Unitea States
Environmental Protection
&EFK
O/fice of Wjter
Sequidtions and Stanaarrts
Wasninqton. DC 20460
my 1987
Setting Priorities:
The Key to
Nonpoint Source Control
-------
-------
SETTING PRIORITIES: The Key
to Nonpoint Source Control
Authors:
R.P. Maas—N.C. State University
. M.D. Smolen—N.C. State University
C.A. Jamieson-—N.C. State University
A.C. Msinberg—EPA Nonpoint Sources Branch
Final Report -for the Project:
"Guidance Document on Targeting of NPS Implementation Programs
to Achieve Water Quality Goals"
Cooperative Agreement CR813100-01-0
NCSU PROJECT DIRECTOR
.Dr. Frank J. Humenik
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department
Raleigh, NC
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
Kenneth Adler
Economic and Regulatory Analysis Division
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
teshington, DC
July 1987
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the North Carolina
State Agricultural Extension Service or the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document is based, in part, on an earlier document entitled, "Designing A
Watershed-Based Nonpoint Source Implementation Program," developed under the
direction of Karen Shafer.
The authors would like to thank EPA personnel Richard Kashmanian, Tom
Davenport, Bob Thronson, and John Mancini for their review and comments.
The authors would like to express appreciation to Len Stanley and Sarah
Brichford for extensive editing and Terri Hocutt for word processing. The
cover design is by Diane Probst.
-------
-------
PREFACE
In 1983, 6 of the 10 EPA regions identified nonpoint source (NFS) pollution
as their primary obstacle to realizing the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
They attributed this, in part, to progress in point source control during the
previous 10 years, but also to a lack of progress in NFS pollution control.
While point source control has matured, NFS control has been neglected, with
very limited funding, relatively little research attention, and no federal
regulatory authority. Although the 1972 Clean Water Act provided states with
money to develop plans for both point and NFS pollution control (under
section 208), until passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 there was no
provision to implement the NFS components of these plans.
The targeted approach, recommended here, focuses NFS implementation efforts
to limited areas with the objective of obtaining visible achievements. This
recommendation differs drastically from the more traditional approach in which
program resources are made available to qualifying participants on an equal
basis throughout the state. Although the latter approach is politically
expedient and may achieve a great deal of NFS pollution control, its potential
for producing any detectable change in a water resource within a 25-year period
is quite low.. The targeted approach, on the other hand, by concentrating
pollution control efforts and applying all project resources to clearly
specified goals and objectives can produce results in a reasonably short
period, such as 5 to 10 years.
As of 1987, most states have recognized the need to treat NFS pollution to
protect their high priority water resources, and many states are initiating
.programs to treat NFS pollution from agricultural, urban, and suburban areas.
This document attempts to aid these developing NFS control programs by drawing
from about 15 years experience in water quality projects including the Rural
Clean Water Program, the Model Implementation Program, and water quality
demonstration projects funded in the Great Lakes Basin. While the concept of
targeting applies to all types of nonpoint sources, the emphasis in this
document is primarily on agricultural nonpoint source control.
This document was written prior to passage -of the Water Quality Act of
1987, and therefore, does not specifically address the NFS provisions of this
Act. The Water Quality Act of 1987, in section 319, requires states to
develop programs to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 319 specifi-
cally requires states to prepare, within 18 months of enactment, an assessment
report of their NFS problems and a Management program for addressing NFS
problems in the next 4 fiscal years. The Act authorizes $400 million over 4
years for grants to states for implementation of approved management programs.
Thus, given this new mandate in the Water Quality Act of 1987, states have a
new impetus to assess and prioritize their NFS problems and to develop new NFS
programs and/or refine existing programs. This document should be helpful to
states in developing their NFS assessment and management programs required by
section 319. In addition, states should refer to EPA's guidance on
implementation of section 319 for specific guidance on the requirements of this
section.
-------
EPA's Office of Water is encouraging states to develop comprehensive State
Clean Water Strategies (SCWS) to help coordinate implementation of the NFS
provisions and other provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Central to
the SCWS is the concept of targeting geographical areas for control action. The
NFS targeting strategy, as presented in this document, is intended to
complement the SCWS targeting concept, more specifically it is intended to
present successful state approaches to targeting NFS water pollution problems.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS' ,
...i
CHAPTER ONE; SETTING PRIORITIES ..... ..........
INTRODUCTION ..... „ ........ ........ ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ........................ 1
Why' Prioritize?. .... ..... „ ......... • !!!!!!!!!*!!! ...................... 1
National and State Mater Resource Priorities! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...... " ' " " \
State and Watershed Level Targeting ...... 'I - ......................
OVERVIEW OF A NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM!
2
CHAPTER TW: SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL
ESTABLISH AGENCY AUTHORITIES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interagency Commitments !
Coordination Among Agencies '
SET REALISTIC PROGRAM GOALS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5
Quantitative and Measurable !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5
Time frame t f " • •« 5
ACCtTCC TVCTT TTTTT ^M\T DC*COfTJD/^c'e» t *************•••••»•••• ••••Q
Focus Resources. *
Additional Resources ......!!!!!!!! 6
RANK NONPOINT SOURCE PRIORITY AREAS !!!!!!!!!!'!!!!!! 7
Criteria for Statewide Prioritization!!,!!!!!!!!!!!!.*!!!!! 7
Degree and Type of Water Resource Problem. .!!!!!!!!!!!.* a
Economics ' " $
politics. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8
Willingness and Capability of Participants!!!!!!!!!.* q
Regulatory Authority. 4 ^ ^
Institutional Constraints !!!!!!!!! Q
Examples of Statewide Water Resource Priori tization a
Maryland T. . „ t,
Pennsylvania ...!!* ••«•«• 9
Illinois !!!!'" '10
Ohio .....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10
-"^»»«^^™™^™^™M. * ***************•*••••••»•••••«!••••• ]|
Groundwater in Statewide Prioritization *'
~ ~~ — — *• • 12
CHAPTER THREE: SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE WATERSHED LEVEL. ,,
DEFINE LXS'liXUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS
The Lead Agency •'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14
The Project Coordinator !!!!!!!!!! 14
Establish Agency Roles !!!!!!!!*" i4
DEFIXt :«vii;K£ OF WATER RESOURCE IMPAIR.MENT*. !!!!!!!!!!!!!.*!! ' f a
Pollutant Loads Versus Concentrations !!!!! |o
Dynamics of the Impairment !!!!!!'*'
Attainability of Use i9
DEVELOP UATERSHED PROFILES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19
Point sources !!!!!!!!!!!!! " 20
N'onpoint Sources !!!**" ^
Sources of Infonnation !!!!!!"* * 2°
ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ??
Quantitative, Measurable and Flexible !!!!!!!" 9 T
Time f rame „ ~ • ^ 3
Exanples of Prolect Level Goals and Oblectives
,23
.24
-------
DETERMINE POLLUTANT REDUCTION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY GOALS ............ 24
General Considerations ............................... . ................. ] 24
Reliability of Estimation Techniques ................ . ........ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25
Point Sources ................. ... ................ „ ............. 11111125
Nonpoint Sources ................................. . ......... 111111111125
Point Versus Nonpoint Sources .................... .......... "**25
DETERMINE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS ...................... 1111111 ..... 26
NPS Control Effectiveness. , ......................... ......... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26
Construction. ... ........ ...... ............ * ........ -m
,. . ••••••••»•••••••«••««••••••••••«...... ^5
"rban .......... . ........ . ........................ „ ____ o . _ , .......... 26
Agricultural. ..<, ...... . .......................... .......... ...... 26
Landowner Acceptance ................................ ...... 1111111111!!!* 28
Financial Incentives ............. .... ............... ....... ............ *28
Ordinances for Sediment Control. . . ....................... ...... 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 * ' 29
METHODS FOR OBTAINING PARTICIPATION .................... ..'........ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 29
Cost Sharing ............................................. „ ... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 29
Information and Education Programs ....................... . ........ 1 1 1 1 1 * 29
Regulatory Options ....................................... . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 29
Examples of Other Incentives/ Inducements ................ 11!!!! ....... '"30
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES... ..... ". . . . ......... '.'.'.'.'.30
Type and Severity of Water Resource Impairment .......... ...... ..... ..... 31
Type of Pollutant ........... . ................. .......... o (i .......... 1 1 31
Sediment .......... . ...... . ................... I!!!!!!! 1 I !!!•!!! Ml '. " "31
Nitrogen ................. . ................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !' 1 "" 3 1
Phosphorus ................... ........................ . 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 ........ 32
Microbial Pathogens ........ . ............. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * * " .......... 37
pesticides ....................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 32
Source Magnitude. . .. ................. . ......... 111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ....... 33
Erosion Rate ........................................ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ........... 33
Manure Sources ...... . ................... 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ......... 34
Fertilization Rate and Timing ................. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * * " 34
Microbial Pathogen Sources ..................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 34
Pesticide Usage Patterns. ... ................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 35
Transport Considerations ......... . ..................... . . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ....... 35
Distance to Nearest Watercourse. .... ....... ................ ..... 3^
Distance To The Impaired Water Resource ..... . ....... . . . . ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 7
Other Selection Criteria ......... . ..................... I!!!!!!!!! ....... 37
Present Conservation Status^.... .................. !!!"!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!37
Planning Timef rame . . . . .TTTT ..................... '•!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"" 33
Designated High or Low Priority Subbasin .............. !!!!!!!! ....... 38
On-si te Evaluation^ ..................... .' ...... *" ........ ,„
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES*. !!!!!!!!'!!!!!!!!!!!!! .. 38
Develop Farm Level Ranking Procedure ....................... !!!!!!!!!!!!! 33
Modify Implementation Plan on The Basis of Mater Quality *Moni coring ..... 4 1
CARRY OUT BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM ......... . ..... - '41
Develop Contracts. . . ........ ..... .................... „ ......... ...... 4 ,
Monitor Land Treatment ...... . .............. 11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* "*41
Mater Quality Monitoring. .... ........... ...... 111111111111111111." ' " 42
Socio-economic Impacts ............................... 4>> ........ "*42
REPORTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !...!". ]42
Analysis of feter Quality Trends ........................... 11111111111142
Format and Content of Project Reports ................ . .... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •! 1 1 1 1 1 43
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
49
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1,
FIGURE 2,
FARMLANDS CRITICAL AREA RATING FORM FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTROL 39
FARM LEVEL RATING FORM FOR SELECTING CRITICAL FARMS IN
WATERSHEDS WITH PESTICIDE-RELATED WATER RESOURCE
• »«••««»«•••••••«....«.,,........,. ' / r\
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 4.
STEPS IN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT.
AN EXAMPLE OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL ASSOCIATED WITH
ESTIMATING RELATIVE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF
POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
15
INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT, CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL
RATES OR COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS., 17
POLLUTANTS AND MOST LIKELY SOURCES TO CONSIDER IN A
WATERSHED INVENTORY .
,22
• 26
-------
-------
CONCLUSION
- —
ran of envie- oclecoc . ^S *
sound
SUMMAEY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Setting Priorities At The State Level
1. E
SOaiS-that Wil1 result in visible improvements
3' ^!ri^VnSCitUfi0nal re*°urces a** capabilities of all agencies
mat W1J.J. oe involved in thp nrn ~
•.»!= JJI.U
the stated program goals.
4.
water resources should be based oVTheVe ^it^; i'd^f^^
ter
-------
resource problem that is controllable with treatment practices; high
probability of successful treatment with the available funding and
staff resources; and a high public use value.
Setting Priorities At The fetershed Level
1. Define the institutional responsibilities and roles of all
participating agencies and establish one agency as the lead agency
responsible for administering the project. Identify communication
channels through which the project will operate. Appoint one project
coordinator to manage the project.
2. Refine the nature of the water resource impairment identified during
the statewide water resource prioritization process. Determine how
much and what type of NFS reduction will be necessary to restore
designated uses of the resource.
3. Develop a watershed profile that will serve as a project data base,
including an inventory of nonpoint sources and point sources.
4. Establish water quality goals and objectives for each phase of the
project. Establish goals' that are quantitative and measurable with
flexibility to accommodate appropriate modifications. Determine pol-
lutant reduction needed to achieve water quality goals. Determine
control options including land treatment, incentives for landowner
participation and regulatory ordinances.
5. Assess methods for obtaining landowner participation and implement
those which are appropriate for the project area.'
6. The selection process should be based on the following five criteria:
1) type and severity of water resource impairment;
2) type of pollutant;
3) source magnitude considerations;
4) transport considerations; "and
5) project specific criteria.
The procedure for selecting critical areas should follow farm level
ranking of nonpoint sources. Two figures are provided on pages 39
and 40 as examples of farm level ranking for phosphorus and pesticide
use to identify sources of priority resource impairment.
7. Carry out the BMP implementation and water quality monicoring program
in such a way that impa-:s of treatment on water quality are docu-
mented from the start.
8. Maintain clear and accurate records of reporting, accounting and
evaluation procedures throughout the project's life. A sample pro-
ject report outline is listed in Appendix A.
ii
-------
Chapter One
SETTING PRIORITIES
ig£!s~~^™jgj££&*?&
•ing," is
thereby generating public
tection programs. " ~ r ~r """ welueir ^uaiicy pro-
INTRODUCTION
Vhy. Prioritize
/ ur d
-------
National and State Water Resource Priorities
Before a state begins to target its nonpoint source problems, it should
consider any recognized national, regional, or interstate priorities. For
instance, restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, international treaties concerning
the Great Lakes, and the quality of the Ohio River are clearly stated high
priority water resource concerns shared by several government entities. Co-
ordination among these entities is essential to achieve water quality improve-
ments in shared water resources. Thus, for example, states in the drainage of
the Chesapeake Bay are working under a cooperative agreement to reduce NFS
loading to the Bay.
A state should consider the impact of treating one resource and affecting
another. For example, there should be an initial decision between targeting
surface water versus groundwater, streams versus downstream lakes or reser-
voirs, or upstream lakes or reservoirs versus estuaries.
State and Watershed Level Targeting
State level targeting refers to prioritization of water resources for
treatment. This process is a ranking of resources according to specific
criteria which are indicators of a high probability of NFS project success.
Success is important for building public support and individual responsibility
for pollution control.
Once .the priority water bodies have been identified, the project can
determine whether or not available resources are sufficient to implement enough
pollution control to achieve the water quality objectives. If resources are not
sufficient, the prioritizing 'procedure can be repeated to target subwatersheds
with definable water quality problems that can be solved.
Targeting at the watershed level involves identifying the predominant
pollutant sources, prioritizing these sources and treating first those critical
areas that contribute the most to the designated water resource impairment. A
targeting program designed to treat the major sources first can substantially
expedite the achievement of water quality goals.
OVERVIEW OF' A NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Three major rteps ars involved in determining how to coatrol nonpoint
sources of pollut;, ra. First
capabilities shou,» ensure
areas must be chosen where
implementation strategy wr
designed for each priority a
.1 careful analysis of institutional, resources and
•- program goals are achievable. Next, priority
-amentation efforts will be focused. Finally, an
considers site-specific factors should be
Nonpoint source pollution control requires the expertise and cooperation of
diverse agencies and organizations. National agencies can bring external
-------
funding, related experience from similar projects, and other benefits to state
NTS projects. Where possible, appropriate regional agencies should be involved
because the water resources of a state are seldom independent of those in
neighboring states, and interstate cooperation can benefit all participants.
Local agencies and organizations are essential because they provide the com-
mitment and implementation effort that determines ultimate success or failure.
Water quality agencies, primarily at the state level are recommended as the
most appropriate coordinators because their mission generally overlaps most
environmental interests and is usually closest to the water quality objectives
of the project. Assistance and input from other environmental agencies or
organizations, too, is valuable. Agencies or organizations representing
agriculture, forestry, mining, urban and suburban sediment control, stormwater
management, and water resource planning should participate. Agencies or
organizations involved in planning or management of recreation can play an
important part in planning, justifying, and evaluating the success of a
pollution control project.
Once institutional capabilities have been determined, a select number of
areas should be targeted and site-specific NTS implementation strategies devel-
oped. The selection of NFS priority watersheds should be part of a Continuous
Planning Process as mandated in section 303 of the Clean Water Act. This is
described in detail in 40 CFR 130 - the Water Quality Planning and Management
Regulations.
States may also choose to select areas with groundwater problems for
development, of site-specific NPS implementation strategies. EPA is currently
developing guidance for classifying groundwater. This guidance will assist
states in determining which groundwater areas should be targeted for further
NPS control.
-------
-------
Chapter Two
SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL
Priority areas designated for treatment to improve water quality raav be
selected for different geographic scales: regional (e.g., Chesapeake Bay" and
.tit Great Lakes area), watershed (e.g., James River), subwatershed [e «
Appomattox .River), and farm levels. The area covered in each of these level's
may vary considerably from a small section of a watershed to basins of several
su. i i * on acres.
At the state level, water resources should be prioritized to achieve an
optimal distribution of efforts and funds. The development of a procedure "
? oritize state water resources should consider several factors, including?
reaUsteicnSeoTf inC""CS °f P*«i«iP«ing agencies, 2) establishment o?f
realistic goals, 3) resources and capabilities of institutions; and 4)
Criteria sucn as water quality problems, economic factors, political con-
siderations, and cooperation. This chapter describes methods for establishing
?ac "r," " VatSr reS°UrCe ?*i«iti»tion (WRP) program based on these*
ESTABLISH AGEMCY AUTHORITIES
It is critical when establishing a state WRP program to determine clearly
-nica agencies have the authority to perform certain tasks. Without de -
and/r Ot author"y' ^plication of efforts, conflicts between agencies
-he l10n C°Uld 0"Ur' Chereby reduCin* the effectiveness
^LiC
.ro.rin t"ropri»" afencies should be encouraged to contribute to a WRP
program. The state should draw on federal, regional, state, county, and local
UMtne eXtent ?°SSible- 3e"use the causes and impacts of water
/J. r* arS aiVerSe' & wide ««l««ion of agencies should be involved.
iate state agencies may include those with interests in 1) water
; Pr:annin8', 2) natu!al "source protection, 3) land use planning, i)
source regulation, 5) agriculture, mining, construction, 6) economic
evaluation, and 7) health and welfare.
-------
Interagency Commitments
Multiple levels of commitment from some agencies may be necessary. Parti-
cipating state and federal agencies should pass authority to complete project
casks to their local counterparts once a watershed is selected. For example,
the state office of the Soil Conservation Service may be involved in selecting
priority areas-,- and county personnel should be given authority to conduct the
implementation of treatment within the selected priority areas. Multiple
levels of commitment by different agencies allow efficient collection of data
formulation of plans and utilization of limited staff resources. Involving
different agencies will generate bioad support in the selected priority areas.
Coordination Aaong Agencies
Because several agencies will be involved, coordination among the agencies
is essential. Together, agencies should determine the role each will fulfill
such as data collection, technical assistance, financial management, edu-
cational assistance, enforcement of regulations, program development and im-
plementation. It is recommended that one state agency be accountable for all
aspects of the WRP program. This does not mean that only one agency partici-
pates in the program activities; rather, one agency is responsible for coordi-
nating the activities of the many agencies that have WRP program re-
sponsibilities. Appiopriate and clearly stated authorities should give a film
foundation to a WRP piogram.
SET REALISTIC PROGRAM GOALS
h »uK a "eCW°*kJcf "Sencies has been established-and agency comments
have been specified, program goals should be developed. Goals should be
Clearly .stated to the extent possible in quantitative, measurable terms so
that progress and accomplishments can be assessed. Flexibility should be
ii SSlJL^ individuai P~J*«* within the program can modify their goals
as knowledge of the dynamics of their water resource problem is obtained.
Quantitative and Measurable
Quantitative goals may be based on water pollution standards, pollutant
enJT10118 and/°1' 10ddinSs* ^storing biological resources, or the amount
of land 01 sources tieated. For example, a quantitative goal would be to meet
scat* standaids for a designated use, >,uch as the maximum fecal colifoim
concent rations and frequency of exceedance allowed foi shel Ifishln8 wdceis.
On the cthei hand, a goal for ., specific project could be LO achieve a stated
average condition, such as concentration of nitrate nitrogen (N), or to
achieve a loading reduction, such as for sediment or phosphorus. Many
nutrient and sediment control projects focus on achieving a certain percent
reduction in concentrations and/or loadings. Such goals should be based on
the estimated magnitude of reduction necessary to achieve a perceptible change
in water quality. Progress toward these quantifiable goals can be measured
ctuougn achievement of operational goals expressed in conventional land treat-
ment ceims. For example, operational goals may be to treat a specified per-
centage cr targeted cropland with conservation tillage or number of identified
-------
animal operations with • barnyard runoff controls. Operational goals provide a
rramework for accounting on-the-ground project implementation. These goals
should be very specific, distinguishing treatment of critical areas from
general conservation needs.
Interim goals can be.developed for phases of the project. These project
goals should correspond with the time required to complete various activities
and should ant-i-cipate the response time of the water resource.
$
Timeframe
In, establishing program or project goals, the timeframe for implementation
and water resource response should be considered. Some water resource prob-
lems respond quickly to intensive treatment, whereas others require extensive
treatment and involve' long response times. Likewise, certain types of water
resources respond rapidly to treatment. For example, a first order stream
would respond more quickly than a lake (2).
There are two time frames to consider- in establishing realistic goals: 1)
the time in which water resources can actually improve to the desired level in
a physical, chemical, biological, or aesthetic sense, and 2) the time re-
quired to document the water resource improvement through monitoring. The
latter consideration achieves accountability but places more constraints on
che project, because it requires, a monitoring timeframe that includes A pre-
creatment period, an implementation period, and a post-treatment period. As
illustrated by the Model Implementation Program, too often in NFS projects the
time allowed for observing water resource benefits does not realistically
consider .stait-up periods, pre-implemencation water quality data needs, Best
Management Practice (BMP) implementation .stages, and the responsiveness, of the
water resource (3).
ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES
Focus Resources
A key to developing a successful N'PS implementation program is to focus
efforts on only as many water resources as can be adequately treated with the
financial and technical support available. Spreading implementation funds too
thinly reduces the chance cf obtaining any observable impact on water resource
quality. First, the treated water resources will not respond sufficiently to
res tote impaired u.^e-,, and, second, public and legislative enthusiasm for NTS
implementation will decline before the goals are achieved. Demons tr at.icn of
successful N'PS control in a few intensive projects can be more effective than
treating a large area where water quality effects may take much longer to
observe.
It is important that water resource problems be assessed and prioritized
before state level funding requests for implementation are made. Ideally,
funding decisions .should be based :n information from assessment of ' economic
use impairments and the anticipated cost to alleviace the problems. In many
cases, doing nothing about an XPS impairment incurs tremendous cost co the
-------
economy of a state. For example, closure of Oregon's Tillamook Bay to com-
mercial and recreational shellfishing by the Federal Food and Drug Adminis-
tration would have cost the public more than $30 million in benefits over a
ten year period. The cost of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project to
clean up dairy wastes was $6 million, considerably less than the benefits (4).
Additional Resources
*r
Intensified NFS control efforts within a particular watershed require
appropriate fiscal authorizations and experienced technical assistance
staffing. Funds are needed for information and education programs such as
field days, meetings, and one-to-one contact and service programs,, such as BMP
demonstrations, pest scouting and soil sampling services. Such programs have
been helpful in obtaining participation in NFS programs and have aided in
reinforcing the proper use of implemented practices (5,6). To conduct these
information and education or technical assistance programs, projects require
funds and personnel in proportion to the size of watershed and the intensity
of the programs.
Expansion of NFS control efforts to include additional watersheds, too,
requires additional fiscal authorizations to cover the expanded work load.
Without, additional funds and staff, newly designated projects will drain these
resources from established projects and diminish the potential for all pro-
jects to achieve their goals.
RANK NONPOINT SOURCE PRIORITY AREAS
Criteria for Statewide Prioritization
Pt ior i tizat ion of state water resources affected by N'PSs should be based
«">n the following three criteria:
I) the water resource problem should be identifiable and controllable
with treatment practices;
2) treatment should have a high probability of producing visible water
quality improvements with the level of funding available; and
3) the water resource should have a high public use value.
Priority for treatment should be given to those water resources which meet r.he
above criteria.
Probability of success is vital to the state's ongoing NFS control
efforts. In order to achieve water quality goals, NFS control must become a
public concern with heightened individual awareness of responsibility for
resource stewardship. Such concern and awareness will develop more easily
when a state program can demonstrate the. value of N?PS control with examples of
successful projects which yield public benefits.
-------
0£ £actors "hich
1) degree and type of water resource problem
2) economics
3)' politics
4) willingness and capability of participants
5) institutional constraints
De&£ee £nd Tjr£e oj jfater Resource Problem. Several f ac tors shou 1 d
considered when evaluating a water resource problem, including the *-°—
, a ™uitof SPS. . ..,,.
problems attribute I. Co specific point so.rces often hav. an N?S component
th.,t must be treated. Therefore, sone water resources require tt.atm«r?? of
nonpoinc '
fo_Utics. Political factors always influence the s^lecti^n \f Pli,ritv
-------
Willingness and_ Capability of_ Participants. Landowner participation is
essential for a successful agricultural NFS control program. Most NFS control
projects have relied on a voluntary approach, usually through cost sharing
incentives. Voluntary participation implies landowner acceptance of water
quality goals and a commitment to project objectives. The voluntary approach,
however, has not always been successful'. Economic stress, in particular, has
been an obstacle. An important -step in program development is to examine the
willingness and capability, and economic condition of landowners and local
agencies within project areas.
Regulatory Authority. The use of regulation could change the perspec-
tive of landowner participation. Two project areas within the RCWP have regu-
latory authorities and have had extremely high landowner participation (FL-
RCWP, OR-RCWP). For example, the existence of regulatory authority, although
not used at the present, has greatly encouraged the voluntary participation in
the. Florida RCWP project. Thus, regulatory authority, if available, is likely
to increase the voluntary cooperation of landowners.
Institutional Constraints. Some final considerations are the constraints
on agencies which may be involved in the NFS control program. Though water
quality related, the mandate of some ag'encies may be quite rigid,, restricting
the ways in which these agencies can purticipate'in the state program. Con-
straints on time commitments and staff availability will also affect the roles
of different agencies participating in the project],
Examples of Statewide Water Resource'Prioritization
Various strategies have, been utilized by states in the prior I tization of
water resources. Several states use screening models to prioritize their
water resources, whereas at least one state, I 1 Iino is, has more of a local
grassroots approach. Five such selection processes are discussed here to
represent diffe.rant approaches used by Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio
and Wisconsin.
Maryland. A rating system where watersheds are ranked and selected bv
state agencies was developed for prioritizing Maryland's watersheds based on
agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution (7). This procedure was developed
by a technical team established by the Maryland State Soil Conservation Com-
mittee. This committee, in cooperation with- the Maryland Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Office of Environmental Programs of the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, used this procedure to prioritize the state's watersheds.
Separate rankings for potential , not measured, loadi ngs of P and N were
d,fvel.-Ped for two U-vels: 1) the potential loadings r.hat -ccur at the base
.-f each ot the 124 watersheds; and , 2) the potential loadings of each water-
sned into Chesapeake Bay.
A relatively straightforward set of criteria was used in the ranking
process, including the amount of agricultural land, percentage of such land
on steep or permeable soils, use of conventional versus conservation tillage,
and potential P delivery estimated en the basis of fertilizer and manure
application rates and calculated delivery rates. The use of other soil con-
servation BMPs in addition co conservation tillage Ls not considered bv this
classification scheme.
-------
obtained from ,exis
hit '5 does •" '""-1" «»«•"•
^ ^^"""i-on =ou Id prooably ba
-
the ,acer
wlhine.ch
n che scare.
=(
is
In contrast- to rh<» Ma i CJrieria Co assess "ch watershed
uas
from
in
using n w if ornt ic,n o
cre.tLnt priori ty
to "P"««- pr.v I ous I y ranked
P-levels' S" = " ""ersheds may
ratings.
"' f"" to
"" infc™ation and calculate
in need of agricultural
che councv l.v.l, and r
-ind two state levels (9)
id.ntlfi.d a/ch-
NFS
s
crrmnr
"creenld
PrL°rUi"d
prob'^.
itizing watersheds
*™ "««i»ed at
COunc^ «8ional,
^ h"
jeccs ba«d on an nvntcy
along u-ith other local agencies '
Proj.cc, then it must pAori "«
posals must be done bv a commi
regional committee reviews
its area, then prioritizes theor
cements co?che S t™ £^ i
SMk additional information f
^ diSCricCS
""*
I f
hem
lrSt
-------
and Water Quality Advisory Committee, the fourth level of governmental review,
cor final approval of the resource priori tization and recommendations.
This grassroots approach gives strength to the program by utilizing the
people who are most famil.iar with local water resources. On the other hand,
only chose projects submitted by the counties are considered. If a particular
county did no-t- have personnel who were ambitious enough to submit plans,
critical areas in that county would be overlooked. In addition, counties that
can make themselves heard might be given preference, even if these counties
did not actually have water resources that merited priority program funds.
Ohio. ohi° utilizes a much more data intensive approach to water resource
prioricization. In addition to agricultural NPSs, the strategy considers
other sources of pollution (e.g., wastewater treatment, waste disposal, and
other NPSs) and different uses of water resources (e.g., public water sup-
plies, groundwater supplies, and recreational resources). The strategy uses a
computerized information system with nine maps or layers of information.
Information from these nine maps is used by individuals or small groups of
individuals within various state agencies to select independently watersheds
tor treatment. Emphasis is placed on restoration of water bodies with the
most severe degradation and the need for protecting the most valuable
resources. Watersheds that are selected by more than one group are reviewed
by a policy team which formulates the final prior it.ization.
This method employs a sophisticated data analysis system interpreted
through professional judgment. It emphasizes multiple sources of water pol-
lution and considers the uses of these water resources. The disadvantage of
such a system is that it is expensive to develop the data base. However, once
Che data base has been developed, it can easily be updated and maintained and
nus numerous other uses for resource assessment and planning.
Wisconsin. The'State of Wisconsin has designated its Department: of Natural
Resources'(DNR) .is its lead N'PS agency, and the DNR has developed a process
r*r ranking state priority areas. The. DNR has ranked each of the state's 330
watersheds according to severity of land management and water quality prob-
m^n'nn •erShedS S6"*™11? overlap two to three counties, including about
EDO,000 acres. Priority watersheds' .are chose where NPS .problems occur over
extended areas and where major portions of the watersheds require intensive
NFS controls. Watershed projects address agricultural as well as urban prob-
lems. r
use
ihe primary selection criteria are: JJ the severity of water quality use
impairments; _2) the practicability of alleviating the impairments; and 3") the
cnreat co high q-~.,i.ty, recreational ly valuable waters. Secondary criteria
include: I) the potential to achieve a significant reduction in the amount of
pollutants from the nonpoint sources in the watershed; 2) willingness and
capability of counties, cities, and villages in the watershed to initiate the
project within a 2 or 3 year period; J) likelihood of owners or operators of
critical nonpoint sources to participate in the project; and 4) public use -f
the la*es, streams, and groundwater (10).
1 1
-------
n 'nrS W14C°npSin °NR USlSS a four ste? Process to select priority wacersr.ea
projects,. ,he first step is a technical screening to identify the' top ^ -,f
he^ watersheds with the most severe land management and water quality prob"-
lems. The screening is based on weighted land management and water quality
soil erosion h mana§en>en< characteristics include the extent of severe
e. ' , .' e extent °f urban land in the watershed, and the concentrar i,-m
o animals in the watershed. Water quality characteristics inc lude the extent
of acreage in. lakes and streams. . extent
The second step involves regional review of the top priority watershed*
Regional committees review the watersheds in their areas and each^noMnates
±ut 30C^ShetS, f°r fUrthSr consid««"- This process narrows theTst"
"will 3°*^lbl* wacersheds- Regional committees may nominate one or more
wild card watersheds not on DNR's initial screening. The "wild card" con
cept assures that watersheds which have significant local merit (e.g. high
^HprVrt °r UniqUS problems (e-8" groundwater protection needs) are con-
sidered. The review is based on the criteria listed above.
,o»n A • SC£P 1S review ^ a state level committee consisting of various
agency and interest groups. This state committee narrows the 1ist to 15 to 20
watersheds for inclusion in a selection'pool.
sel^io^ooor^p1^0™15 Selectf°n °f *^^ watershed projects from the
available fund.' Thl°f"" *„" ^^'^^ Dually by DN'R in accordance with
avdiiaoie tunds. The first three or an if ; ~ ^u-
3 years ' " * ^^ ™ ^ ptOCass are reP"ted ev^ry 2 or
Groundwater Jjn Statewide Prioriclzation
iH-nr- , affeccin8 statewide prioritizution of NTS problems is the
identification of groundwater recharge areas needing a hi gh 1 e ve 1 of Dr o
cect1on_from nonpoint and other pollutant sources. According to I rlcen^E?!
i^pott , nearly half of the states huv* developed or proposed groundwacer
classification systems (11). These systems -re being used by states to^e
priorities for groundwawr protection since such svstems tvpica I
'
snce suc svstems tvpica I 1 den if v a
- d ff^r^r"/"' Che VaUe attdCHrid " "Ch'u"- Differ't uses
"ulna accJot,hlL T * P«cec.tion. Certain decisions regarding facility
be baled on rh management practices, and contamination cleanups will
int/eraJ H Stat6 C l ass if ic "i °" systems. State NFS programs shou Id
ip,. 8 at,e Slclundwac«r protection needs in any scheme for prioritizes state
NFS proolems. A state's highest NFS control priori tv may be ?t protec "on" of
its bole source aquifers. for public drinking water supplies.
p
n
12
-------
• The Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program, SDWA section 1427, re-
quires EPA to establish demonstration programs to protect critical
aquifer areas, that is, to protect all or part of a designated sole
source aquifer from degradation. EPA is to establish, by June 1987
criteria for selecting critical aquifer areas. States and local authori-
ties then are to map these areas and provide a comprehensive protection
plan to .EPA for such areas. Once a plan is approved, EPA may enter a
cooperative agreement to implement a project on a 50/50 funding basis.
The maximum grant to a state for any one aquifer is $4 million per year.'
• The Wellhead Protection Program, SDWA section 1428, requires states
to develop programs for protecting areas around wells supplying public
drinking water systems from contamination that could harm public health
EPA is to provide criteria to states for defining we I 1 head protection
areas by June 1987 and states have three years to submit plans to EPA
State wellhead protection programs.must identify the responsibilities of
state and local governments among other requirements. Upon EPA approval
states are eligible for EPA grants for 50 percent of costs of plan
development and implementation.
13
-------
Chapter Three
SETTING PRIORITIES
AT THE WATERSHED LEVEL
DEFINE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The Lead Agency
Set vice, L'S Gt'olGPicil Sui v*v ?ncref ' tS CooPei^tive Extension
Jgoncjus und Dl innin (USGS>' state agncultuial agencies, regional
on the right foot § critical in getting d NTS control project off
iight foot.
Project Coordinator
have
Those MIP D
-
-------
TABLE 1. STEPS IH INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT
1. Identify Cooperating Agencies:
--Federal, state, and local government
. --Planning districts
-.-Private groups/organizations
2. Assign Lead Agency With:
--water quality as a primary mandate
--state accountability
3. Evaluate Cooperating Agency Roles:
—data gathering
—del ivery ' service
--technical assistance
--monitoring and evaluation
--financial services
A. Delegate Authority According To:
--agency mandates
--financial resources
--agency management commi tments
--legal authority
--ability to obtain project funding i ndependent
of the other coopera tors
--the agency's local commitment to the project
5. Produce Summary Document Outlining:
—rolesandresponsibiiities
—coordinating mechanisms
' 1 5
-------
Establish Agency Roles
should meet and determine the role each wi l i
project: data collection, service delivery
The cooperating
fulfill in
il
3, etc. An evaluation snoiua also be made of eacti *oar,~,,' . • ,,
t:ea^'^r^ "r;r= rr-8ta" £-di-- ^«t?T££™2£
nation. This explanation of
by a!l partic ^
n
the roles and
to ensure effective coordi-
.
v, agre«d upon dnd record. pons Lbi lici^ and tasks be defined
understanding (3). ?^l« ? p"vld., " WritCSn C°ntracts and memoranda of
possible rolls In NTS projects ov«v«w of agency capabilities and
16
-------
TABLE 2. INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT, CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAI
COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.
ROLES FOR
- Agency/Organization
USDA
Soil Conservation
Service
Cooperative State
Extension Service
Capability/Expertise
Technical guidance on soil
conservation, animal waste,
and water quality management
systems
Education of farm and nonfarm
audiences; technical advice;
fertilizer arid pesticide
management programs; manure
and soil testing
Possible Role
Assessment of soil and
water resources; incorpo-
rate water quality goals
in farm plans; assure
proper BMP implementation;
'data source for project
planning
Informational and
educational support;
identifying agri-
cultural community
leaders; motivational
support; 4H youth projects
USDA
Agricul tural
Stabi li zation
Conservation
Service
and
US Environmental
Protection
Agency
US Forest Service
US Geological
Survey
I'S Fish and
Wildlife
Service
Cost sharing for approved soil
conservation or water quality •
management" pract ices ;'
agricultural data and
crop statistics
Water quality monitoring;
evaluation of resource impair-
ment; control of point sources
Technical assistance in forest
management; assistance for .tree.
planting and harvesting
Watershed monitoring; hydro-
logic information
Information ,^n. impairment,
value, and recteational use cf
water resource
Financial incentives for
participation; provide
records of present
conservation status
Water quality technical
assistance; clarifying
regulatory options;
guidance for project manage-
ment and reporting; data
source for project planning
Technical assistance to
landowner; assessment of
forest-related NPSs
Data source for project
planning; assistance in
developing a monitoring
p Ian
Planning and justifying
NFS control -project
State Department
Agricul ture
of Crop statistics, cost sharing
programs; liaison to farm
community
(Continued)
Project planning
I 7
-------
Tab le 2 (Continued)
State Water Quality Water quality monitoring; water
or Environmental' quality assessments;
a8ency establishing quality standards;
regulatory authority
Regional/local'plan- Planning capabilities; resource
ning agencies assessments; coordination of
local efforts; identification of
funding options
Soil and Water
Conservation
Districts
Landowner associ-
, ations, t>nv Lron-
mental groups,
commodity groups,
farm groups
Administration of local
agencies reporting on progress
Contacts with individuals
affected by project; support for
project objectives'; education
and information
Coordination of NTS
project; monitoring water
resource impairment
Coordination of local
agencies; reporting on
progress and objectives
Leadership in local
initiatives; technical
assistance with soil
conservation or water
quality management;
targeting farms;
education
Information and aware-
ness efforts; promote
local support and
participation
DEFINE NATURE OF WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT
Pollutant Loads Versus Concentrations
Many previous agricultural NTS control projects (e z
to loads
* pesticide
trations as opposed
13
-------
pesticide loads to surface waters. However, research shows chat when runoff
volume decreases by. a greater amount than pesticide loads decrease, pesticide
concentration in runoff actually increases (23). Conversely, although more
pesticide might be leached to the groundwater, the resulting concentration of
pesticide in the aquifer might, in fact, be reduced through dilution by the
increased infiltration.
With such considerations in mind, a project might opt to cost share
management practices which 'reduce pesticide use rather than ones which affect
runoff and infiltration. For NTS control projects addressing lake eutrophi-
cation, setting project water quality goals in terms of nutrient load re-
ductions will often be very appropriate. It should be noted, however, that
changes in pollutant concentrations in response to NFS control measures are
often much easier to document through monitoring.
If the impairment is related to the sediment filling of a water supply
reservoir, then it would not be aopropriate to state the project's water
quality goal as a reduction tn mean annual sediment concentrations. Since the
majority of sediment is usually transported by a very few major runoff events,
mean annual sediment concentrations could decrease while total- sediment loads
actually increase. This again has important implications for BMP and criti-
cal area selection. Some BMPs (e.g., contouring) control erosion very well and
are most cost-effective for small to moderate rainfall events but have almost
no erfect in major storms. In terms of critical area selection, if the
impairment is related to tuibidity, then areas of the watershed with fine ero-
sive soils mi-ght be much more cri't.ical than those with the highest aross
erosion rates (e.g., IL-RCWP).
Dynamics of the Impairment
Determining other dynamics of the impairment such as whether it is
continuous, periodic, or seasonal can provide insights for .critical area and
B.IP selection.. A closer examination of- the hydrology of the impaired water
resource also helps to delineate critical areas. For Sample, the impairment
l
-------
crar " neCeSS^ " m**e good decisions concerning
treatment options to use and how much of the watershed arp, •
critical. Another.important factor in the us. attainability analysis is public
perception of the use impairment. We have found oarticularlv ^n
Iware 'of ^ tnV^PS ?' "«'«^1 ^» -s,''th^^ t^ ^bUc ^^S
^nirr . K NPS con"ol project activities, perceptions that the water
public !se ll°T^ dCCeptabU f°r P"viously impaired uses increases overal
public use. In such situations (e.g., IA-RCWP, SD-RCWP, AL-RCWP OR
money and effort spent on information/education and public
DEVELOP WATERSHED PROFILES
mans * r"ershed P.r°flle ^cument should be developed to support land use
Point Sources
Nonpoint Sources
The watershed
Some ->f the s-> • h- ~~-h -~««»i.u = i. an. potential nonpoint sources
Sources of Information
20
-------
knowledgeable about a particular stream or water body and its problems. SCS
and Extension programs, too, have a large reservoir of information concerning
agricultural areas. The county ASCS office has a list of agricultural
operators with detailed accounting of participation in federal conservation or
commodity programs. The ASCS office also will usually have estimates of crop
types and acreages, other land uses and'aerial photos. Local planning depart-
ments and USGS.monitoring stations can also provide useful information. Waste-
load allocation calculations and watershed loadings models can be helpful as
well.
An inventory of permitted point source discharges can be obtained from
the state water quality agency or directly from EPA's-STORET program. Other
useful sources include municipal governments, state highway departments, and
chambers of commerce.
-------
TABLE 3.
INVENTORY
*** M°ST LIKELY SOURCES TO CONSIDER IN A WATERSHED
Pollutant
Sediment
Nut lien r.s
Bac tet la
Pe..s t i ci
Possible Souices
cropland
forestry activities
pasture
streambanks
construction activities
roads
mining operations
existence of gullies
livestock operations (streambanks)
other land distuibing activities
erosion from feitillzed areas
urban lunoff
was-tewater treatment plants
industrial discharges
septic systems
animal production operations
cropland or pastures where manure is
spread
animal operations
cropland or pastuiej, where manure is
.spread
wastewatei ne.itment plunts
septic systems
urban runoff
wildlife
all l.md where pesticide.s aie u^ed
(cropland, forest, pastuie.s, urban/
.suburban, golf courses, waste
disposal sites)
sices of historical usage (organo-
chlorines) •
urban runoff
irrigation return flows
22
-------
ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Quantitative, Measurable and Flexible
Quantitative and measurable goals provide reference points coward which
all other project activities can be directed. Individual project goals should
be more specific but still compatible with overall state program goals.
Experiences from the MIP and RCWP programs demonstrate the importance of
quantitative and measurable goals. MIP projects which developed vague goals
such as: "to improve the water quality within the project area" or vague
objectives such as "to obtain an adequate level of land treatment" could not
use these same statements to guide project activities or assess project
performance. Generally, the statements of goals and objectives were '.more
specific and water quality-oriented in the RCWP programs. Statements of
goals and objectives in terms of changes in water quality, reductions of
pollutant concentrations or loads, changes in water resource use, achievement
of state water quality standards, and number of acres to be treated or con-
tracts to be signed were used in the more successful MIP and RCWP programs.
Although projects benefit from stating quantitative water quality goals
and land treatment objectives, sufficient flexibility should be retained so
chat goals and objectives may be modified as new information is gained from
project activities. The goal-setting process should be flexible and inter-
active, with its primary purpose to optimize the efficiency of project
activities; only secondarily should it serve as an accountability mechanism
tor jgency participants. If accountability is too strongly stressed in this
process, agency participants will be reluctant to state quantitative and/or
measurable, goals for fear that if the project falls short, it would reflect
badly on them or their agency.
TLmeframe. The timeframe in which water quality changes occur is an
important consideration at the project level. Expectations for achieving pro-
ject water quality goals should consider that project implementation takes
urn°uncs oc cimt?" Experience from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
indicates that when control practices are being placed on public land
using only designated program monies, implementation can be completed re-
latively quickly (1-2 years), and is limited only by the time required to
identify sites and complete construction. Conversely, experience from large-
scale agricultural cost share programs such as RCWP and MIP indicate that up
to ten years may be required to progress from planning to complete imple-
mentation in a voluntary program with private landowners. Generally, time
must be allowed for developinjj public awareness, identifying critical' areas
arranging contracts with landowners, ana installing 3MPs. Farmers are of'en
reluctant to sign a cost share contract unless it provides flexibility on when
their snate or the implementation cost must be paid out. This is particularly
23
-------
Examples of Project Level_ Goa_Ls and Objectives
Some examples of appropriate project level water quality goals and imo re-
mentation objectives are provided below.
Water Quality Goals
—Reduce maximum summer fecal coliform concentrations in Lake Tholocco
below 200/100 ml so that beaches can remain open at all times through
the swimming season (AL-RCWP). *
-Reduce the fecal coliform concentrations in Tillamook Bay to FDA
standards for commercial shellfishing waters (OR-RCWP).
of Broadway Lake by reducing mean
--Reduce maximum groundwater nitrate/nitrogen concentrations below lOppm
area gr°Undwater wil1 meet d^estic supply standards
Implementation Objectives
— Install animal waste management practices on at least 75% of the identi-
ried critical dairies in the project area (VT-RCWP).
-Install runoff control practices which will intercept the first 1/2 inch
s N?\- Jref Withi" LM miU °f the Uke and I"
s ( NC-Nutr lenc-Sensi cive Watershed) .
in orI"b!!1hM-SriCU'1Ci0n!3' T" qUaHt>> S0al" may be m°r* "PPropriatelv'stated
pr-LDaoi nstic terms such as reducing the frequency of exceednnce for con-
p7?ma^L°watefra 'ualuv^o- *"' .**™Pl*< ^ Ur ten *** ^ oject'coul d state its
concentraion
DETERMINE POLLUTANT REDUCTION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY COALS
General Considerations
Determining the amount of po 1 lut ant reduct ion needed co achieve water
C
?he \CL§r dS " n eaSentidI Pd" °* ^ targeting and implementat on ef fo t
The required pollutant reduction affects both the selection of NFS control
" ^^ °* °f SOUrC6S ^ -st be ^reat^d ?
he roH ^ °* ""**" °f SOUrC6S ^ -st be reatd
the larger the pollutant reduction needed, the larger the critical
'
"" eh? ""*** ^ ^^ which »«' b. targeted. thin the
§SSC a /0r m°St intenSS SOUrCSS Sho
Dtrt Should be
the eUtivf .LmP°rtdnC PJ" °f Chis PC^-" component involves determining
sources »-P°«ance of pollutant contributions from point and nonpoin?
-------
Reliability of Estimation Techniques
•
It is important to note here that the following discussion of statistical
estimations of point and nonpoint source contributions addresses present
conditions only, not projected estimates..
Point
the LTr
che point
Sources.
°"
source.
and n
and mean
The accuracy of point source loading and concentration
hS fre«uency of efflue«< Campling and the variably of
For domestic wastewater treatment plants which record
and Sample nu"ienc* <*il-y. estimates of nutrient Toads
concentrations are generally accurate to within 10%. For
qU3Uty " «««««in.d by variable o intlr-
c -HM-K """ ln Calculated lo^s or mean concentra-
""Slderabl hi8her < UP ." 50%) especially if effluent sampling
t ions can te
L infreouenr .
is infrequent relative to process variability.
Sources. Statistical confidence in estimation techniques for
determining nonpoint source pollutant contributions varies greatly between NFS
categories. Agricultural NTS area I estimates have proven fo be ' par icula rly
has uiiE;adThe Un;VerSdi Soil LOSS E^aci°n ^als only with erosio'n t ^ and
has limited userulness because sediment delivery is not considered MnH=V =
such „« CREAMS (12), ANSWERS (13), and AGNPS* ( U) actempt to combine land
management meteorologic, topographic and transpo-rt factors o pred ct a ea?
pollutant loadings and how they may be affected by' NTS controls ?) Prope
«!J ,J rT generally improve areal loading estimate. Use o
the ^ o7 trDrwirhtimaC1°n "^^ such as <=«»puc« ^delS should contro
tne etror to be. within a margin of plus or minus a factor of two.
P°llulla^
m ' "'
losings from urban areas are somewhat
* '"*' ^ to the
better defined
mor, def!nab!e
r"no"P°ll""nt
riable
int.lval
25
-------
TABLE 4. AN EXAMPLE OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL ASSOCIATED WITH ESTIMATING
RELATIVE POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
Actual Poll
Load Units*
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
utant
No'n 'point
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Actual
NPS %
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Minimum
Estimate
of NPS %
82
67
46
43
33
25
18
11
5
Maximum
Estimate
of NPS %
95
89
82
75
67
57
46
33
18
*Assumes .ibsolute point source loadings ate known within
10%
DETERMINE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS
NPS Control Effectiveness
Construction. Effectiveness of BMPs for sediment contiol at construction
sites is relatively well known. Sediment fences, retention basins, and traps
are effective for retaining large sedintent .partic les on site. A series of
studies on sediment retention basins shows that they are 56-95% efficient in
removing gross .ediment loads depending on r etent ion' time, basin geometr'v, and
incoming .ediment size, distributions (19). Sediment control practices are
generally ™ly about one-half as efficient for total phosphorus removal than
tor sediment removal because a disproportionate, amount of the total phosphorus
is attached to the finei, less easily captured sediment particles.
Urbao- NPS Control measures include sediment basins whose effectiveness
is noted above. Urban catch basins designed to retain the first one-naif inch
?t runoff have been shown to remove most incoming heavy metals (17) and to be
,-frective tM control of P. Other contr o L . measut es include street sweeping'
.4ia*,y swales and devices t..? retard st -rm drain fl.%.-. The effectiveness '^f
these practices was studied intensively under field conditions in tne \TRP
U6J. Street sweeping, in particular, was not found to reduce urban NTS loads
significantly.
Agricultural. A large amount of plot and field studies have been con-
ducted on the effects of BMPs on edge of .site pollutant losses. Most agri-
cultural BMPs are summarized in the Best Management Practice reviews prepared
by the XWQEP (20,.2 I, 22, 23). Common BMPs are discussed below.
26
-------
* Conservation tillage ' has been found to reduce edge of field soil
loss between 60 and 98% depending on tillage method, soil type, slope and
crop. No-till studies have generally. been found to reduce soil loss by
80-98%. Conservation tillage systems yield smaller sutface losses of P
and N than surface loss of sediment, and these systems often increase the
amount of N loss to subsurface waters. The effect of conservation til-
lage on pesticide losses is not clear. For herbicides such as atrazine
and alachlor, total annual losses to surface waters are reduced 80-90%
(no-till versus conventional tillage) when the first rainfall after
application is of low or moderate intensity. However, if the first post-
application tainfall is of high intensity more herbicide may be lost from
no-till than conventional till. There are very few studies on the effect
of tillage systems on gtoundwater pesticide losses.
• Terraces used with conventional tillage have been shown to reduce soil
loss by 50-98% compared with conventional tillage without terracing.
Again, reduction of the loss of nutrients in surface runoff is not as
great and subsurface. N losses may • increase.
• Improvements
modifications, subsurface
to furrow i t rigat ion systems,
sediment export
-0%, however,
(5).
by about
and these
such as furrow and drain
drainage and sediment catch basins, reduce
80%. Surface P expott is reduced by only about
systems have had no observed effect ,on N export
• Nutrient m.-inagement systems, which include soil testing for available
N, split N applications, elimination of fall applications, winter storage
of animal waste, jnd designated animal waste application rates based on
plant requirements for N, appear to be the most effective and cost-
effective means of reducing N' export to both surface and groundwater.
• Pesticide management svstems. A linear
rel ationship between pesticide
and surface runoff losses is suggested by numerous
implication is that improved spraying and integrated
reduce pesticide inputs to aquatic sys-
applic.ition rates
studies (23). The
pest manage.ment techniques will
terns to the extent that the.se techniques reduce the quantities applied.
• Animal wasce manajgenient systrims in humid regions include diverting
runoff to by-pass barnyard areas, restricting the access of animals to
streams, manure storage, elimination of winter manure spreading, applying
manure at plant P requirement rates, and not applying manure to poorly
drained areas. These practices can reduce P and bacteria losses to
sutface waters by 80% and 90%, t espec tive. ly, compared to farming systems
that ate not managed for pollution. control.
out farming alone has pioauced 15-55% reductions in sediment e.xpot t
several different studies using different crops, slopes and soils
(22). The practice rapidly loses effectiveness on slopes greater than
about 3%, however, and-nutrient reductions are always less than sediment
reductions.
* Covet crops reduce erosion on agricultural land depending on when the
cover crop is planted and the growth stage of the covet crop during the
nongrowing season. Erosion rates .?n land in continuous conventional till
corn have been re.duced by as much as 95% when a dense t ve
: o ve r
i s
27
-------
present until the time of planting. Cover crops are often not good
options if they are planted late, however, because there is little estab-
lishment i.n the fall, and the cover delays soil warming in the spring.
There is recent evidence that non-legume cover crops may reduce N leach-
ing to groundwater as a result of plant uptake.
* Diversions and grassed waterways are widely recognized as effective
sediment-control measures for agricultural, urban, and construction non-
point sources, although there is very little quantitative data on their
effects. Grassed waterways, in particular, are • rendered ineffective by
excessive sediment loading and are generally used in conjunction with
other erosion control practices such as strip cropping or conservation
tillage.
• Filter strips 'have become recognized as effective BMPs for control of
si. Ivicul tural, urban, construction and agricultural nonpoint sources of
sediment, P, bacteria and some pesticides. Parameters which determine
their effectiveness include: filter width, slope, type of vegetation,
sediment size distribution, degree of filter submergence, runoff applica-
tion rate, initial pollutant concentration, uniformity of runoff along
the length of the filter, and proper maintenance.
Landowner Acceptance
In the case of voluntary agricultural programs, the practices chosen for
emphasis in the project must integrate with the farmer's production considera-
tions. Otherwise, landowners wi.l 1 choose not to participate, or they may not
maintain implemented practices properly. A number of projects (IA-RCWP, WA-
MIP, LA-RCWP, ID-RCWP, DE-RCWP) have obtained high participation rates by
cost-sharing a mix of practices that are highly acceptable to the farmer.
For address ing urban and construction nonpoint sources, where often a key
control measure is limiting the percentage of impervious surface area, local
ordinance provisions which include such limitations can circumvent the diffi-
cult issue of Individual landowner acceptance.
Financial Incentives
The basic issue which has emerged related to the control of nonpoint
sources from private land is that much of the benefit from control (e.g.,
improved water quality) does not accrue-to the landowner but rather, to water
users downstream or gioundwater users. This has been the rationale for as-
sisting private landowners with NPS control using public funds. In some cases
BMPs have sufficient on-site benefits that landowners will choose to adopt
them without financial incentives if technical assistance is provided. An
example is conservation tillage systems which have been widely Adopted without
cos t sharing.
Other practices such as animal waste storage and manure spreading may have
on-site cost-effectiveness over the long-term but require large up-front
capital investment. Practices such as improved fertilizer management have
been shown to be the most effective N'PS nutrient control practice and theore-
tically have agronomic benefits (fertilizer savings) which would encourage
their adoption (21). However, there Is a perceived yield risk factor which is
difficult to quantify in dollars. Projects which have provided extensive boil
28
-------
cescing services to the farmer have been the most successful in obtaining
adopcion of chis BMP.
Ordinances for Sediment Control
The existence of regulatory authority- over nonpoint sources such as sedi-
ment ftom construction activities creates'a different type of incentive.
Localities and states which have successfully addressed construction nonpoint
soutces have ordinances with inspection provisions and financial penalties
(e.g., VA, NC).
METHODS FOR OBTAINING PARTICIPATION
Cost Sharing
The importance of cost sharing for agricultural BMPs has been discussed
above. Experience indicates that cost share rates should be set for each
specific BMP based on the relative en-site/off-site benefits and the capital
investment involved. Assistance with long-term maintenance costs should also
be considered. Some projects have had success offering a high cost share rate
initially to gain project momentum and reducing- the rate when the BMP gains
widespread acceptance. While cost sharing has been used most extensively for
agricultural nonpoinc sources, the cost of runoff control practices can be
cost shared with municipalities by the. state (e.g., Wisconsin).
Information and Education Programs
While financial incentives are generally needed to obtain private land-
owner participation in voluntary N'PS control projects, such assistance is
usually not sufficient. In both MIP and RCWP, a vigorous information and
education picgr.im has proven essential to obtaining adequate farmer partici-
pation. Successful program e f f c-r ts have emphasized radio, newspaper and TV
me.dij, landowner meetings, fie.ld days, demonstration farms and vouch activi-
ties. One-on-one ccntact with landowners, although time-consuming, appears to
be the most effective method for gaining participation. Several projects have
provided services such as soil testing or pest scouting as inducements for
participation.
The watershed inventory should be used ,as a starting point for identifying
critical area landowners who should be contacted first. Targeting recruitment
efforts to ke.y landowners whc are community loaders is also '-•ften an effective
3tt.ir.egy. Lccal Extension cr Sci 1 Cr nse. r vati :-n Service- agents can identify
these individuals.
Regulatory Options
As of July 1, 1985, approximately 26 states had sediment or er.t-.ion con-
trol regulations which apply primarily to construction activities. The number
of states considering cr developing such regulations is increasing, and there
is a ciend towards stronger enforcement previsions.
29
-------
_ At :nis time, chere are only a few states with regulations that applv to
uroan or agricultural NPSs. Oregon and Minnesota have state regulations wnich
can torce small dairy operations to clean up observed manure management prob-
lems, and regulations of dairies is expected in the Lake Okeechobee basin of
Florida. Regulation is generally enforced on a complaint basis, and, there-
fete, is seldom invoked.
The North- Carolina "nutrient sensitive watershed" designation regulates
the percentage of impervious surface area in suburban areas near certain lakes
and requires that new developments include measures to capture the first one-
half inch of surface runoff.
Examples of Other Incentives/Inducements
• The creamery which buys essentially all the milk produced in the Til la-
mo ok Bay, Oregon RCWP project area is very concerned about the image of
Tillamook cheese. The creamery managers score .each dairy on various
sanitary factors. Dairies which fall below the minimum acceptable score
are penalized in the price paid for their milk. This appears to have
greatly enhanced participation in .the RCWP project.
• The State of Oregon allows a 50% tax credit for pollution control ex-
penditures spread over 10 years. North Carolina allows a 25% tax credit
for purchase of conservation tillage equipment. The Wisconsin state
program also provides tax incentives for installing agricultural BMPs.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES
Once, the previous steps of designating responsibilities, such as .selecting
h ,;T KSrittin? WdLtM' quality S°dls' <"e "*" underway, a watershed project
shoal-d beg:n the process of prioritizing source areas and .sources within the
watershed. The first .step is to identify and weigh critical area selection
criteria which are relevant to the water quality problem and watershed charac-
trfris tics.
Water quality critical area selection criteria can be grouped into the
following five broad categories:
1) type and severity of water resource Impairment;
2) type of pollutant;
3) source, magni tud«i considerations;
^) transport considerations; and
5) cthe.r project specific criteria.
These criteria vary somewhat by pollutants as discussed below.
30
-------
Type and Severity of Water Resource Impairment
The type of impairment is the primary consideration for: selecting water-
quality critical areas. The impairment may be caused by excessive pollutant
loading, high average or maximum concentrations, or perhaps high frequency of
violating a -given standard. Impairments such as loss of reservoir or stream
storage capacity, destruction of benthic habitat, and eutrophication are
generally related to excess pollutant loading. In contrast, drinking water
and swimming impairments are often caused by peak pollutant concentrations.
Frequency of standard violation is generally the concern for impairment of
shellfish harvesting.
The spatial orientation of BMPs and the hydrology of the watershed can
interact to affect the dynamics of the water use impairment. For instance, in
the case of impairments related to peak concentrations, it may be found chat
pollutants from the upper watershed are not delivered to the site until well
after the peak concentrations have occurred. Thus, from the water use impair-
ment standpoint, a strong case could be made for eliminating the upper water-
shed from the critical area even though the overall pollutant loading from
this area may be high. Another example related to peak concentration impair-
ments is the case where a wastewater treatment plant is a major contributor to
pollutant concentrations during low flews, but is a minor contributor after-
storm events when the peak concentrations occur.
The severity of the impairment, too, is a major factor in critical area
selection, because the greater the pollution reduction'goa 1, the greater the
extent of treatment needed. The extent of treatment can refer co more
thorough treatment of intense sources such as dairies and feedlots or wider
treatment of general sources such as cropland.
Type of_ Pollutant
Sediment. The designation cf criticaI sediment contributing areas varies
depending on whether the impairment is due to sedimentation ot tuibidity
Sedimentation may cause loss of reservoir storage capacity et degradation -.f
tish habitat, whereas turbidity may impair recreational uses or provide, a
vector for transport cf pesticides -ot other ccxics. In the first case, criti-
cal areas would be selected primarily on the basis cf sediment delivery
selecting the. largest pet-acre sources. The turbidity problem, on the ether
hand, might be addressed best by controlling runoff from areas where fine soil
particles originate.
Nitrogen. Possible surface water resource impairments from X include
rpnicrfticn and toxicity from nitrites, -nitrates, and ammonia. Grcundwater
impairments generally include toxicity from nitrites ?t nittatv.s. The a* f i-
niticn .-f critical areas varies depenaing en whether the problem involves
burtace. er groundwater. Ni tr ate pr oblems frequently occur in areas with
excessive use of N fertilizer or manure disposal. Groundwater problems are
most pronounced in areas ..-are soil characteristics facilitate transport to
groundwater (e.g., sandy svils, fractured limestone). In addition, there' is
evidence that some soil conservation practices promote downward transport '
nitrates. Practices such as conservjticn tillage or tile outlet terracing,
particular, -ay be associated wich jjt rundwutei cent ami nation if fertilizer
manure applicatisn tates are high.
31
-------
' a °°Ce i"cluslue "ltlc.1 arsa than that r.,u red to
H -
Special considerations may be necessary for certain pesticide problems.
=£ i?S
- SP °r "'•'-'PPlications. Impairments result from interait-
"' C°""" "•""=-• - 0»ly surface water l.pair^n" S«"."B
32
-------
• Mcs c catbamace insecticides are moderately toxic to fauna and humans,
have low persistence and are not biomagnif ied. An important exception is
aldicarb, which is highly toxic and has shown persistence of several
years in groundwater. Incidents of both ground and surface water contami-
nation are well documented.
* Ttiazine herbicides exhibit chronic effects on aquatic ecosystems at
low -ppb concentrations. Algal communities are most sensitive, exhibiting
changes in community structure which, in turn, affect trophic status and
parameters such as dissolved oxygen. Aquatic macrophytic communities
also are affected adversely at these concentrations. Triazines may be a
problem in drinking water because they are not removed by conventional
treatment processes.
• The anil ides, like the triazines, are hi -'.y toxic to algae and aqua-
tic macrophytes, and only moderately toxic : fish and humans. Effects
of long-term, low-level exposures are large i;-' unknown, although recent
.studies implicate alachlor as a moderately strong animal' carcinogen.
Anilides are frequently detected in the 1-40 ug/l range in surface and
gt oundwaters, and, as with the triazines, little removal occurs through
water treatment processes.
Source Magnitude
Erosion Rate
Sediment. Erosion rate has served as the primary criterion in traditional
soil conservation programs. As a practical matter erosion rate is generally
not measured directly, but rather is estimated from the Universal Soil Loss
Equation in which erosion rate is u function of slope (length and steepness),
soil e» edibility, and the density of vegetative cover.
Phosphorus. Many .studies show P losses are closely correlated with erosion
idtrfs. However, erosion reducing practices do not induce P losses as ef-
ficiently as the.y do sediment because the finer fraction of sediment is typi-
OJlly most enriched in P; and the. fine sediment fraction is not reduced
sffectiwly by on-field erosion control practices. f A major study found that
in a 12,000 acre watershed P reductions were only'-one-half of sediment re-
ductions from erosion control practices (26).
Pollutants. For N* and microbial pathogen-related water quality
impairments, erosion rate is. generally not an appropriate critical, area selec-
tion criterion. Conversely, nearly all presently and historically used crgano-
vhl-ritnes have been .shewn tc. adsorb strongly to *bil particles. For chis
they ate lost in surface runoff almost entirely in the ;,ediment-
josorbed phase. Hence, erosion rate should be considered an appropriate cri-
terion for selecting critical areas for control of crganochlorine aquatic
inputs. As in the case of other sediment-adsorbed agricultural pollutant
such as phosphorus, the reduction in pesticide losses will be less than the
erosion reduction because of enrichment on the fine soil' fraction.
There is evidence that the crganophcsphorus insecticide, foncfss, is lest
in surface runoff primarily in the sediment-adsorbed phase ('23), suggesting
Chat the inclusion of erosion rate as a selection criterion may be .ipprcpri-
33
-------
ace. On the other hand, modeling efforts i
rh=,r
"
«.
erosion rat.
terion for groundwacer protection.
Manure Sources
to critical «„ sl
s i
oe used
primary cri-
,.rtou. Uvestock »„„„.
Poultiy > Horses > Cattle - Dairy > Hogs
comparison cf soil
s in
method
-
h s-rvic.
Fertilization Rate and Timing
for - -PProprl«W election
face and subsurface fo«« O?'N a e a funcr" ^JV" SOM time
matched to crop needs. Critical ciool nH° °f.h°W W8" aPPllc«i°n is
where excessive N «te, "i ^ol !J v8^"8 °f N inc lude :h^ss f
fall. Areas where N' is a«ll2 r " 1S *Ppl led C° the surfa« in
needs of 8rOwing crops ^-63 "d *™ » ««
-e . particular plcble» to b
P. The. timing cf
-bile either
cruerlon fcr Mi-«in«
n d DanUte aPPUlSd CC ''^^ soils
<^gnat:cn cf critical atea.s fcr
« S
Hicrobial Pathogen Sources
for
Stream
-------
"0 leaky sanitary sewer systems, combined sanitary and storm sewer systems, or
domestic animal wastes washed from impervious surfaces.
Pesticide Usage Patterns
In general, this is the most important criterion for selecting critical
areas for pesticide control. Since pesticides do not occur naturally, only
use ot disposal areas are sources. Thus, the selection process of critical
areas for pesticide control should identify the usage patterns by cropland in
the watershed.
With few exceptions (e.g., toxaphene), organochlorines were phased out of
agricultural use in the U.S. from 1972 to 1976. Heptachlor is still used to
some extent for fire ant control, chlordane for termite control, and lindane
for certain forestry uses. In terms of water use impairments, however, banned
organochlorines are still of concern. They continue to persist in historically
treated agricultural soils and are, thus, available for transport and uptake
into the aquatic food web. Cotton acreage received the most organochlorine
applications during the latter I960's and 1970's making it the most likely
candidate to have banned organochlorine residue problems.
Usage information by crop can provide an important first: cut for identi-
fying initial areas associated with particular pesticides. The usage pattern
within j given legion may differ considerably from the aggregate usage sta-
ti& Lies .
Transport Considerations
Distance to Nearest Watercourse
Sediment. For sediment, distance to nearest wiicetcour.se is a major faccot
in selecting ciitical areas because extensive research has shown that not all
eroded soil teaches watercourses. The sediment delivery ratio, defined as the
ratio of sediment delivered to the estimated gross soil erosion, is inversely
teluced tr- DISWC.
Nitrogen. For nitrogen (M) contamination of groundwater, i:he distance
downward from the soil surface to the saturated zone is the distance of
interest. A short distance from the soil surface to grcundwater can mean rapid
cijnspoi't of N. This criterion should be considered in conjunction with the
soil pe. rme.ibility and organic matter content, however, because poorly drained
>ci In ^dc not ctansmit N' rapidly to yi cundwa tet , and devitrification may ie.ducr>
the N available.. Nitrogen delivery tc .surface waters, tec, decreases with
tncte.asr.ng distance. Unlike sediment, however, there is relatively little
deposition. Stabilization occurs primarily by plant uptake and denitrifi-
cation.
Transport mechanics for N compounds are,diverse because N can be trans-
formed among a variety of chemical species (e.g., N'0-3, N'H-3, N'H-6, N-2, N'0-2,
crganic-N) which have vastly different transport characteristics. Water mo-
bile forms such as NO-3 can move readily in surface and subsurface flew., One
recent study showed that 60% cf the N'0-3 loading to a stre.arn involved a
35
-------
suDsu.f.ace route (29). While. the partitioning of N is complex it
most or the N' that leaches through the plant root zone eventual^
either ground or surface waters. This reduces th« utiUcy o? the
nearest watercourse as a critical area selection criterion for
N
^ <° <>»•• for
that
-l ,
f°r 0l8Jn°PhosPhotus pesticides because of ' the
1
ln
lost ln ••"«>" "noff
mor.
si through the soil
36
-------
a concern, distance to the water table and soil permeability are key
critical area criteria for groundwater protection.
Distance To The Impaired Water Resource
Distance to the impaired water resource is another potentially important
criterion for'selecting water quality critical areas because not all material
that reaches a watercourse is delivered directly downstream. Losses take place
by deposition particularly where stream gradients decline. Nitrogen flux also
nay decrease within a watercourse due to biological uptake or denitrification,
and a significant fraction of the biologically available P may be lost from
solution due to adsorption to sediment or biological processing.
Most pathogenic bacteria die off rapidly at ambient temperature, and so
distance is a very important consideration. Because watercourse transport
distance and time are closely related, it is actually the time interval be-
tween excretion and delivery to the s-ite of the water resource impairment
which determines the amount of die-off which occurs. However, die-off is
generally more rapid in the watercourse than in fields, barnyards, or street
,sui faces (34).
The importance of distance to the impaired water resource as a critical
area selection criterion for various pesticide classes derives from the trans-
port considerations presented above. Dissipation of sediment-bound pesticides
between the nearest watercourse and the impaired water resource results from
deposition and subsequent stabilization.
Dissipation of crinzine and anilide herbicides between an upstream water-
course and the site of impairment occurs primarily by adsorption to particu-
lars and by plant uptake. Their persistence is- on the order of several
months so degradation within the watercourse is generally small,, Therefore,
this concept should not- be a majoi selection criterion for these, herbicides in
surface w.itei unless the watershed is very large. In the case of groundwater
tmpariments, on the other hand, distance to groundwatei may be important since
concentration decreases with depth in the soil profiles.
Other Selection Criteria
Present Conservation Status. Cropping or animal production operations
which already have effective soil conservation or manure management systems
should not be considered as critical sources or areas. A major problem that
arises from using this as a targeting criterion is that in voluntary NPS
projects, landowners who pieviously installed some conservation practices at
their own expense fail to qualify for cost sharing funds.
As with ether agricultural water pollutants, pte--»nt conservation status
should be carefully considered in designating criti areas for pesticide
contrsl. The most important parameter is general 1> amount of pesticide
being applied. Numerous studies show that for a ;n set of management
practices, the amount of pesticide lost by each transport route is roughly
proportional to application rate. If information on the method and rate of
application is not available, surrogate, measures such as the level of inte-
grated pest management practiced can give an indication cf how current appli-
cation rates compare, with what can be feasibly achieved.
-------
DeveI°P
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AXD SOURCES
Level Ranking Procedure
to, p .,„„
CJ"
in.sp.ccicn
"
by
of
.
38
-------
FIGURE 1. FARMLANDS CRITICAL AREA RATING FORM FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
Criterion
Score
Type £f_ Crop
Tobacco, peanuts
Corn, soybeans, cotton
Wheat
Hay and pasture land
Distance to Nearest Watercourse
Greater than 1/4 mile
1/8 to 1/4 mile
Less than 1/8 mile
Distance to Impaired Water Resource
Gieatet than 5 miles
1 to 5 miles
Less than I mi le ' •
Gioss Erosion Rate
Less> than 5 tons/aci e/yeai
5 to 10 tons/act e/year
Gieatei than 10 tons/act e/yeai
20
15
5
0
-10
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
Piesent Fereilizer Practices
Soil test recommendations with banded
or split application (nittogen) -10
Soil test recommendation 0
Exceedance of .soil t-est recommendations
(Add 1/2 point foi each pound cf applied P 0-100
in excess.)
M.iunitude cf Man me Soui ce
(A.U. = animal unit)
Less than 0.2 A.U./acre
0.2 to I.0 A.U./acre
Gieatet than 1.0 A.U./acre
0
15
30
Present Manure Managemen t Practices
Manuie nutrients measured; applied at
lecommended tate ficm .scil test; no
winter spreading -10
Manuie .ippiied .it soil t^st
iecommendations 0
Excess manure applied (Add 1/2 point for
each excess pound of manuie P applied) 0-100
Observed barnyaid, feedlct, cr nilkhouse 0- 30
runoff problem
-------
FIGURE 2. FARM LEVEL RATING FORM FOR SELECTING CRITICAL FARMS IN WATERSHEDS
WITH PESTICIDE-RELATED WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT
Factor Range of Factor
Points
Use of Suspected • At Label Recommended Rate 100
Pesticide Excess of Recommended Rate 100 + Excess %
Not Used 0
Distance to Nearest Short Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 15
Watercourse Long Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 0
Distance to Short Distance (e.g., iTkm)~]~0
Impaired Water Long Distance (e.g., i 5 km) -Q
Application Method Low Drift (e.g., ground-based0""""
with shields, recirculators,
etc. )
Ave. Drift (-e.g., ground-based
with no shields) . 5
High Drift (e.g., aerial) 15
Level of IPM High ITn
Practiced Average ' ~ 0 •
^ow 10
Pesticide Disposal Excellent ~n
Practice Average 15
Poor (e.g., dumping containers 30
into stream)
Erosion Rj te (use only High ~Q
'for sedi nu?nt -adsorbed Average. • TQ
pesticides) Low n
Runoff Rate (use only High ~~Q
for dissolved pesti- Average ^0
cides affecting sur- Low 0
face water)
Infiltration Capacity High ->n
(use only for di.s- Average. TQ
solved pesticides Low n
effecting ground-
water
-------
Modify Implemencation Plan £n_ The Basis £f_ Water Quality Monitoring
As the project proceeds, water quality monitoring or other observations
may indicate that certain subbasins are unlikely to respond to further treat-
ment, while others are largei contributors of pollutants than originally
estimated on. the basis of; land management selection criteria. Targeting should
be redirected _as appropriate. It is important, however, to maintain a clean
record to document the reasons for modifying che plan.
CARRY OUT BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Develop Contracts
Ideally, water quality contracts should address all of the potential
nonpoinc sources at a site if this can be done without cose constraints and
with landownei acceptance. However, it should be remembered that a basic
concept of che targeting approach is to 'treat efficiently the identified water
resource impairment. Thus, in many cases, it may be appropriate to develop
water quality contracts with landowners that address only those on-site
problems directly related to the water resource impairment, targeting che most
impoitant water quality concerns at the farm level.
It is also important that contract* be explicit in terms of the time
allowed for completion and the consequences of nonfulfillment. For agri-
cultural projects where water quality goals involve nutrient control, che
impo.tdnce of tying feitilizei management (soil testing and N applications) to
all land treated with other BMPs cannot be over-emphusized.
Monitor Land Treatment
At j minimum, .ill NTS implementation projects .should monitor the location
und ,'ue.il coverage of each type of control practice applied, pat ticula t Iv
those which are assisted by public funds. A land treatment program with water
quality objectives should include the following:
a. location of practices, including distance to watercourse and distance
to the impaired water resource, and a detailed project map;
b. che area covered, protected, ct otherwise benefited by each practice
(or system of practices);
c. .iggitigace. cow. i.tse by all implemented practices (.uea treated);
d. accounting of practice implementation by subbasins associated with
individual water :ualicy monitoring sites;
e. the dates on which individual control measures were contracted'and
installed; and
f. records on site visits to'evaluate location, assess progress, ci
assure maintenance.
-------
Water Quality Monitoring
The project should decide from the outset whether or not to monitor water
quality effects. A strong case can.be made that if the water resource is
valuable enough to be targeted for intensive NFS control, then verifying the
project's impact on the. water resource is worth tracking. In the 'overall
state NFS control program, at least a subset of projects should include water-
quality monitoring. Because monitoring is expensive, the monitoring program
should be designed carefully to answer clearly defined questions using an
efficient experimental design (27). It may be advantageous to monitor only
certain representative or more intensively treated subbasins rather than the
impaired resource itself, particularly if the project area is large or there
ate parts of the watershed influenced predominantly by point sources.
The decision of whether to monitor changes of water resource quality,
physical, chemical, or biological attributes should be based partially on
whether the implementation program can be expected to reduce these parameters
sufficiently for detection through monitoring. Recent work indicates that
about 40% reduction in annual mean pollutant concentrations may be required to
be statistically significant in a five-year monthly grab sample program (1 2
a, 6). Even this sensitivity requires that the program include corresponding
hyd10logic and meteorologic-related measurements with each sample.
Soc io-economic Impacts
Accelerated NFS implementation projects often have major, albeit
localized, .social and economic effects. Production practices may change to
• increase or dec tease their labor requirements, machinery usage, energy con-
sumption, fertilizer and pesticide usage, and equipment needs may change.
Urban 01 construction NFS control regulations may influence development
pattens. Restoring impaired uses of the water resource may stimulate local
economies, particul.nly where high-demand t e.cre.at icnal use.s are possible.
Finally, there may be multiple effects'ficm the increased attention and
dollars. ror example, the. TLllamook Bay, Oregon, RCWP project revitalized the
local construction industry with numerous spinoff effects. Unless an attempt
co measure, such socio-economic impacts is made, many of the benefits cf BMP
implementation programs will be unrecognized.
REPORTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Analysis £f Water Qua 1 icy Trends
A description of appropriate water quality analysis methods is beyond the
*cope or this document. However, .some general concepts are applicable when
designing NTS water quality monitoring systems and conducting subsequent
-------
NFS monitoring systems should have a clearly seated design that specifies
both the sampling protocol and the data analysis. Several approaches have
been ptesented for such application. These include:
a. before versus after (time trends)
b. above versus below (spatial trends, upstrearn-downstream)
- c. paired watershed (treatment versus control)
Information on the data requirements, assumptions, advantages, disad-
vantages and corresponding analysis methods for each experimental design are
available in NWQEP documents (27).
The 'before vs. aftei.' design generally requires the largest time, to
document changes. It is for this design that corresponding measurements • of
meceoiologic variability are essential. Otherwise, data variability is
generally so large that only very dramatic changes can be observed, and it is
impossible to attribute observed water quality changes to the implementation
activities. The 'above vs. below'- design Ls applicable only where NFS
contributing areas are isolated in one .segment of the drainage. This design
is frequently u.sed for point source monitoring or to document the existence of
NFS problems.
A paired watetshed design builds in adjustment for meteorologic and other
Coulees of variability. Thus, it can provide the most sensitive and rapid
documentation of water quality impiovements. This design should be used
whenever possible.. The limitation is in finding appropriate subbasin pairs
,md excluding imp ^.mentation from the contiol watershed.
Format and Content of Project Reports
Efficient and accurate importing of NTS implementation activities assist
piO|>tam managers and dec is ion-make is in evaluation and project coot di nation.
It provides a useful process by which project agency personnel can see how
ihaii efforts aie being coordinated with those of other agencies, and it shows
wneie progress has occurred or where problems have arisen. A prototype NTS
project outline designed for the RCWP program is shewn in Appendix A.
-------
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SUGGESTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF THE
FIRST YEAR GENERAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION GROONDVATER REPORT
I. Ptoblem Definition
A. Water Quality Problems (Surface and Ground Waters)
B. Major Pol lutants
C. Project Goals and Objectives
D. Land Use and Potential Pollutant Sources Descriptions
1. Non-Agricultural
a. Municipal waste
b. Industrial waste
c. Construction
d. Mining
«2. Landf il Is • •
f. S«?.ptic tanks
g. Silvicultural
h. Other
a.
b.
c.
Cropland
Anim.il production
Examples of data are:
1) topography
Uel"di"8
3) major crops and acreages
4) average yields of major crops
o) animal waste pioduction
6) average soil loss per acre, bv Und use
/) iHvel of iniguticn lind senefal iltigatic.n
(Foi .s«,ri:
methcd.s
Most
the National Water Qua! Uy" Evaluation" Project
Probable Pol lutant Sources
omission
inclusion of
bv
staff.)
-------
F. Ci ideal Areas
1. Map with critical areas delineated
2. Rationale for selection of critical areas
a. Background data (e.g., relative pollutant loads)
!>.- Surrogate measures
II. Water Quality Monitoring
A. Objectives
B. Strategy
1. Site locations - map
a. Description
b. Rationale for selection
2. Parameters
a. Listed by site
b. Rationale for selection
3. Data collection schedule
C. Methods
I. Sumpling
2. Analytical
D. Quali ty Control
1 . 1'iecis ion
a. Replicate samples
| b. Replicate instrumental analysis
I 2. Accuiiicy
| u. Intia lab vetification
I w b. Inttuldb veiificaticn
III. Lund Tteatment Strategy
| A. Objectives
I
{ B. Goals
i
i L. Methods
I
i I. BMP list
1 2. Othei practices ct activities"
I
i
I IV. Results and Discussion
I
| A. Land Treatment
I
1 In this section, the goals and accctnpl ishments for pi'ogtam
f implementation should be described.
-------
Program implementation could be defined in several different
ways: -contracts approved, BMPs put into place, acreage served
program expenditures and farmer participation. Activities under
other programs (Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), Great
Plains Conservation Program (GPCP), PL 566, etc.) and private
individual efforts (your best estimate) should be included and
separately identified from those under RCWP. Further, a separate
accounting should be made for activity within critical areas as
well as outside the critical areas.
Highlight water quality or conservation activities that have
occurred in the project area prior to project approval.
1.
2.
3.
Number of SCS farm plans in project area
Land adequately protected (SCS definition)
special practice or project emphasis or
private Mccompiishments within
a lea
Earlier
ments, including
accomp lish-
che project
B. Summary of First Year Wa ter. Qual i ty Data (Baseline)
1. By monitoring site
2. Emphasis on charts, figute.s and r.ible\s
C. Data Analysis
The i equipment for this section is to present sufficient
data no determine changes in water quality trends. It is, not
necessary to present all the water quality data 'collected for
«veiy parameter consideied (although such data can be included in
an appendix). Present changes or summaries of changes in chose
Pdi.iraeiv.rs that best represent ttends in water quality for your
particular project, emphasizing the major water quality impair-
ments in the project area. If is acceptable to exclude chose
parameters which do not relate directly to problems specific to
It is difficult to select a single or even several
in combination which will perfectly characterize changes
quality. Because of variations in water impairments
rounding conditions, no specific set of measures can be
for eveiy project area. It is, however, important that
cal analyses (such as cci u> Mr i ens, ti end analyse, ,
analyses, etc.) be incoipcrated wherever possible in d
manes and interpretations. Water quality trend report!
be presented on an individual sampling station basis
necessary to account for the variation within each proj
in the source and extent of the impairment as well as
and extent of program treatment.
measures
in water
and .sur-
r squired
scat isti -
c- H113 s.-> i o n
ata sum-
ng should
This is
ect area
the type
-------
D. Water Qu'alicy Progress
This section
chei r r e 1 at ions hi p
cultural factors and
is to explain changes in water quality and
to changes in: BMP implementation, agri-
nonagriculcural factors. Attributing
changes in water quality to these three separate sources will
program effects from other effects and thereby
evaluation of RCWP.
help isolate
assist in the
Water quality changes related to the type of practice, the
extent of the practice installed and the location of the practice
application should be evaluated. It is here that the station-by-
station information will be most useful. Water quality trends at
each station can be linked to changes in al1 conservation prac-
tice applications occuriing above that location. Practices
applied under RCWP, other programs, and on private initiative
should be considered.
In addition to effect's from conservation application,
changes in .other factors may also be responsible for water
quality changes. Use the background information presented in
Section I us a checklist when considering the possible contribu-
tion of othei agricultural and nonagricul tura I factors in-
fluencing w.-iter quality trends. After identifying the changes in
watei quality related to RCWP, it may be possible to make
inferences concerning the role of practices applied under RCWP.
General Assessment
The purpose, of this section i.s to give an assessment of the
project In achieving its w.-itet quality objectives'. This assess-
ment should be c-rgunizea as an appraisal of the' strengths and
weaknesses of each project in four program areas: funding, parti-
cipation, practice Application and water quality -cnitoring.
Assessment should include the success or failure " in achieving
program goals. Examples cculd include the following:
I. Cost share levels offered
2. Contracts signed in the critical areas
3. Water quality practice implementation
•4. Water quality monitciing
5. Informational and t-duc.iLi onal .assistance
Recommendations
This section should present recommendations of changes that
you plan to make in the operation of your project as a result cf
your evaluation. List and justify any recommendations for changes
which should occur in the RCWP program.
References
-------
8.
REFERENCES
i. Smolen M.D.., R. P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
PM« HuJ|e 1985a Rural CUan Water Pro&"m> Status Report on the
CM&E Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Project
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department..North Carolina
State University. 122p.
2. Jamieson, C.A., J. Spooner, S.A. Dressing, R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, and
h VM^O" 85b' RUVal CUan Water Pr°S"ni, Status Report on
the CM&E Projects. Supplemental Report: Analysis Methods. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University. 71p.
3. NWQEP and Harbridge House, Inc. An Evaluation of the Management and
Water Quality Aspects of the Model Implementation Program. Biologi-
cal and Agricultural Engineering Department. North Carolina State
Univeisity, Raleigh, NC; 1983.
4. Maas R.P., A. Patchak, M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner. Cost-Effectiveness of
Nonpoint Sources Contiols in. the Tillamook Bay, Oregon, Watershed.
In: Lake and Reservoir Management: Influences of Nonpoint Source
Pollutants and Acid Pieeipitation. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
North American Lake Management Society International Symposium.
November 3-8, 1986, Portland, Oiegon. ?
5- Smoten M.D R P. Maas, J. .Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
F.J. Humenik. 1986a. NWQEP 1985 Annual Report, Status of
Jjiirr l'alvNfpS»P,t0j""-' Biolo*ical and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University. 66pp.
6. Smol,n M.D. R.P. Maas, J. Spoon* rt C .A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
F.J Humenik. 1986b. NWQEP 1985 Annual Repoit, Appendix: Technical
Analysis of Foui Agricultural Water Quality Projects. Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Dep.it tment, North Carolina State Uni-
versrty. "Opp.
7- Spikier, D.L. 1984. Ptiority Watersheds for the Potential Release of
Agricultural Non-Point Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Maryland State
boil Conservation Committee, Maryland Department of Agriculture
Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1979. Vol.9, No.38, Septembet 22, 1979.
9. Davenport, I.E., 1984. Illinois' Process to Ide.ntifv, Scr^n, and
., ,
Ruial Wat,:r Resoui Cf. and Lake R^habi I i ta t icn Pi.jeci,.
In: Options for Reaching Watei Quality Coals, American Watei
Resouices Association, pp. 121-127.
10. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 120. Nonpoint Source Pollution
Abatement Program, July 1, 1986.
11. U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, May, 1985. Selected State
and Territory Groundwatei Classification Systems.
-------
12.
13.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Xnisei, '.•.'.G. and G.R. Foster,
Best Management Practices.
1980. CREAMS: A System for Evaluating
Soil Conservation Society of America.
Beasley, D.B. and L.F. Huggins, 1980. ANSWERS (Areal Nonpoint Source
Watershed Environment Response Simulation) User's Manual.
Agricultural Engineering Department, Purdue University. 55pp.
Young, R.A, C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1985.
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model, A Large Watershed
Analysis Tool, A Guide to Model Users. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the USDA.
Reckhow, K.H., J.B. Butcher, and C.M. Martin. 1985. Pollutant Runoff
Models: Selection and Use in Decision Making. Water Resources
Bulletin 21(6):185-195.
USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1.
Water Planning Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
NRCD. 1985. Toxic Substances in Surface Waters of the B. Everett Jordan
Ldke Watershed. Report 85-02. NC NRCD, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
Novotny, V., T.C. Daniel and R.M. Motschall. 1982. Development of a
Methodology for Identifying Ctitical Areas in Agricultural
Watersheds. Technical Completion Report A-082-WIS. University of
Wisccnsi n.
19.
20.
Rrfu.sh, D.L. .md J.D. Schreiber. 1981. Sediment and Nutrient
Efficiency of Small Flood Detention Reservoir. Transactions of
17:898-908.
Trap
ASAE
XWQEP. 1982a. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpolnt
Source Control: .1. Animal Waste. Biological and Agricultural
Engineet ing Dep.it rme.nt, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
-I. NWQEP. I982b. Best Management Practice..-, for Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Control: II. Commercial Fertilizer. Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC. 55pp.
22. XWQEP.^ I982c. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Ncnpoint Scuice
Control: III. Sediment. Biological ,md Agricultural Engineering
De.p.n tment, North Carolina Scute University, R.ile.igh, :;c. -S*pp.
23. Maa.s, R.P., S.A. Dressing, J. Spooner, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik.
198-i. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Sources:
IV. Pesticides. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC. 83pp.
24. Haith, D.A. and R.C. Loehr, Eds. 1979. Effectiveness of Soil and Water-
Conservation Practices for Pollution Control. EPA-600/3-79-1 06 .
•i7-pp.
50
-------
-2. ' Loehr, R.C., D.A. Haith, M.F. Walter, and C.S. Martin, Eds. Best
Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture. Proceedings
of the 1978 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference; Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 740pp.
26. Lake, J. and J.B. Morrison. 1977. Environmental Impact on Land Use on
Water Quality— Final Report on the Black Creek Project (Technical
Report). EPA-905/9-77-007-B.
27. Spooner J. , R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik.
1^85. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water Quality
Improvements from Agricultural NPS Control Programs." EPA 440/5-85-
001 . pp30-34.
28. Motschell R M. , G.D. Bukemzer, T.C. Daniel. 1984. "Regression Equations
for Predicting Available Phosphorus and Potassium in Soil Receiving
Barnyard Discharges." Transactions of the ASAE. 27(3) :' 747-750. '
29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. "Conest-oga Headwaters Rural Clean Water
Project, 1984 Annual Progress Report. The Pennsylvania Rural Clean
Water Program Coordinating Committee.
30. Wauchope, R.D. 1978. "The Pesticide Content of Surface Water Draining
" of Environmental
31. Liu, L.C. and H.R. Cibes-Viade. 1970. "Leaching of Atrazine, Ametrivne
0 11'" J°Urnal °f The "«
32' Orvin' s* Lowry' and JR- Leavut-
33. Baker JL,, JM. Laflen. andR.O. Hartwig. 1982. "Effects of Corn
Residue and Heroicide Placement on Herbicide Runoff Losses."
Transactions of the ASAE 25(2): 340-343.
34. Moore, J.A., M.E. Grismen, S.R. Brane, and J.R. Miner. 1982. "Evaluatine
Dairy Waste Management Systems' Influence on Fecal Colifom
Concentration in Runoff." Agricultural Experiment Station. Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Station Bulletin 658. lOlp.
35.. Newell A.D., L.C. Stanley, M.D. Smolen, and R.P. Maas. 1986. "Overview
and Eva uation of Section 1 03a Great Lakes D«mon.s-trati0n Programs "
National Uater Quality Evaluation Project. Nor-th Carolina' State
Lniversity, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Raleigh, NC
oop . °
51
-------
------- |