may include alter-
ation of aquatic habitats, disruption of energy cycles,
changes in watershed characteristics, and biotic in-
teractions, all of which are frequently reported as
nonpoint source impacts.
lb explore the relationship between chemical
and biological evaluation tools, Ohio EPA compared
the chemical criteria and biocriteria for their ability
to identify effects on aquatic life. These tools were in
agreement 56 percent of the time, but biocriteria
identified impairment in 36 percent of the cases
where chemical criteria indicated no impairment.
While much of this discrepancy was due to non-
chemical impacts, the inadequacy of chemical moni-
toring networks was also a major cause.
Thus, what is now a singular focus on water
quality needs to be expanded to include the water
resource as a whole if we are to truly attain the ob-
jectives of the Clean Water Act. Tools that can mea-
sure the end result of all types of degradation are
needed to reach this goal,
Biocriteria
Attainment of the Clean Water Act's biological in-
tegrity goal can be measured holistically by direct
evaluation of aquatic communities. Such ambient
biological evaluation is re-emerging, as evidenced in
both the technical literature and the inclusion of
biocriteria in U.S. EPA water programs.
Biocriteria resemble chemical criteria in that
each has a narrative description of use accompanied
by a numeric criterion that serves as a benchmark
of use attainment. Biocriteria, however, measure
the indigenous aquatic community directly, whereas
chemical criteria are indirect, surrogate measures
based largely on laboratory toxicity tests of selected
aquatic species that are then extrapolated to repre-
sent the indigenous aquatic community as a whole.
Biocriteria also include representative ecologically
relevant characteristics.
An operational definition of biological integrity
is "the biological performance of the natural habi-
tats of a region." This means that the aquatic com-
munity performance goal is established by
measuring the aquatic community at selected refer-
ence sites that exhibit the typical, least affected
habitats within a relatively homogenous geographi-
cal area. Ohio used the regional reference site ap-
proach and Omernik's ecoregions, developed at
EPA's Corvallis lab, as the basis for selecting least
affected sites and organizing the biocriteria.
Ecoregions also include geographic and water-
shed/land use components that ultimately deter-
mine the types of nonpoint source problems that are
likely to arise within each.
181
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
In Ohio, both the fish and macroinvertebrate
communities are measured using multiple metric
type evaluations, including the Index of Biotic Integ-
rity (IBI) and the Invertebrate Community Index
(ICI). These indices use ecologically complex and rel-
evant information and assemble it in a numerical
evaluation. The IBI and ICI should not be confused
with other biological measures such as diversity in-
dices, which do not include the needed degree of eco-
logical relevance or complexity.
Biocriteria are established by organism group,
biological index, stream size, use classification, and
ecoregion. These were recently adopted into Ohio's
water quality standards regulations (February
1990) and serve as holistic benchmarks for evaluat-
ing aquatic life use attainment. It is important to
recognize, however, that biocriteria are ambient ar-
biters and cannot be applied directly to an effluent
pipe or similar conveyance.
Application
Biocriteria can be applied wherever aquatic life pro-
tection is a goal. Because the indigenous aquatic
communities reside full-time in the aquatic environ-
ment, they integrate environmental effects over
time. Thus, their condition reflects both past and re-
cent events. This makes biocriteria specifically well
suited to serve as an end point or results-oriented
measure of the success of pollution controls.
Because of their variable, dynamic impacts,
nonpoint sources uniquely challenge traditional
chemical and toxicity assessment tools. While these
tools will be useful, an integrative assessor such as
biocriteria is needed to accurately evaluate the re-
sults of nonpoint source management.
Conclusions
If nonpoint sources are to be managed successfully,
then it is important to properly identify and charac-
terize their environmental impacts. An integrated
approach using the traditional chemical and toxicity
tools along with direct assessment of the indigenous
aquatic biota will be needed to ensure accuracy and
completeness in both monitoring and assessment.
Ohio EPA has used biological assessment exten-
sively as a problem discovery and characterization
tool. Twelve years of statewide monitoring show
that environmental problems are much more likely
to be detected and accurately characterized if ambi-
ent biological monitoring is included.
Furthermore, the traditional focus of water pol-
lution programs on water quality alone must ma-
ture into a concern for water resources. The current
emphasis on toxics in point source programs must
be broadened to include non-toxic chemical and non-
chemical impacts because impairments often result
from non-toxic forms of degradation. For example,
the principal causes of aquatic life impairment iden-
tified by Ohio in its 1988 305b report were organic
enrichment (34 percent), habitat and sediment (23
percent), toxic substances (36 percent), and other (7
percent). More than half of the first category and all
of the second were caused by nonpoint sources. It
would seem appropriate to focus both monitoring/as-
sessment and regulatory efforts accordingly.
182
-------
Chesapeake Bay Program:
Nutrient Reduction
Lynn Schuyler, Chesapeake Bay Program /EPA Region III
II educing nonpoint source pollution has been
a significant element of cleaning up Chesa-
Wpeake Bay since EPA first identified non-
point sources as a major cause of the bay's decline.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 between
the governors of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Vir-
ginia, the mayor of the District of Columbia, and
the Administrator of EPA pledged to restore and
protect the bay and established the Chesapeake Ex-
ecutive Council to coordinate bay cleanup, EPA
helps fund this effort, and provides technical and
administrative assistance.
In December 1987, a new Chesapeake Bay
Agreement set goals for cleanup and specific sched-
ules for accomplishing plans to restore and protect
the bay's fragile living resources. One of the most
significant goals is the commitment to control nutri-
ent enrichment:
The Agreement's goal was to develop, adopt, and
begin implementation of a basinwide strategy to eq-
uitably achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40 per-
cent reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering
the mainstream of the Chesapeake Bay. The strat-
egy was to be based on agreed upon 1985 point
source loads and on nonpoint loads in an average
rainfall year.
This Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy is
now being implemented, and roughly half of the nu-
trient reductions are expected to be from nonpoint
sources.
Tracking Nonpoint
Source Nutrient Reduction
The Chesapeake Bay nonpoint source programs
have been tracking agricultural nonpoint source
progress since 1985 through a BMP tracking re-
quirement in the implementation grants. This pro-
cess was refined in the Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint
Source Programs report, published in January 1988.
Using 1985 as the base year, this document reported
nonpoint source control progress for 1985 and 1986
by tracking BMP installation and calculating the re-
duction in erosion and the amount of animal wastes
stored.
Base year data were developed using informa-
tion from the USDA National Resource Inventory for
1982 to ascertain the erosion from cropland needing
treatment. These data were corrected to 1985 by re-
moving the acres that had been treated under USDA
and state programs in 1983 and 1984. Tons of ma-
nure were calculated from animal numbers obtained
from Bureau of Census; Agricultural Census data
were adjusted to obtain the tons that were storable.
These two sources were considered potential non-
point source loads; they are reduced by each BMP in-
stalled. No attempt has been made to transport
these potential loads from the fields to the bay, since
the reduction numbers for each BMP are at the field
and can be subtracted directly from the potential
source.
For tracking purposes, a BMP is not counted
until it is certified as completed and the cost-share
payment made. This ensures that only properly con-
structed, functioning BMPs are counted. The states
supply, at a minimum, the following information for
each BMP:
¦ location of the BMP by county and
watershed,
¦ BMP type, using either the SCS practice
code or a state practice code,
¦ acres benefited, total land area protected by
the BMP,
¦ tons removed, the amount of soil that no
longer erodes from the acres benefited,
¦ tons of animal waste stored,
¦ total cost of the BMP,
¦ cost-share funds paid for the BMP, and
¦ other cost-share funds.
183
-------
Managing Nonpolnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
USDA Agricultural Conservation Program BMP
installation information is obtained annually and
processed to compile tracking information for the
bay portion of each state and county. These data are
combined with the state Chesapeake Bay Program
data and used to develop reduction percentages for
animal waste controlled and tons of erosion reduced
from highly erodible cropland.
Efforts are now underway to identify additional
reductions that have been achieved without cost-
share assistance. The states and SCS are setting up
a system to transfer SCS progress reporting data to
the states for inclusion in the tracking system.
When the states developed their nonpoint
source portion of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
each used different methods to estimate load reduc-
tions. They also used different nonpoint source com-
ponents, thereby making it very difficult to calculate
nonpoint source reductions without tracking infor-
mation for each component. Therefore, it is difficult
to relate the tracked agricultural progress with the
progress each state projected in the strategy. How-
ever, by using nutrient values for a ton of soil and a
ton of animal waste, the parameters can be added
together and related to the agricultural source loads
used by each state. Since the parameters are sedi-
ment oriented, the system is more efficient in track-
ing phosphorus reduction than nitrogen reduction.
As more nutrient management plans are imple-
mented, the potential for reduction of soluble nutri-
ents, such as nitrogen, will greatly increase.
The tracking of nonpoint source nutrient reduc-
tion will remain a very important activity for many
years. The states and the District are initiating
tracking systems for non-agricultural BMPs. Vir-
ginia is now tracking forestry operations and shore-
line erosion and sampling 11 counties for pilot urban
tracking. The District of Columbia is tracking urban
BMPs, and Maryland is developing reporting sys-
tems for urban, forestry, and shoreline erosion.
Eventually, data from all BMP installations and
point source treatment plant changes will be en-
tered into the Chesapeake Bay watershed model
and changes in water quality will be reflected in the
model output. This will enable a jurisdiction to eval-
uate its entire reduction strategy on a real-time
basis.
184
-------
VIII. Selected Nonpoint
Source Problems
and Solutions
his section includes approaches to nonpoint source control that
may or may not be addressed by formal programs. Livestock and
grazing management and the concept of low input sustainable
agriculture are approaches to alleviating the agricultural nonpoint
source problem.
The problems associated with irrigated agriculture also are
discussed in this section.
Composting and using compost are considered nonpoint source
controls by EPA. Composting represents an additional method to
manage livestock manures and dead poultry. Compost use incorporates
the concepts of recycling and pollution prevention by returning organic
matter and nutrients to the soil, reducing erosion, and reducing the
need for chemical inputs.
Economic approaches to controlling nonpoint source pollution are
being used at all governmental levels. Several examples of such
market-based incentives are described here.
185
-------
-------
Nonpoint Source Water Quality
Problems from Livestock:
Animal Waste and Grazing Impacts
Improperly managed livestock operations can
cause nonpoint source water pollution in at
least two ways. Improper manure storage and
utilization eventually can contaminate water, while
livestock grazing can cause soil erosion that later
results in water pollution. Either way, waterbodies
and ground-water resources near livestock opera-
tions are endangered.
Animal Waste-related
Impairments
Manure from livestock can impair both ground and
surface water if it is not properly managed. By
leaching into ground water or running off into sur-
face water, animal manure can contaminate drink-
ing water with nitrates and cause eutrophication of
ponds, lakes, and estuaries. Excessive eutrophica-
tion and releases of ammonia from urine may have
adverse effects on fish. In addition, bacteria from
animal manure has resulted in the closure of shell-
fish beds.
Many manure-related impairments of surface
and ground water originate from nonpoint sources.
For example, in unconfined livestock operations,
manure and sediment runoff can be significant, par-
ticularly where livestock are free to trample and def-
ecate in and along streams and ponds. Runoff from
animal loafing areas, such as those associated with
dairy operations, can be damaging because daily
trampling eliminates the vegetative cover that could
take up manurial nutrients or hinder the movement
of runoff to surface waters.
In addition, farmers may not properly store ma-
nure or may land-apply it at rates that exceed crop
uptake resulting in excessive manure supplies.
Moreover, farmers may apply manure to cropland at
agronomic rates and still encourage water resource
degradation because the rate of nutrient release in
manure is not synchronized with the rate of nutri-
ent uptake in the crop.
These forms of nonpoint source pollution can be
limited in several ways, lb prevent stream and pond
disturbance resulting from direct access of livestock
to such waters, farmers could install electric high
tensile wire fences along streams and provide envi-
ronmentally sound stream crossings. Solar-powered
tensile fencing is another promising option; the
Pennsylvania Game Commission and ASCS are pro-
moting the use of such fencing because wire mesh
fences accumulate a great deal of debris.
Where livestock are not allowed to drink from
surface water, alternative water sources such as wa-
tering troughs fed by ground water could be in-
stalled. EPA's Clean Lakes Program has
successfully demonstrated that these water sources
reduce animal trampling along streams and ponds,
which in turn reduces manure and sediment runoff.
Another promising option is to rotate cattle
among several smaller-sized loafing areas so that
vegetative cover can regenerate. If proven effective,
cattle rotation could significantly reduce sediment
and manure movement to streams. Finally, farmers
should provide adequate storage for manure sup-
plies and apply only those manure nutrients needed
by a crop. Additional research is necessary to assure
that nutrient release from manure can be matched
with crop uptake rates.
Management of runoff of manure and wastewa-
ter accumulated in many livestock operations is cov-
ered under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. The NPDES
requires regulated farmers to build structures that
store waste and wastewater from their livestock op-
erations. The categories of livestock production re-
quiring NPDES permits under current EPA
regulations (40 FR 122.25) include:
187
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
1. Operations with more than 1,000 animal
units (equivalent to 1,000 beef cattle) that
discharge indirectly to U.S. waters,
2. Operations with more than 300 animal units
that discharge directly through a conveyance
to U.S. waters, or
3. Operations with fewer than 1,000 animal
units that cause significant water quality
impairment.
An operation not meeting these criteria is ex-
empt from existing federal regulatory requirements
and thus is regarded as a nonpoint source. Further-
more, all poultry operations with dry manure han-
dling systems are not included. Therefore, most
layer and broiler operations are exempt from these
requirements.
According to the USDA Agricultural Statistics
Board and the Census of Agriculture, between 5,000
and 10,000 livestock operations exceed the 1,000 an-
imal unit criterion. However, initial EPA surveys in-
dicate that NPDES authorities are experiencing
implementation problems with interpreting EPA's
existing feedlot regulations as well as issuing and
enforcing permits for feedlots. EPA will continue to
evaluate regulatory approaches to livestock waste
control for the Stormwater Report to Congress
under section 402(p)5.
In the meantime, however, NPDES authorities
need to develop a strategic approach to reach the
huge number of facilities that are subject to the ex-
isting NPDES program. One option would be for the
NPDES authority to issue individual permits to only
the largest confined operations, such as those in the
concentrated beef or swine industry. General per-
mits could cover the rest of the eligible concentrated
operations.
In addition, the NPDES authority should be en-
couraged to work with the state nonpoint source au-
thority to identify the watersheds and ground water
with the mast significant water quality problems
caused by feedlots regardless of feedlot size. These
authorities as well as organizations such as Save
Our Streams can play a crucial role in identifying
livestock operations that cause significant impair-
ment, even though many of these operations are
smaller than 1,000 animal units. Given this infor-
mation, the NPDES authority can better establish
permit program priorities. The nonpoint source au-
thority can identify the operators who are not meet-
ing the terms of their permit.
The nonpoint source authority also can help
livestock operators find financial assistance (either
through USDA, the Clean Lakes Program, the Ches-
apeake Bay Program, or various state programs).
These programs are also used by farmers who wish
to voluntarily undertake control measures and
whose operations do not fall under the NPDES pro-
gram.
Although several programs share with farmers
the costs of building waste storage facilities, some
states lack the money to pay their share. In such
states, farmers must shoulder the entire cost of
building (which alone can exceed $100,000), operat-
ing, and maintaining such structures. The high cost
could force many less financially stable farmers out
of business, which in turn could concentrate more
livestock onto fewer farms. This factor, in addition
to technical and biological advances in animal pro-
duction and economic factors regarding the relative
cost and availability of feed, are responsible for an
overall trend toward larger, more highly concen-
trated livestock operations. Initial EPA surveys indi-
cate that the combination of regulation and
economic incentives (such as cheaper feedstuff's) are
causing geographic shifts in livestock production
from one state to another.
Such increases in concentration could result in
site-specific imbalances in manure production that
would mean major headaches for water quality
managers. In fact, if all farmers were to plant all
their harvested cropland acreage (minus that
planted to legumes) to the most nitrogen-demanding
crop, corn, and if they applied all recoverable
sources of manure to maximize corn yield (equiva-
lent to 240 lb. N/acre), 28 counties would still have
excess manure supplies. Given that the average ni-
trogen application rate for corn is 140 lb. N/acre, the
number of counties with excess nitrogen climbs to
62. These figures do not take into account farmer
use of commercial fertilizer, which, if included,
would greatly increase the number of counties with
manure imbalances. In addition, these estimates av-
erage out local variation in field use and livestock
production that would limit all farmers' ability to
spread manure throughout the county; this implies
that more counties have manure hot spots.
An initial survey of NPDES permits for feedlots
indicates that, typically, permits do not address land
application rates and practices. Ignoring land appli-
cation rates, especially on farms with very limited
land area, could ultimately result in serious ground-
water contamination. The rapid growth in swine
and poultry production along the Eastern Coastal
Plain illustrate such an area of concern. Because the
high moisture content of manure, particularly dairy
waste, makes it very bulky and heavy, transporting
large quantities to other farms or even to central
processing facilities is difficult. A large-scale market
for manure intended for energy uses or composting
could make manure management easier; in addi-
tion, other approaches such as on-site drying or
composting should be studied.
188
-------
VIII. SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
While the NPDES program can move manure
into a controlled storage structure, no farmer is spe-
cifically required to undertake further BMPs when
the manure is taken out of storage. Therefore, the
farmer can encourage runoff of these wastes by ap-
plying them to cropland at rates that exceed crop
uptake or during the most environmentally unsound
times of the year (e.g., winter). Where the per-acre
animal density is very high, farmers should consider
composting or exporting their excess manure stock
to avoid off-site contamination.
If the per-acre animal density is not too high,
farmers have several options for controlling runoff:
¦ Test the manure and the soil (where
possible) for nitrogen levels to determine
how much manure and commercial fertilizer
to apply.
¦ When applying the manure, incorporate it
into the soil to prevent runoff.
¦ Never apply manure to land where no crops
will be grown.
These practices can be incorporated into a nutri-
ent management plan that will balance crop nutri-
ent needs with water quality and runoff control
concern. Further investigation of the NPDES pro-
gram will be necessary to cover all types of signifi-
cant operation (e.g., poultry) and possible avenues
for multi-media pollution, such as ground-water con-
tamination from over-application of manure.
Grazing-related
Impairments
Improper and uncontrolled livestock grazing practi-
ces have impaired water quality in the United
States throughout this country's history. These
practices have also have damaged the nation's soil,
plant, and wildlife resources.
Riparian areas, those areas along rivers, ponds,
and other watercourses, that are impaired by im-
proper grazing often lose their native vegetation, ex-
perience soil erosion and bank instability, have lower
water tables, and are at an increased risk of flooding.
According to the September 1990 Smithsonian, deg-
radation of riparian areas in the West is particularly
important to control because, while they represent 2
percent of the land area, they support as much as 80
percent of the wildlife.
As of January 1989, the states had listed over
2,000 water body segments impaired by rangeland
activities and over 3,000 segments impaired by pas-
ture use. Most range-related problems occurred in
Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, and Arizona; most pas-
ture-related impairments occurred in Minnesota,
Ohio, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon, and Illinois.
Federal lands also suffer from livestock grazing.
In 1986, the Bureau of Land Management esti-
mated that 80 percent of the riparian areas under
its control were damaged by human activities, par-
ticularly livestock use. Riparian areas on Forest
Service land in the West are also degraded to a large
extent from livestock grazing. In 1988, the U.S. Gov-
ernment Accounting Office found that while some
BLM areas in 10 western states had been restored,
a lack of federal attention to the problem virtually
ensured that improvement would be slow. A recent
OPPE study of nonpoint source monitoring in 20
randomly selected Bureau of Land Management
and Forest Service sites indicated grazing impair-
ment occurred in all 20 areas.
Eliminating livestock impairments of water
quality is not limited by a lack of technical manage-
ment science. In fact, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service
have demonstrated successful grazing systems that
not only improve water resource condition but also
increase overall livestock production. However, im-
plementing these management practices is limited
in a very real way by the following factors:
1. Damaged land and water resources are
numerous and widespread.
2. Until recently, water quality has been a
relatively low priority for those who plan and
manage livestock grazing.
3. Grazing land ownership is multitudinous,
including private individuals, corporations,
state governments, and the federal
government.
4. Federal land management agencies are
decentralized, making implementation
activities more complex.
5. Administration of federal grazing programs
requires extensive human and financial
resources.
6. Federal and state land/water resource
conservationists must be regularly trained in
proper livestock/watershed management.
7. Livestock producers must be made aware of
the adverse effects their current improper
practices have on the resource and on
production and must have access to technical
assistance, education, and financial resources
to install structural BMPs. Because proper
management often takes more time, they
may have to hire adequately trained field
help for cases in which they personally
cannot afford the time to manage the
livestock.
189
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution; Final Report to Congress on Section 319
Potential Solutions
State nonpoint source control authorities can play a
key role in addressing overgrazing by continuing to
identify watersheds where overgrazing has led to
significant impacts on water resources. Once key
areas are identified, nonpoint source agencies can
focus attention on outreach to and education pro-
grams for relevant federal and state agencies, pri-
vate landowners, and lessees on public lands.
Federal land managers must play a key role of
assuring that their grazing permit programs do not
encourage environmental degradation. This objec-
tive can be accomplished, in part, by setting regional
management priorities to reflect the relative impor-
tance of both livestock grazing demand and the
threat of grazing impairments. However, in many
instances, simply reordering priorities based on eco-
logical concerns may not be sufficient to control po-
tential grazing problems. In these cases, more
financial resources will be needed. Adequate re-
sources are needed to hire and train personnel who
will be able to continually assess the condition of
land and water resources, provide program direc-
tion, and assist livestock producers in implementing
successful management techniques.
Federal agencies such as the Soil Conservation
Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service at USD A could focus their existing
outreach programs, both technical assistance and
cost-share, on degraded riparian systems. Under the
Water Quality Initiative, these two agencies could
nominate watersheds needing improved grazing
management (as identified by the state nonpoint
source agency or by the SCS) to secure a more fo-
cused effort at providing technical and financial as-
sistance. The Extension Service also can play a role
through educating the relevant livestock producers.
Other federal agencies can work together to im-
prove water quality in a watershed by expanding
grazing planning and management beyond riparian
areas. For example, USDA's Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) lands might be used for livestock
grazing once the CRP contract has ended. If prop-
erly managed to avoid overgrazing, this practice
may keep fragile land out of cultivation for a longer
period of time as well as relieve grazing pressure on
riparian areas—and both can benefit water quality.
All interested parties—nonpoint source agen-
cies, federal managers, ranchers, recreationists, and
environmentalists—could become more involved in
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) to meet
specific environmental objectives. CRM is a tool that
has been applied in several areas in the West where
multiple land ownership previously precluded envi-
ronmentally sound watershed management. In this
approach, all the interested parties work together to
attempt to achieve a variety of objectives, including
improved water and land quality.
The quality of the waters associated with graz-
ing lands will improve minimally until additional
resources and training are provided. If grazing man-
agement is to be given a higher priority, the staff to
provide program management, technical assistance,
and education must be increased at least threefold.
Moreover, current staff should be trained to better
address water quality, riparian management, and
planned grazing systems, including proper stocking
levels for particular levels.
190
-------
Low-input Sustainable Agriculture
Low-input sustainable agriculture, or LISA,
is the popular term for farming in ways that
will continually protect the environment,
conserve resources, and assure food safety.
The Food Security Act of 1985 authorized LISA
(Subtitle C of Title 14, section 1463, on Agricultural
Productivity Research). At present, funds appropri-
ated by Congress for LISA are used for research and
education programs; it was originally funded in FY
1988 with $3.9 million. Annual funding for FY 1989
and 1990 is $4.5 million.
"Low-input" is a term that means lessening the
farm's dependence on purchased additives, espe-
cially manufactured chemical pesticides and fertiliz-
ers that can harm the environment, impair food, or
decrease profitability. LISA farmers rely more on
skilled management, scientific know-how, and on-
farm resources. Low-input practices vary but com-
monly include:
¦ greater use of crop rotation,
¦ crop and livestock diversification,
¦ soil and water conservation practices,
¦ mechanical cultivation,
¦ greater use of animal manures and
nutrient-producing cover crops, and
¦ biological pest controls.
LISA looks at the farm as a complete system.
Integrated pest management (IPM) and best man-
agement practices (BMPs) are important compo-
nents of LISA, but not substitutes. Although LISA
may include organic farming practices (i.e., no use of
manufactured chemicals) if it is the best option,
wise use of chemicals is compatible with LISA goals.
Driven by necessity to pare costs, LISA farmers
have cut back on chemical pest control and the use
of commercial fertilizers. Through trial and error,
this small group of farmers has found successful
LISA methods and reduced initial outlays for spe-
cific crops. For example, a 1987 evaluation of
USDA's Extension Service IPM programs for nine
crops in 10 states found that IPM users had higher
average per acre yields than non-IPM users growing
the same crop in the same state. This survey of
3,500 farmers also found that in every case, IPM1
users had higher net returns per acre than non-IPM
users.
Alternative crop rotation patterns that require
fewer chemical inputs can also significantly reduce
costs without compromising yields. For example, a
1987 study of rotations in wheat production pub-
lished in the American Journal of Alternative Agri-
culture found that inputs for a conventional rotation
system (four year wheat-barley-wheat-peas) cost
$129.40/aere compared to $56.82/acre for an alter-
native legume-based system (three year peas-black
medic-wheat). The yield under the alternative sys-
tem was 62.6 bushels per acre compared to 60.3 per
acre under the traditional rotation pattern.
Substantial research is essential to support this
movement, research to determine best methods and
BMPs for specific crops, soil types, and climates. Po-
tential benefits include savings on fuel costs and
chemical additives, soil conservation, and water
quality protection and conservation. LISA methods
cannot overcome the effects of drought or flood; how-
ever, fewer initial outlays mean smaller losses in
bad times and greater economic stability for the
farmer.
191
-------
Composting
Composting is a means by which individuals
and the public and private sector can con-
tribute to pollution control through maxi-
mizing the efficiency of resource utilization. For
example, composting is increasingly being used in
this country to keep organic materials out of land-
fills and produce soil enriching compost products.
With dwindling disposal capacity and rapidly rising
disposal fees at landfills across the country, com-
posting has become a vital component of many
communities' solid waste reduction programs. As
1990 ended, there were approximately 1,500 cen-
tralized facilities in the country that composted
yard trimmings (including leaves, grass clippings,
and/or brush) not to mention the many thousands
of backyard composters.
Approximately one-fifth (by weight) of this
nation's municipal solid waste is yard trimmings,
second only to paper. Other organic materials being
composted by various public and private groups in-
clude manures, dead poultry, food scraps, food and
seafood processing by-products, and municipal sew-
age sludge.
Composting
Process / Product
The composting process is the controlled decomposi-
tion of organic materials into a relatively stable
humus product, and it uses resources more effi-
ciently by recycling organic matter and nutrients to
the soil. Composting reduces nonpoint source pollu-
tion through use of its process and/or product. For
example, livestock manures can be managed by the
composting process to reduce nonpoint source im-
pacts. This is particularly important if otherwise the
manure would enter the water directly, if not enough
land is available for the manure to be applied di-
rectly to the soil, or if land application of the manure
would supply excess nutrients to the soil.
An additional benefit of composting is realized
through use of its end product, compost. Used as a
soil enricher to recycle organic matter and nutrients,
its incorporation into the topsoil as humus
¦ Helps the soil better retain moisture and
nutrients,
¦ Reduces soil loss,
¦ Improves soil drainage,
¦ Reduces pollutant loads to surface and
ground waters,
¦ Reduces watering needs, and
¦ Lowers chemical fertilizer application levels.
Ongoing university and private research indi-
cates that stable composts can also suppress plant
diseases.
Mulch—whether it comes from shredding woody
materials or from composting—is also beneficial.
Mulch helps retain moisture, reduce soil erosion,
suppress weeds, and moderate soil temperatures.
Where mulch is used to control weeds, herbicides
may not be needed. Mulching grass clippings recy-
cles nutrients and organic matter to the soil,
thereby saving on chemical fertilizer.
Composting is performed in residential back-
yards and on private land and farms to serve single
or multiple plants or facilities and at centralized fa-
cilities to serve single or multiple communities. Res-
idential backyard composting and mulching
represent examples of pollution prevention that can
be practiced by the public. By putting compost and
mulch to work in their yards, households can use
fewer chemical fertilizers, pesticides and water,
thereby decreasing the potential for adverse effects
on water quality and quantity.
EPA FY 1989-91 Activities
EPA undertook efforts to increase the level of com-
posting activity and encourage the use of compost as
part of moving toward its national goal of 25 percent
solid waste reduction by 1992. These efforts in-
cluded the publication of Yard Waste Composting: A
Study of Eight Programs (EPA/530-SW-89-038,
April 1989), which details eight municipal pro-
grams. EPA also began a market development study
for compost that was completed in the fall of 1991.
As described under "Regional Activities and
State Programs," EPA has supported the use of com-
posting as a means for controlling nonpoint source
pollution by funding, under section 319, a dead poul-
try composting project in Delaware.
192
-------
Water Quality Problems Associated
with Irrigated Agriculture
Ecological, human health, and welfare risks
associated with irrigation return flows are
increasingly posing water quality concerns.
Return flows containing salt, nitrates, pesticides,
and trace metals such as selenium and boron im-
pact surface and ground-water quality and have
significant impacts on wetlands and wildlife.
Surface water quality impacts resulting from ir-
rigation practices have been reported by a number
of western states. As discussed in Chapter II, agri-
culture accounts for 50 to 75 percent of reported
nonpoint source impacts to the nation's waters. In
the 10 western states reporting impacts associated
with irrigated agriculture, 22 percent of reported ag-
ricultural impacts to rivers and over 50 percent of
reported agricultural impacts to lakes are attributed
to irrigated agriculture. In many cases, waters do
not support their designated uses because of im-
pacts associated with irrigated agriculture.
The best-known case of severe ecological im-
pacts caused by irrigation return flows is the
Kesterson Wildlife Refuge. Since the discovery of de-
formed bird embryos there in 1982, over 25 similar
situations have been identified by the Department
of Interior to date. Over six years of research and
field monitoring since the discovery of impacts in
California's San Joaquin Valley have resulted in de-
velopment of an extensive data set on the ecological
risks associated with irrigation return flows. In ad-
dition to documenting significant impairments asso-
ciated with selenium, this research, conducted by
the Department of Interior's Fish and Midlife Ser-
vice, Geological Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation
has established toxicity criteria that can be used to
help guide clean-up and management. The following
summarizes some of the major findings.
¦ Of the numerous trace elements mobilized by
agricultural drainage, selenium is the element
of greatest concern. Arsenic, boron, and mer-
cury may also adversely affect avian health or
reproduction.
¦ Data collected at 27 locations on the San Joa-
quin and Sacramento rivers indicate boron,
molybdenum, and selenium in water were
readily bioconcentrated by filamentous algae,
providing the first link in the bioaccumulation
of trace metals in aquatic systems.
¦ Selenium tissue levels were sufficiently
elevated to indicate that reproductive
impairment may be imminent or already
occurring in the fish population.
¦ Field toxicity studies indicated that
undiluted tile drain water can kill fingerling
chinook salmon within 28 days. Adult
bluegills fed selenium were not killed but
fry from treated adults failed to survive.
This finding supports field studies that have
documented high selenium residues in fish
and a gradual loss or absence of
young-of-the-year fish.
The distribution and use of irrigation water re-
sult in diversion of water for agriculture and a resul-
tant reduction in naturally occurring wetlands.
Excess irrigation drainwater often creates new
wetlands that are typically of lower environmental
quality because of accumulation and concentration
of salts, toxics, and nutrients. The diversion and ul-
timate return of irrigation drainwater to flowing
water systems also poses in-stream ecological prob-
lems. Typically, water volume downstream of the di-
version is reduced, thus habitat availability for fish
and macroinvertebrates may decline. Downstream
water quality may be impaired by higher concentra-
tions of agricultural or natural contaminants. In
cases such as the South Platte River, downstream
water users experience significant water quality
degradation.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that over
150 million acre-feet of water is used for irrigation
annually, of which 29 percent is directly returned to
surface waters. Return flows in western states are
193
-------
Managing Nonpotnt Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
frequently concentrated at the end of a field and
funneled either to another canal, a settling pond, or
a drainwater well, resulting in an identifiable point
of discharge to either surface or ground water.
EPA's role in managing these discharges has
been limited in part because irrigation return flows
to surface water are specifically exempt from the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Thus, the agency treats them as nonpoint sources
and manages them under the provisions of section
319 of the CWA. Because only limited implementa-
tion activities have occurred prior to the receipt of
FY 1990 section 319 funding, states are just begin-
ning to respond to water quality impacts associated
with irrigated agriculture.
Other state and federal laws and activities in-
fluence irrigation practices and the resultant water
quality and wildlife impacts. For instance, much ir-
rigation water is provided by federal water projects.
This water is often provided at subsidized prices
that may encourage excessive water use by farmers
who may overwater when faced with the compara-
tive costs of water and other farm inputs. Relatively
cheap water supplies also allow farmers to grow
crops that would normally not be grown in arid cli-
mates. Because many of these crops (e.g., fruits and
vegetables) may require both intensive water and
pesticide use, there is a increased likelihood of
greater volume and toxicity of irrigation return
flows.
In many western states, incentives to conserve
water run contrary to state water allocation rights
which allocate a fixed volume of water to users, con-
ditioned upon continued use of that volume. Farm-
ers have little incentive to conserve their water for
fear of losing the right to that water in the future.
However, in at least two states, recent laws modify
this to allow the water right holder some control
over conserved water.
Effective techniques to prevent and limit con-
tamination of irrigation drainwater exist; however,
these may be highly site-specific. Some techniques
used to date include practices to increase agricul-
tural water efficiency, farm practices to reduce
chemical inputs, wastewater treatment, and mitiga-
tion of ecological damage. For instance, farmers can
employ more efficient watering regimes, reduce ap-
plication rates of pesticides and fertilizers through
integrated crop management, and adopt alternative
cropping patterns. Reducing water quantity appears
to be the most generally effective means of reducing
return flows and improving water quality.
Further Department of Interior research on im-
pacts associated with irrigation return flows and
techniques for preventing or mitigating those im-
pacts should assist EPA and the states in identifying
areas to be targeted for action (e.g., areas with spe-
cific soil types, specific cropping patterns, and so
forth) to prevent and control damages associated
with irrigation return flows.
194
-------
Using Market Incentives to Promote
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Prevention and Control
Federal, state and local agencies currently
have a mix of regulatory and nonregulatory
tools they can use to prevent and control
nonpoint source pollution. Included among these
tools is the use of market forces to achieve desired
pollution reduction. There are a range of economic
approaches to address nonpoint source pollution.
The following describes several types of ap-
proaches.
Point /Nonpoint Source
Trading to Achieve Water
Quality Goals
One option to reduce loadings of a particular pollu-
tant in a watershed is to allow point and nonpoint
dischargers within that watershed to determine the
cost-effective combinations of point source treat-
ment upgrades and nonpoint source controls to re-
duce pollutant loads and to meet water quality
goals. Under the concept of point/nonpoint source
trading, point source discharges may obtain pollu-
tion reduction credits and thus satisfy their permit's
water quality-based limitations by controlling (or
funding the control of) nonpoint source runoff in the
watershed rather than by upgrading their point
source controls beyond technology-based levels. In
many cases, the incremental cost of removing a unit
of pollutant through increased point source controls
is far more expensive than the incremental cost as-
sociated with removing the same pollutant from a
nonpoint source.
Through a trading mechanism, dischargers of a
particular pollutant could work with other discharg-
ers of that pollutant in a given watershed to deter-
mine how to meet water quality goals through
implementation of the most cost-effective controls.
To ensure that water quality standards are attained
or maintained, trades of pollution discharge credits
need not be equivalent. For example, a point source
pollutant discharger could be given one unit of
credit toward meeting its water quality-based limi-
tations for every two units of pollutant reductions
obtained from a nonpoint source to help ensure an
overall decrease in pollutant loadings to the water-
body.
Although pollution reduction trading is attrac-
tive from an economic efficiency perspective, imple-
mentation of such a program has several limitations.
First, it generally can be used only where the point
and nonpoint sources in a watershed discharge iden-
tical pollutants (for example, reductions in sedi-
ments cannot be exchanged for increased BOD as
they affect the receiving water in different ways).
Second, the magnitude of pollutant generation must
be known for all relevant dischargers. Third, trading
requires an understanding of any institutional limi-
tations to implementation. Fourth, trading must be
supported by a mechanism to ensure compliance by
all trading entities, such as the permit system cre-
ated by Congress to ensure compliance in the acid
rain emissions trading program in the Clean Air Act.
An example of how one type of pollutant trading
system may be implemented is in North Carolina's
Tar-Pamlico river system and the Albemarle-
Pamlico Sound. Nutrients have been identified as
the primary cause of water quality degradation in
the watershed. A nutrient budget" prepared by
North Carolina for the watershed shows that the
bulk of phosphorus comes from point sources (75
percent of total phosphorus) such as POTWs and
those related to phosphate mining operations at a
particular plant. However, after plant renovations,
nonpoint sources will become the major phosphorus
source. Eighty percent of the nitrogen in the water-
shed originates from nonpoint sources.
The nutrient management strategy for the wa-
tershed includes the concept of nutrient trading be-
tween point and nonpoint sources. Under the
195
-------
Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 3J 9
strategy, a designated group of dischargers will eval-
uate their plants to determine operational or minor
structural improvements that could be used to meet
nutrient limits. If the operators cannot achieve nu-
trient limits based on these improvements, the bal-
ance of the required nutrient reduction is sought
through nutrient trading. The point source operators
could provide cost-share financing for agricultural
BMP implementation as part of the trading pro-
gram, thereby accelerating implementation of agri-
cultural BMPs and addressing the majority of
nutrients in the watershed. It is anticipated that
using agricultural BMPs will be a more cost-effective
means to meet nutrient limits than upgrading
wastewater treatment plant controls. Similar sup-
port by municipal treatment operations to control
nonpoint source pollution is occurring in Colorado's
Dillon Reservoir.
Pollutant trading may also occur among non-
point sources. However, for this system to work, en-
forceable baselines for nonpoint source control such
as water quality standards, TMDLs (total maximum
daily loads), or baseline technologies would be re-
quired.
Maine enacted legislation in 1988 to protect
lakes from eutrophication and degradation caused
by phosphate pollution, particularly that resulting
from new development. In implementing this legisla-
tion, the State Department of Environmental Protec-
tion has developed a method to estimate the amount
of additional phosphorus loading an individual lake
can reasonably accept. This amount is then allocated
on a watershed basis to areas likely to be subjected
to development pressure and subsequently to indi-
vidual development proposals within the watershed.
Developers are responsible for applying the alloca-
tion to their proposal, calculating permitted phos-
phorus export from their development, and
designing on-site runoff and other controls to meet
the watershed phosphorus allocation. The alloca-
tions are enforced locally.
Fees and Taxes
Another market-based approach to controlling non-
point source pollution is the imposition of fees or
taxes on products or activities that may result in
nonpoint source pollution. Ideally, fees or taxes
would be imposed at a rate high enough to provide
an incentive for those responsible for generating
nonpoint source pollution to change their behavior in
order to avoid the fee or tax.
For example, a sales tax on fertilizer or pesti-
cides could be imposed at a level high enough to
deter excess application. However, the price of fertil-
izer is relatively low and studies of fertilizer fees in
Europe have indicated that even a 50 percent tax
rate does not significantly reduce fertilizer use.
In addition to providing an incentive to modify
activities that result in nonpoint source pollution,
taxes and fees also can generate revenues that can
be earmarked to support nonpoint source prevention
and control activities. For example, building permit
application fees can be set at a level high enough to
provide revenues to operate and maintain storm
water controls associated with the development.
Similarly, fertilizer fees may be used to support a
state nutrient management program, including soil
testing and consulting services.
EPA regularly reports on the innovative use of
fees and taxes in its Nonpoint Source News-Notes.
Examples of successful state fee and tax provisions
were discussed in a December 1989 workshop spon-
sored by the National Council of State Legislatures.
The techniques included the following programs:
¦ Colorado — Cherry Creek Basin Water
Quality Authority: The authority was estab-
lished by the Colorado legislature in 1988 to
address eutrophication problems in the Cherry
Creek Reservoir caused by both point and non-
point source pollution. Of particular concern
was runoff from surrounding farms, develop-
ment, and road construction, The authority
has the following revenue-raising options:
property tax assessments for property within
the Authority's boundaries, developer impact
fees ($280/aere of graded land in the basin),
and a $3 annual reservoir use fee.
The authority generated $577,000 in its
first year. These funds were used to construct
holding ponds and develop artificial wetlands
to filter nonpoint source runoff before it
reached the reservoir.
¦ Iowa — Ground-water Protection Fund:
This fund was created in 1987 to address a
number of environmental problems including
solid waste and household hazardous waste
disposal as well as agricultural chemical man-
agement. Income for the fund is derived from a
per ton fee on solid waste disposal, an annual
fee of $25 for each retailer of household hazard-
ous waste products, a fee of $0.75 per ton of ni-
trogen purchased, a pesticide fee ranging from
$250 to $3,000 on pesticide sellers based on an-
nual sales in Iowa, a pesticide dealers license
fee, and an underground storage tank fee of
$65.
Fees on agricultural chemicals represent an
attempt to shift farmers away from excessive
pesticide and fertilizer use. For FY 1988-90,
$1.9 million was targeted for research on envi-
ronmentally benign fanning practices at the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
196
-------
MIL SELECTED NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
¦ Washington - Puget Sound Storm Water
Utilities and Centennial Clean Water
Fund: The Puget Sound Water Quality Au-
thority was established in 1985 to develop a
plan to restore and protect Puget Sound's
water quality. The plan's nonpoint source com-
ponent is designed to mitigate pollution from
agriculture, septic tanks, urban runoff, and
silviculture.
A principal source of revenue is from local
water utility fees. The program is also funded
by state grants from the Centennial Clean
Water Fund, which is generated primarily
from an $0.08 per pack sales tax on tobacco
products. Ten percent of the fund, or approxi-
mately $4.5 million per year, is earmarked for
the nonpoint source program.
An additional funding proposal has been de-
veloped for the 1991 legislative session. The
proposal includes two "disincentive" fees; that
is, fees that can be avoided if nonpoint source
controls are installed. These include an annual
$75 surcharge assessed on landowners with
on-site septic tanks or livestock. The surcharge
is waived if the septic system is inspected and
found to be in good working order or when best
management practices to control animal
wastes and runoff from farms are installed. A
$6 annual fee would also be assessed to land-
owners in urban areas. The surcharge would
be waived when local comprehensive storm
water controls are in place.
Performance Bonds
Performance bonds serve as financial guarantees
that certain activities will be performed as a condi-
tion of a permit. For example, performance bonds
are required of surface coal mining operations to
guarantee reclamation and are required of hazard-
ous waste landfill operations to guarantee adequate
operation, maintenance, and closure of the site. The
bond is refunded once the conditions of the permit
are met. In recent years, several states have also
adopted performance bond requirements for devel-
opers to ensure that adequate erosion control and
storm water control measures are implemented, lb
be effective, performance bonds must be set at a
level sufficient to ensure that funds will be available
if treatment or environmental restoration is neces-
sary and to ensure that the operator has a financial
incentive to comply with the terms of the permit.
lb minimize nonpoint source pollution, perfor-
mance bonds could be required for activities that
disturb significant acreage or sensitive environmen-
tal areas. Bonded activities amid include construc-
tion, forestry, and non-permitted mining on both
private and public land. Bonds would be posted be-
fore the activity begins and released when the state
was satisfied that required measures have been
completed.
Market-based Pricing
Nonpoint source pollution is associated with the use
of water resources and other natural resources such
as timber, grazing land, and mine land, many of
which are controlled by federal agencies. The pric-
ing of these resources greatly affects their demand.
Low prices may stimulate demand and, in some
cases, promote wasteful use or overuse of resources
in ways that cause nonpoint source pollution. For
example, the Bureau of Reclamation's water prices
are far below the market rates for water in the
western United States. Grazing fees for BLM lands
appear to be far below those on private lands, at
least in some areas. This pricing system promotes
inefficient resource use, including tl) over-irriga-
tion, resulting in salinity and toxic contamination of
irrigation return flows and (2) overgrazing, which
may impair aquatic resources by contributing sedi-
ment to waterbodies through soil erosion. While it is
not clear that fair market pricing will result in dra-
matic changes in resource management on a per
acre basis, such pricing lowers overall demand, re-
ducing pressure on the resource.
Cost Sharing and
Subsidies
Federal and state agencies provide a number of cost-
sharing and subsidy programs for the private sector.
Such programs should be encouraged to support en-
vironmentally desirable practices. For example, cost
sharing for large capital projects such as animal
waste storage and manure composting facilities
should be directed toward areas where manure ap-
plications currently result in nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Subsidies can be direct or indirect (e.g.,
through state income or property tax credits). Con-
versely, states should limit cost-sharing or subsidies
to practices that may impact or threaten surface or
ground water quality.
Volunteer Citizen
Monitoring
Citizen monitoring programs such as the Izaak Wal-
ton League's Save Our Streams program discussed
earlier in the report, create public interest in local
watersheds. Interested citizens can encourage adop-
tion of prevention measures and controls for sources
of nonpoint pollution in their watershed.
"U.S. aovernmsm Printing Office: 1992— 625-679
197
------- |