United States ;
Environmental Protection
Agency 4 I
Office of Water
(WH-556) :l '-,
January 1989
SHI/S> 31006
Nonpoint Sourcis
Agenda for the Future
I
NONPOINT SOUR
LUTIONS
-------
-------
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
INGTON. D.C.
JAN ! S 1888
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
°*°
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Friends:
• i
As you know, the United States has made dramatic progress in
improving the quality of our surface waters during the past two
decades. Yet much remains to be done before we can achieve the
ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act ~ fishable and swimmable
waters.
One important area of unfinished business is non-point source
pollution. This report sets forth EPA's commitment to a national
non-point source program during the next five years*. Reflecting
significant public input, it is an agenda of necessary actions aimed
at solving the problem of non-point source pollution of our rivers,
lakes, and streams.
I believe this agenda is an effective framework for progress.
And I commend it to all who are working to improve the quality of
our surface waters. :
Lee M. Thomas
-------
In 1987, Congress shifted from fifteen years of nonpoint
source (NFS) pollution planning and problem identification
(1972-1987) to a new National NFS action program. In this,
!ts third mandate for us to do something about NFS pollution,
Congress enacted a statute that:
+ Requires States to assess their waters, and to
-•^develop NFS management programs to control and
reduce specific nonpoint sources of pollution; and
+ Authorizes Federal loan and grant funds to help
States and urrits of local government, conservation
districts, individuals, farmers, foresters, and
businesses to manage nonpoint sources of pollution.
The Act placed special emphasis on NFS by moving the
provision from Title II (Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works) into Title III (Standards and Enforcement), and by
strengthening the basic Declaration of Goals and Policy in
§101 (a) of the Clean Water Act:
It is the national policy that programs for the
control of nonpoint sources of pollution be
developed and implemented in an expeditious
manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be
met through the control of both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution.
The law and its legislative history expressed the intent that
Federal and State governments should develop new
institutional arrangements and come up with a better division
of roles and responsibilities to get the job dons. The
language of the amendments also indicates that Congress
placed high priority on new and open decision-making
proeesses, with the idea that public consensus-building will
lead to creative, practical, and productive approaches to the
NFS pollution problem.
Consistent with §319, States are completing their
assessments and management programs, which, after EPA
review and approval, will serve as the cornerstone of the
National NFS program in the years to come. This National
NFS Agenda forms the framework for the National NFS
program over the next five years, and will be supplemented
by annual EPA work programs that provide additional,
detailed information.
The Water
Quality Act of
1987
"The nation behaves well If It
treats the natural resources
as assets which It must turn
over to the next generation
increased and not Impaired In
value."
Theodore Roosevelt
EPA
-------
The NFS
Problem:
Large, Complex,
and Dynamic
First, let's examine the problem. In our most recent National
Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress (1986), NFS
represented the dominant fraction of the Nation's remaining
surface water pollution problem. The pie charts below
portray the relative impact of the nonpoint source pollution
problem in impaired waters.1
"Nonpoint source controls
are everyone's responsibility •
Federal, State, and local
governments, local groups
and organizations, as well as
individual farmers, foresters,
mining and construction
companies."
James L. Oberstar
US Congressman
EPA Journal,
May 1986
©EPA 2
ESTUARIES
45%
22%
H.AKES
65%
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Natural Causes
Industrial Point
Sources
Other/Unknown
i—| Municipal
Point Sources
,3 Nonpoint Sources
Nonpoint "sources such as fertilizers and pesticides, poorly
sited and maintained septic systems, acid deposition, and
highway deicing compounds, also affect the quality of
ground water.
i
The NFS problem is not just large. It is also complex,
involving a large number of people and important sectors of
our economy. The pie charts below show the relative
amount of assessed waters that are impacted by various
categories of NFS pollution.
RIVERS LAICES
765,000 M«M 8.1 Million Acres
Hydromodifeaticm
Agriculture
Other
Resource^
Extraction
Silviculture
Urban Runoff
Hydro mod
4%
Agriculture
Urban
Runoff
Other-
Land Disposal!
Land Disposal 1%ConstrucHon"4l^ Silviculture 1%
instruction 2% Ftosource Extraction i %
REFERENCE: Anwrtcr* CMen Wur Th« SCUM' EvmluMon at Prognwi. 190S
1. We do not have comparable data for wetlands impacted by NFS
pollution.
-------
Finally, the NPS problem is not just large an? Complex. It is
also highly variable in both space and time. The map below
illustrates the regional differences in land use patterns.
This map is just a snapshot in time; actual land use patterns
keep changing over time. For example, while the 1970s
were boom years for agriculture, we have seen a general
reduction in cropped acreage in the 1980s. Production in
the forest sector remains relatively level, but appears to be
shifting from the Pacific to the Southeast. The current
supply of range and pasture lands appears to be adequate.
Wetlands are likely to experience significant additional
extirpation from agricultural conversion and urban
development. In the mining sector, most coal has
traditionally been mined from underground in Appalachia;
the recent trend is a shift to surface mining production in
Wyoming and Montana. Finally, the Nation's coastal
population continues to climb and predictors forecast that
75% of us will live within 50 miles of a coast by 1990. This
will probably lead to more development, and increased
stress on wetlands and sensitive coastal water ecosystems.
In short, we need to be forward thinking about the NPS
problem because, unlike point sources that are fixed in one
place, the NPS problem shifts beneath us constantly.
-------
Looking Ahead:
Different
Problems,
Different
Approaches
"Nonpolnt source control
demands political or
organizational savvy of a very
high order, plus the courage
to persist and not just throw
up our hands because the
problem Is so large."
Lee M. Thomas,
EPA Administrator
Congress gave the NFS program a four-year lease on life.
The question is: how can we tackle this complex problem
and achieve real, concrete results in this timeframe?
We need to recognize from the start that NFS problems
differ greatly from point source problems, so we (the
Federal, State, and local governments) must devise new
"solutions and avoid the temptation to lorce-fit the old ones
that worked so well in the past. For example:
+ Different Problems: Point sources are visible, discrete,
and easily identifiable. By contrast, nonpoint sources are
diffuse and often hard to trace to their sources through
traditional methods.
+ Different Political Science: Point sources are end-of-
the-pipe discharged that are easy to regulate with Federal
and State permits. NFS problems, on the other hand, are
the direct result of our past and present land use habits,
so many of the solutions lie in finding more efficient,
rational ways to manage the land. Since direct Federal
regulation is not a major factor in local land use
decisions, State and local governments often need new
institutional arrangements to deal effectively with NFS
pollution.
+ Different Social Science: The traditional regulatory
solution is "top-down": Federal and State governments
impose specific requirements on cities and industries.
Since NFS pollution is the result of land use, the
solutions affect the public at large, and tend to be "bottom
up." This requires an informed public and broad-based
coalitions to generate support for local or State action.
• Different Science: Most NFS pollution to surface water
stems from storm events, contrasting sharply with the
relatively'even, continuous discharges we encounter in
the point source program. Moreover, the NFS program
needs water quality standards that rely on biological
criteria, and the monitoring program needs different
emphases, including biological monitoring and storm
event sampling.
This Agenda tries to address these differences, find ways to
tackle them, and achieve concrete results in the timeframe
the WQA set out.
-------
The WQA gives States and local goverrm its the front line
responsibilities for assessing their waters and devising
appropriate solutions to their NPS problems. This Agenda
sets forth a National NPS program aimed at supporting and
reinforcing States and local governments at these
endeavors. The overall goal of this Agenda is:
To protect and restore designated uses of the
Nation's waters by providing strong leadership for the
-National nonpoint source program, and by helping
States and local governments overcome barriers to
successful implementation of NPS measures.
The barriers to successful implementation can be viewed as
a series of hurdles that States and local governments must
jump to get NPS measures in place, including:
4 Convince people (individually and collectively) that
there is a problem and a need for action;
+ Find successful solutions-political, educational,
institutional, regulatory, and/or technical; and
*
+ Provide financial incentives to correct the problem, or
remove financial incentives to pollute.
^Perhaps the biggest hurdle of all is that the words "nonpoint
source" are linked with the sensitive words "land use," the
control of which lies largely in the purview of States and local
governments. EPA's role is to support and reinforce States
and local governments as they make difficult decisions that
affect water quality, to improve their knowledge of sound
land use practices, and to provide the scientific basis on
which they make these public policy decisions.
This Agenda is oriented to surface waters. Surface and
ground waters, however, are inter-related, and efforts to
manage the two should also be closely linked. In 1984, EPA
issued a Ground-Water Protection strategy, followed by a
proposed Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water Strategy
(1987). These strategies, as well as State Wellhead
Protection programs, will be implemented as companions to
this Agenda to forge an integrated approach to solve the
Nation's complex NPS problems. States may also use their
State Clean Water Strategies (SCWSs) to more fully
integrate their surface and ground-water programs.
The National *
NPS Agenda
"The nature of our
constitutional system
encourages a healthy
diversity In the public policies
adopted by the people of
several States according to
their own conditions, needs,
and desires. In the search for
enlightened public policy,
Individual States and
communities are free to
experiment with a variety of
approaches to public Issues."
Ronald Reagan, President
EO 12612 on Federalism
October 26, 1987
EPA
-------
fnr EPA regards State NPS Management Programs as the
lui cornerstone of the National NPS program. To assist and
NPS Action support States and local governments as they upgrade and
implement their programs, this Agenda proposes that EPA
will channel its energy, resources, and activities into actions
designed to overcome the barriers noted above:
^Public -Awareness: - HHelp =States --and =tocal
governments raise the level of public awareness
about how NPS pollution affects water quality and
their daily lives. Provide the information and tools
they need to educate and inform people about the
causes and the seriousness of NPS pollution.
•
+ Successful Solutions: Provide States and local
governments with information ori practical, feasible
solutions to prevent or control NPS pollution-HQw.
Solutions can take many forms: new institutional
arrangements, best management practices, and/or
regulatory or nonregulatory programs.
4 Financial Forces and Incentives: Examine the
economic forces that drive behavior causing the
NPS problem. Help devise ways to mitigate those
forces. Provide financial incentives that encourage
people to install pollution control practices or to
change land management practices.
• Regulatory Programs: Help States and local
governments improve their capability to develop their
own regulatory solutions. Assist States in taking
advantage of Federal regulatory programs by
networking existing EPA authorities in a way that
adds up to support rather than fragmentation at the
State and local levels.
• Good Science: Develop the "tools" States and local
governments need to establish sound water
quality-based programs for NPS, particularly water
quality criteria and monitoring protocols that are
specifically designed to evaluate NPS controls.
Improve geographic management skills, and explore
the potential for use of the Ecoregion approach.
Each of these themes is described below, including the
activities to implement each over the next five-years.
-------
The first barrier we face is lack of knowledge and
understanding. As States begin implementing their State
NPS Management Programs, they will have to assist,
encourage, or require individuals and entities to adopt
specific BMPs and measures to prevent or control NPS
pollution. In order to persuade the public that it needs to act,
people need to be convinced that there is an extremely
important connection between individual activities and land
use practices and local water quality. The public also needs
to believe that taking certain actions will, in fact, make a
difference in water quality. "The key is to convince people
that they "own the problem," and that their individual and
collective efforts can make a difference.
Public awareness does not just happen. It requires
conscious effort. To help raise society's level of awareness
about NPS pollution, EPA will work with States and local
governments to improve their capacity to convince the public
of the need to change its behavior, and to encourage and
reward good stewardship of our water resources. This
requires communicating with citizens in ways they
understand and recognize, targeting the audience carefully,
conveying the message through sources that are perceived
as "reliable," establishing on-the-ground contacts and
interactions, and getting people interested and actively
involved.
EPA will initiate a public awareness program at the National
level to supply States and local governments with general
information and tools they can use to reach the public-at-
large. The materials will be designed to help people
recognize that there is a problem, understand its
seriousness, and have some fairly clear idea of what is
causing it. EPA will seek the support and assistance of
other Federal agencies in preparing and distributing
materials, especially USDA, DOT, DOI/FWS and USGS,
NOAA, FERC, and FEMA.
There is a relatively limited market for "top-down"
information, however, so EPA will also support and assist
State and local "bottom-up" efforts to develop public
awareness programs that give people "specifics" that
characterize their immediate surroundir-s. In devising such
public awareness campaigns, we will:
Public
Awareness:
The Key to
Action
-------
What is the
problem?
0 Informatfon/Edueatfoa
[?J Targeting
= CONSENSUS
+• Explain the NPS problem in ways that help people
appreciate their water resources, and realize that
NPS pollution prevents their use and enjoyment of
the water;
* Communicate the problem graphically wherever
possible through GISs, aerial photography, and
maps;
• Use sophisticated, state-of-the-art marketing
techniques that include full, effective use of the
media (brochures, videos, public service
announcements, and interactive videos);
•* Use credible sources of reliable information to reach
different, grass-roots constituencies, such as major
trade associations, State management agencies or
their associations, industry, State and local
organizations and their district offices, and
e n vi ron me ntal g roups; and
i
*• Rely on "public affairs" experts wherever possible.
But raising awareness alone is not sufficient to galvanize
support for action. Based on our experiences in the
Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, Land and W?ter 201 (a
united effort by the 201 counties in the States in the
Tennessee Valley region, USDA, EPA, and TVA), the Clean
Lakes Program, and the National Estuary Program (NEP),
we are learning that it is much easier to build public
consensus for action when people feel they are protecting a
particular water resource-especially one that is near and
dear to their hearts. These same experiences are also
showing us that grass-roots support, local coalitions, and
participatory processes are vital to motivate States and local
governments.
To help build consensus and mobilise action, EPA will
encourage States and local governments to adopt targeted,
watershed management approaches that provide a common
basis for citizen support and action and promote their active
involvement. As noted above, our major successes to-date
are linked with watershed controls for well-known aquatic
resources where damage is already evident to man. In the
NPS program, we will encourage expanded application of
8
-------
the targeting and watershed management concepts to purely
local" water resources. We will also use these experiences
to learn how to spark people to act in a preventive as well as
a reactive mode. One form of targeting that EPA strongly
endorses is State Clean Water Strategies (SCWSs), which
provide a sound basis for comprehensive watershed
planning and consensus building.
While raising public awareness is vital to our efforts, it is a
"short-term" solution to a long-term problem": In the long
term, therefore, we need to do a better job of educating
people from,an early age. This will require a collaborative
Federal, State, and local effort to produce high-quality
educational materials and to train teachers. EPA will work
with the States and other interested parties to inventory the
range of education programs currently available, and to
identify the need for new and/or improved materials and
training programs/ EPA will also establish liaison with the
Department of Education, and will work with States to
develop similar contacts.
-------
PUBLIC AWARENESS
Develop detailed workplan for public
awareness program.including materials
and media training (OW/OEA/States/
Federal Agencies);
Implement workplan
f'Y FY FY FY FY
09 90 91 92 93
. -SEteer -^ .;-
Identify/use other Federal data bases/
mapping capabilities/programs/resources/
delivery mechanisms (DOI/FWS and
USGS, NOAA, FERC. FEMA, USDA).
Develop materials that describe the NPS
problem in everyday language (brochures,
pamphlets) or depict the problem
graphically (maps/GISs/aerial
photography) (OW/OPTS/OPPE/OEA)
Enlist other Federal programs/resources/
delivery systems to communicate with
specific audiences (USDA/DOT/FEMA/
FERC/BLM) (OW/OFA/OPPE)
Develop generic/specific public service
announcements/brochures that describe
the NPS problems to laymen and what
people can do (runoff, land use, mining,
etc.) (OW/OEA)
Enlist cooperation of private sector parties
that are involved in activities that
prevent/contribute to NPS (OW/private
sector)
Investigate existing children's education
programs; Develop workplan to
produce/upgrade materials as needed
(OW/States);
Implement workplan to get K-12 curricula in
place
Issue handbooks/brochures on:
• Public awareness techniques
• Targating/watershed management
techniques
• Participatory processes (Boy Scouts/4-H/
kitchen meetings, etc.)
• Use of filter strips (OPPE/OEA)
10
-------
Once the public understands the need to act, thera are
several more barriers to overcome in our quest for a
successful solution. For example: What .is the best
technological, educational, or regulatory "fix" for a particular
problem? Is there political willingness to deal with the
problem? Are the right institutional and financial
arrangements in place to make and carry out decisions?
Once installed, how will we know whether the solution is
actually working? How can we ensure that adverse impacts
to other resources (e.g. ground water) will not occur?
There are a myriad of success stories waiting to be told.
The key is to share these experiences among States and
local governments, and let them build upon ideas that have
succeeded elsewhere. Moreover, States, local governments
and private parties constantly come up with new, innovative
solutions. We need fast, reliable ways to communicate all of
this information to a wide audience of users: States, local
governments, private citizens, trade associations, and
environmental groups.
To support State and local efforts to tackle their particular
NPS problems quickly and efficiently, EPA will actively solicit
the help of others (both public and private) to set up a variety
of information networks to provide States and local
governments with useful, up-to-date information on practical,
feasible solutions to existing problems and ways to prevent
future problems. For example, EPA will:
+ Work with the public and private sectors to create
new clearinghouses or information catalogs (or to
build upon and enlarge existing ones such as the
Small Flows Clearinghouse), and actively market the
availability of this information to a wide range of
potential users. Most likely topics include information
that will help States and local governments:
- Undertake successful
campaigns;
public awareness
Build viable institutional and financial
arrangements, and overcdme political reticence;
Select and apply successful technical solutions
(best management practices), and regulatory or
voluntary schemes (Statewide or local);
Successful
Solutions:
Old and New
SUCCESS^
11
-------
What can States and
local governments do?
5J Build Institutions
2f Install BMPs
0 Use Land Conservancy
|Vf Enact
Laws/Ordinances
= SOLUTIONS
EPA
- Choose the best delivery system to reach the
particular audience, with special emphasis on
recruiting the private sector to handle
"preventive" measures; and
_ - Find useful information on land use practices to
~ " meet specific local needs, and on land"
conservancy programs and techniques.
* Work with the public and private sectors to package
and deliver high-quality technology transfer and
training workshops to help States and local
governments:
- Begin credible local citizen monitoring programs
to promote local involvement, help identify NPS
problems, monitor compliance, and evaluate the
ongoing effectiveness of solutions;
- Choose the right technical, educational, and
regulatory solutions for different kinds of NPS
problems (stormwater, construction runoff, soil
erosion, etc.) with an eye to reducing the
potential for tradeoffs to ground water (and other
media);
- Select and use sound targeting and watershed
management methodologies, including sharing
State experiences with the NEP and SCWSs (as
they become available); and i
- Expand use of state-of-the-art decision aids,
such as EXPERT systems, to design
site-specific NPS controls, such as runoff from
highways and logging roads.
i
•* Use the latest, up-to-date communication techniques
to get new ideas into circulation fast, including
brochures, fact sheets, and computer bulletin
boards. Again, we will make extensive use of
public/private partnerships to deliver information
rapidly and cost-effectively to many different users.
In general, EPA will not be developing "new" BMPs, but'will
direct its energies and resources to sharing information and
12
-------
experiences with existing practices and/or new, creative
approaches developed by others. There are, however, two
areas in which EPA will maintain a special interest. The first
is use of wetlands to provide an NPS control function.
Wetlands have been shown to prevent sediment, nutrients,
metals, and organic contaminants from entering adjacent
waterbodies. While we need to continue monitoring and
conducting research to ensure that wetlands are not
adversely affected when they are used to buffer sources of
•pollution,-it appears that *jse x?f existing *and artificially-
created wetlands can be a cost-effective means of achieving
NPS control.
•
in addition, EPA--believes there are vast, untapped
opportunities for States and local governments to combine
water quality objectives with- other needs of society, such as
flood protection, wellhead protection for ground-water
supplies, recreation, public access, and habitat protection.
Land conservancy is an extremely effective way to meet
multiple objectives, and is rapidly emerging as a preferred
NPS BMP in many situations. Many States, including the
Chesapeake Bay States, Florida, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, and Rhode Island, are moving ahead with their
own land conservancy efforts because they have discovered
that you do not have to go very far up the streambank to see
results in water quality.
EPA will join forces with other public and private
organizations that actively promote land conservancy,
including techniques such as greenways, river corridor
management, conservation easements, sale/transfer of
development rights, and use of natural and artificial wetlands
to achieve water quality objectives. While the responsibility
for this kind of planning clearly belongs to States and local
governments, we will inventory existing land conservancy
programs, and will actively market the availability of this
information, as well as the merits of securing public access
that serves several different purposes-one of which is to
preserve designated water uses. This is a major new
initiative. It represents a significant expansion of EPA's
current emphasis on USDA's Conservation Reserve
Program, which is intended to remove certain fragile
cropland from production and provide water quality benefits.
13
-------
SUCCESSFUL SOLUTIONS
Upgrade State NFS Management
Programs to include the most effective
BMPs, regulatory/nonregulatory solutions
for particular problems (OW/OWRS) -
FY
89
FY
90
FY
91
FY
92
FY
93
Develop detailed workplan for national tech
transfer program (OW/States/OFA)
Publish useful handbooks:
• Work with ULl/ELI to develop case
studies on comprehensive planning for
wetlands (OW/OWP)
• Complete urban decision-makers
guide (OW/OWRS)
Explore opportunities to highlight NPS
issues via cooperative marketing schemes
for private sector products (example:
homeowners' soil testing kit) (OW/OPPE)
F
Evaluate DOT implementation of EXPERT
systems;
evaluate broader use of this and other
decision aids by Federal/State agencies
(OW/OFA)
Investigate public/private cooperative
arrangements to establish clearinghouse(s)
or to develop catalogs;
Implement clearinghouse(s) and market
availability (OW/OFA/OPPE/Federal
Agencies/private sector)
Training/tech transfer workshops (OW):
«BMP matrix project (OW/OPPE)
• Citizen monitoring (OW/OWRS, OMEP)
• Federal consistency(OW/OWRS,OMEP)
• Targeting (OW/OPPE)
• State-of-the-atf decision aids (OW/OFA)
• NPDES permitting (feedlot/general
permits) (OW/OWEP)
Inventory land conservancy techniques;
Market use of land conservancy concepts;
help interested States/locals
(OW/OPPE/OFA/States/private sector)
Share information on what worked/did not
work in the 'national laboratory"
experiences, i.e. Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes. NEPs, RCWPs. CLs, NCW pilots,
etc. (OW)
Study surface/ground water interrelation-
ships; assess effect of surface water BMPs
on ground water (OW/OWRS. OGWP)
14
-------
Ironically, it is explicit financial incentives to manage land in
a specific way that often cause the NFS problem in the first
place. Once NPS pollution occurs, it usually takes financial
incentives to correct it. Our objective is to deal with both
sides of the equation: how to remove or reduce the financial
incentives to pollute in the first place; and how to provide
financial incentives to prevent/correct existing problems.
First, let's examine the financial incentives to correct existing
-problems. -Although we do not have exact figures on the
"cost" to control NPS pollution nationwide, we know
intuitively that the amount is quite large. We also know that,
given the current financial picture, States and local
governments will have to fund NPS measures with a mosaic
of sources, including a "mix" of Federal, State and local
revenues. Moreover, since many of the solutions to NPS
pollution are intimately related to land use practices, direct
Federal financial assistance may often be inappropriate.
Now, let's look at the Federal funding picture. The "new"
NPS program was born in the midst of a serious Federal
deficit. It is one of several important new programs, many of
which have been denied funding until problems of the
National deficit can be resolved. In spite of this, however,
Congress did several things to provide funding for the
fledgling NPS program, including:
+ Grants to States under §319(h) of the CWA using
§205(j)(5) funds, which may be used for either
program development or implementation.
+ §201 monies, which represent a potentially large
source of funding. Via the provisions of
§201(g)(1)(B), a State may opt to use up to 20% of
its Construction Grant allotment for any NPS
purposes for which a grant may be made under
§319. Some States are beginning to take advantage
of this funding source, and EPA will encourage
others to use these funds for NPS measures.
4 State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which are being
capitalized by EPA grants under §601. The law
specifically designates implementation of a NPS
Management Program as one of two non-sewage
treatment purposes for which SRF funds may be
used (estuary plan development and implementation
Financial Forces
and Incentives:
The Money
Connection
EPA
15
-------
How can we
payforit?
is the other), and says that States may make loans
or provide other financial assistance to both
governmental and private entities. Again, use of
SRF funds for NPS purposes is a State
determination. EPA will make 'States fully aware of
. this option as they create their SRFs, and will work
with States and local governments to come up with
innovative ways to package/NPS projects so they
can qualify for SRF loans or other assistance.
In addition to EPA funds, other Federal agencies make
grants and engage in activities that are closely linked with
NPS control/prevention. Good coordination among EPA, the
States, and Federal agencies at the State and local levels
can lead to many cooperative "joint" projects to support NPS
prevention and control efforts (State/State, Federal/State,
Federal/Federal). EPA will help find ways to match
State/local needs with those of other Federal agencies. This
may take the form of Interagency Agreements between EPA
and other Federal agencies, or simply networking funding
sources and program support to accomplish mutually
beneficial objectives.
Realistically, however, Federal funds will cover only a small
fraction of the work that needs to be done. Thus much of the
responsibility for providing financial incentives will fall on the
shoulders of States and local governments. Many States
and local governments have already taken the lead in finding
self-sufficient forms of financing, and have discovered
creative new ways to fund NPS controls, as well as clever
ways to tap into traditional revenue sources. Examples
include cost share programs, taxes (property/sales/
cigarette), user fees, utility districts (stormwater/septic
system maintenance), permit/development fees, and many
others. To assist and support State and local efforts to
devise their own financing mechanisms, EPA will establish a
central clearinghouse for innovative Slate and local funding'
ideas, which will cover NPS as well as other water programs
such as wetlands, ground water, and estuaries. This
clearinghouse will collect and distribute information on ail
kinds of creative financing schemes, with special emphasis
on: revenue sources based upon the principle that
beneficiaries/polluters pay; and financing techniques that
spur private investment in pollution abatement. .
16
-------
Finally, States and local governments should not overlook
numerous opportunities to harness "free services" to
accomplish tasks that do not require a long-term
commitment. Many organizations are seeking opportunities
to make a contribution, such as Boy Scouts, four-wheel drive
groups, white water canoeists, 4-Hs, historical
preservationists, and many, many others. In addition, States
and counties have heavy equipment and labor that can be
channeled to NPS projects for short time periods. The
notion Is that, once a need is identified, a "fix" may not be far
away and may be "free" for the asking.
Financial incentives alone are not the answer. We need to
pay more attention to the public policy decisions that
produce NPS pollution as a by-product. In a major new
effort, EPA will step up activities designed to influence
Federal public policy decisions that drive the kinds of
behavior that cause NPS pollution. In the immediate future,
the 1990 Farm Bill represents a prime opportunity for EPA to
engage in the debate over the Nation's future agricultural
policy, and to work with USDA to remove (or at least reduce)
the government incentives that, encourage continuous
cropping practices and farming of marginal* (and other) lands
that produce NPS pollution yet enable the production of food
and fiber sufficient to meet the needs of the population.
©ther potential targets of opportunity include influencing
similar public-.policy decisions at IRS, DOT, FEMA,
DOI/Bureau of Reclamation, and DOI/Bureau of Land
Management.
EPA
17
-------
ECONOMIC FORCES
AND INCENTIVES
Upgrade financial element in State
Management Programs (OW/OWRS,
OMPC)
*
Support clearinghouse on innovative
'"State/local funding {OW/OMPC)
Provide information/technical assistance
on innovative/alternative funding sources
(OW/OMPC)
Complete overview report on how to
reduce economic incentives to pollute (in
other than agriculture) (OPPE)
Shape Federal public policy to reduce
incentives to pollute (DOT.BLM, FEMA.
IRS, etc.) (OPPE/OPTS/OW/OFA)
Investigate mechanisms for funding State
NPS programs (OPPE)
Make §319(h) grants with §205(j)(5) funds
(OW/OWRS/Regions)
Evaluate outcome of demonstration
projects tor PS/NPS WLA trading;
Expand, as appropriate (OW/OPPE)
Encourage States to:
• Make §201(g)(1 )(B) grants for NPS from
the 20% Governors Discretionary funds
• Establish/use SRFs for NPS
(OW/OMPC, OWRS)
Develop ways to package NPS projects
for SRF loans (OW/OMPC/States)
Investigate opportunities to make use of
Federal funds/resources/programs to
accomplish mutually beneficial objectives
(USDA includes agricultural, silviculture!,
urban runoff; others include DOT,
NOAA/OCRM. BLM. FEMA, etc.)
(OW/OWRS/OFA)
FY
89
FY
DO
FY FY
91 92
FY
93
111990 Farm Bill
18
-------
W. have learned through experience that voluntary
approaches alone generally are not sufficient to deal with the
NFS problem. In almost every case, there is a need for
some kind of regulatory program as well. The real trick is to
find the best regulatory tool for the particular problem at
hand, which requires us to take a look at the "sources" and
then pinpoint the right "actor" .to regulate that source (the
Federal, State, or local government).
As noted earlier, States and locargovernments-have the
lion's share of responsibility for land use controls. It is not
surprising, therefore, that State and local NPS regulatory
solutions will-more often than not-be the most appropriate
ones. The matrix on the following page is not a complete
array of regulatory solutions, but it does give some examples
of the broad mix of Federal, State, and local regulatory
authorities that are currently -in use. It is intended to
communicate why it is important to build a sound regulatory
framework from the bottom up, and to make certain that
each solution fits each specific problem.
One State program is especially worthy of note: the
Wisconsin "Bad Actors" law. This law is a "responsa-to-
complaint" or "permit-by-exception" approach, which was
initiated largely by farmers who had voluntarily invested in
BMPs but a few of their neighbors had not cooperated.
Under the "due, process" clauses of the law, the individual
farmer may eventually be treated as a "point source" if
participation is not forthcoming. Clearly, this is a clever,
viable alternative to a purely voluntary program or a broad
scale, heavy-handed regulatory scheme, It is an excellent
example of a voluntary program with a regulatory back-up
that involves full dye process.
EPA will guide and support-States and local governments as
they examine the wide assortment of regulatory tools at their
disposal, and find the right regulatory solutions for their
particular problems. As mentioned earlier, we will set up a
clearinghouse with information on regulatory programs and
land use practices already successfully implemented by
others, and will sponsor information transfer workshops. As
States and local gc.arnments discover other new
approaches, we will also share that informatic" guickly so
they may gain from these sxperiences.
Regulatory
Programs:
A Vital Part of
the NPS Toolbox
'^-"States, In association with
local entitles such as
watershed districts and
councils of government, have
the front line responsibility
for evaluating th@ nature and
sources of nonpolnt source
pollution and devising
appropriate methods of
control."
Senator Stafford
EPA Journal
FIPA
19
-------
Shared Regulatory Responsibility: Examples of Federal. State, and Local AnthnHH«
Agriculture
(Cropping)
Animal
Waste
Grazing
Forestry
Construction
Stonnwater
Mining
Federal
Projects
Watershed
Protection
Septic
Tanks
Urban
Growth
FEDERAL
Oma W.ur Act
1*02 Praia (over
HWCeadiMM
ffiP
Hffi
Otiw
19*5 Fm Bill (PSA)
CCM. Tkfc XH (CRP)
FIFRA/rSCA
r»A I30i
BLMPemiM
FSPerBUKBMPi)
ETFUA
PtiA (fc
SMC3tA(«3»«
NE?A
C2MA
FEMA
STATE
Suu UfiilMian Othv Anthoriti*
EnbneeCXP
nccnovei
T«2000-WI
t-^-aar*m WI
H.U.MO.WI
(16 SUM)
TS1
AllStMM.CWA
•flbm.MD.NE. PL,
VA,OK,Wr
NI.FL.VT.HLME
PtibticHakk
OR.WA,E>,CA.AK
OMHTHITHI^I
HA. ME. MA. NV
MD.VA.PA.WL
NCDB
MD.FL
LOCAL
Oirdinanc*
(tomliw)
NdXXPA
(g»f«»< »MPl)
F««»J1.VA
Co..
MD
llCne Cb, WA
tocaiaiDiarica
MA
RiKa,FL
Shore iw zeosi|
ME
in addition, States have a new tool at their disposal: the
Federal consistency provision of the WQA of 1987. This
provision invites States to establish processes; to ensure that
Federal projects and activities do not conflict with the State's
policies, standards, and activities in its NFS Management
Program. If the State determines a proposed Federal
activity or project is not "consistent" with its Management
Program, the Federal agency must accommodate the State's
concerns or explain in a timely manner why it cannot do so.
Properly and effectively implemented, the Federal
consistency provision has great potential to help States and
local governments achieve their program goals.
Also, EPA will encourage and assist States; to use their NFS
Management Programs to get a head start on meeting new
and upcoming EPA requirements, such as those for
stormwater and agricultural chemicals (pesticides and
fertilizers). To help States weave together various Federal
requirements in a meaningful way, EPA will place special
emphasis on two efforts:
2o
-------
Stormwater: EPA will encourage States to use their
NPS Management Programs to prepare local
govemmer'^ to comply with §402(p) permitting
requiremenis. For example, the State NPS program
can provide: information that explains the impacts of
stormwater on water quality to convince the public of
the need to act; technical assistance on how to solve
the problem (ranging from how to acquire legal
authority to how to design effective controls); and
ideas on how to develop State/local institutional
arrangements and funding mechanisms. Initially,
-States would focus on large and medium size cities
and discharges in critical watersheds (FY
1989-1990) as well as discretionary permitting under
§402(p); later the focus would shift to smaller
discharges (FY 1991-1993). Networking
requirements under §319 and §402(p) in this manner
will eliminate much of the confusion that currently
surrounds whether States should treat stormwater as
a point source or a NPS, and will allow both the NPS
and NPDES programs to have a definitive role doing
what it does best - which will speed up the
stormwater permitting process.
Agricultural Chemicals: EPA is moving ahead
aggressively to address problems of pesticides in
ground and surface waters. Using hydrologic and
runoff models, we can predict surface water
contamination due to pesticide runoff from
agricultural sites. We can then use these predictions
in risk assessments to determine the impacts of
pesticides on aquatic organisms and their habitat.
EPA is also beginning to look at the problems of
fertilizers in drinking water, and will deal with this
problem more aggressively over the next few years.
At the Federal level, EPA will explore ways to more
effectively integrate NPS considerations into its
existing regulatory network, including CWA, SDWA,
FIFRA, and TSCA. EPA will also work with States to
enhance their ability to deal more effectively with
agricultural chemical NPS pollution by using their
NPS Management Programs to tailor prevention
measures to their particular situations.
21
-------
Who Should
Regulate?
Federal
State
Local
In additfon, EPA will encourage States to step up their efforts
to preyfnt NPS pollution problems, rather than responding
as problems arise. The WQA says State assessment
reports should identify waters that are not expected to attain
or maintain their designated uses and water quality
-standards. -=^o -strengthen -State -efforts to protect -their
pnstine waters that are threatened by encroaching
urbanization or development, EPA will explore ways for
States to make better use of their antidegradation policies to
fully protect existing uses from potential harm from NPS
pollution. If we find there are limitations to this approach, we
will consider including this finding in our Report to Congress
along with recommendations for changes.
Finally, EPA is but one of approximately 31 Federal
agencies with responsibilities for water-related activities.
EPA already coordinates with USDA, and will continue to
strengthen that relationship. In addition, it is important for
EPA to develop a stronger partnership with other Federal
agencies to achieve mutually beneficial program goals.
Initially, w© will place special emphasis on strengthening our
alliances with two organizations: DOI's U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and NOAA's Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) program. We will improve our links with FWS to
enhance our mutual capabilities to deal with impacts on
aquatic life and habitat, such as Kesterson National Wildlife
Refuge. We will also build a stronger working relationship
with CZM to better integrate CWA and OZMA goals and
objectives into the day-to-day operations of both the national
and State programs.
_ _ i
The important points to remember about the role of
regulation in NPS management are: 1) it is usually used "in
conjunction with" nonregulatory measures (rather than "in
lieu of); 2) it is an essential (but riot only) tool for
guaranteeing the ultimate success of the program; and 3) it
must come from the right level of government, which-more
often than not-will be State or local, not Federal. EPA's role
is to support and assist States and local governments as
they make these difficult decisions, to make sure that
Federal regulatory requirements are imposed in a way that
aids States in carrying out their responsibilities, and to
enforce those requirements once they are in place.
22
-------
REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Improve State implementation of Federal
consistency (OW/OWRS)
Maintain and improve coordination with
USDA (OW/OPPE/OPTS)
Improve coordination with other Federal
agency programs/authorities (FWS, ,
NOAA/OCRM, Bureau of Reclamation.
DOT, FEMA) (OW/OFA)
Participate in EPA rulemakings, as
appropriate (OW/OWRS, OWEP/States)
RCRA Mining Waste
Explore opportunities to network EPA
authorities/programs (CWA, SDWA,
F1FRA, TSCA); work with States to us«
NPS Management Programs to prevent
agricultural chemical NPS pollution
(OW/OPPE/OPTS/Statos)
Explore States' use of antidegradation
provisions to protect threatened waters*
(OW/OGC/OFA); work with States to
implement above
Implement cooperative State §402/319
program for control of stormwater;
incorporate BMPs into other permits
(OW/OWRS and OWEP)
§402 Establish application requirements
Screen initial illicit connections
Identify funding mechanisms
Develop/review applications
Issue permits
Implement permits
Other non-ag sources program
§319 Identify municipal agencies
Identify initial sources
Acquire legal authorities
Design/implement urban NPS
controls
FY
89
FY
90
FY FY
91 92
FY
93
ILarga/madlum munictpaUSlM
Small muntclpalltiM
EPA
23
-------
Good Science:
Better Decisions
on NFS
"Good science" will
lead to.»
3 Better problem
identification
3 Mechanisms to
evaluate whether
NFS controls are
effective
O Greater equity
between point/
nonpoint
dischargers
Although we have many best management practices (BMPs)
for NPS control, we still do not have some of the basic
"tools" we need to carry out a water quality-based program
for NPS. In order for States to deal effectively with NPS
pollution and ensure fair treatment of NPS and point source
discharges, we need to develop criteria to protect the uses
contained in surface water quality standards (WQS). We
also need to implement WQS and monitoring protocols that
are specifically designed to evaluate how effective our NPS
technology-based controls (BMPs) are in reducing risks to
aquatic habitat and minimizing adverse impacts on ground
water, and to determine whether there is a need for more
stringent controls and/or regulation to meet WQS and to
attain/maintain beneficial uses.
_
The national WQS program has traditionally focused on
numeric (individual chemical) and narrative criteria as the
primary tools for determining whether point source
discharges are meeting designated uses. While numeric
and narrative criteria have been very helpful in our campaign
to control point sources, we cannot "force-fit" NPS into this
familiar mold. Rather, we may have to adjust the manner in
which we apply existing numeric and narrative criteria, and
even explore new avenues such as biological criteria in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of 'NPS controls.
Consequently, EPA needs to concentrate on providing
States with sound information that allows them to develop
and apply these new criteria.
The use of biological criteria and physical habitat
characteristics offer great promise as tools for addressing
NPS impacts. Many NPS impacts affect the aquatic
community directly through things such as sediment and
indirectly through habitat modification. These impacts may
also affect terrestrial wildlife that depends on the aquatic
community for food, as well as the physical habitat for
shelter. Use of biological criteria has wide application to all
types of waterbodies because these indicators are based on
the "health" of the resident biota as measured by various
parameters. Biological criteria are particularly useful where
physical habitat (rather than water chemistry) is limiting use
attainment. Five States (Ohio, Maine, Arkansas, and
Oregon) have already taken the lead in this area by adopting
WQS that include biological and physical habitat
measurements.
24
-------
To fill the gaps in our current knowledge, EPA will research
and develop various approaches for establishing WQS that
better address NFS problems (narrative, numeric, sediment,
biological criteria), and will develop better assessment
methodologies for NFS impacts (chemical, physical, and
biomonitoring). With respect to WQS, EPA will examine
ways to define in advance what we want to achieve, ways to
express violations of WQS or use impairments, and ways to —.. „ .,, =_ ..
quantify load reductions following implementation of NFS
prevention and control procedures. With respect to
monitoring, EPA will research and develop tools and
techniques for apportioning loads among dischargers,
enforcement mechanisms (under the Water Quality
Management regulation), and a "feedback loop" of
monitoring to evaluate success as well as the need for
additional controls. There is already a lot of activity in these
areas, and EPA will work closely with the States to
coordinate and to share information as it becomes available.
We will also work to provide States with the most up-to-date
information possible by their next triennial State WQS review
(1991-1993), with a national goal of having appropriate WQS
adopted in all States by 1993.
We also see potential for the use of the Ecoregion and
AgNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source) approaches as useful
adjuncts to development of national criteria, particularly for
biological criteria. The Ecoregion approach allows States to
determine what is "attainable" given their regional aquatic
chemistry and biota, which provides a scientific basis for the
State to characterize its stream conditions and then establish
its own regional criteria that are feasible and protective of
aquatic ecosystems. AgNPS is a computer model that
predicts relative NFS pollution loads within small watersheds
and can be used to help target control resources to areas
with the greatest potential for success. In addition to their
scientific value, both the Ecoregion and the AgNPS
approaches are useful to organize thinking in ways that
people can understand. EPA will work with States interested
in pursuing either or both of these approaches.
GISs are also excellent management tools, although they
generally cost more to develop and use than Ecoregions and
AgNPS. A number of States are pursuing GISs (Oregon,
-------
WQS, States also report that GISs have a positive
secondary outcome: they help weld a variety of agencies
together to accomplish a common mission.
While States are in the process of developing more
sophisticated problem identification/evaluation tools such as
Ecoregions, AgNPS, and GISs, they should not neglect other
useful tools that are already available. For example, USGS
quadrangle maps and aerial photography are extremely
effective, inexpensive devices for communicating scientific
and land use data, especially in public forums. States
should not overlook the value of using these devices to
inventory sources, quantify impacts, and conduct
before/after comparisons in the short-term until more
sophisticated techniques can be developed and
implemented.
©EPA 26
-------
GOOD SCIENCE
Develop NFS monitoring and evaluation
guidance;
Issue guidance (OW/OWRS/US FWS)
Develop NFS WLA guidance
(OW/OWRS)
Develop citizen monitoring guidance
(OW/OWRS.OMEP)
Issue guidance on applying narrative,
numeric, and biological criteria to WQS
for NPS (OW);
Implement guidance (States/Federal
Agencies)
Develop guidance on WQS for
wetlands/lakes; adopt WQS for
wetlands/lakes (States/EPA)
Target monitoring in NFS-impacted
watersheds;
Evaluate information gained
(States/Federal Agencies)
Improve coordination with FWS/
NOAA/USGS on developing criteria
Revise existing narrative/numeric
criteria for NPS concerns (OW/
US FWS/States)
Develop numeric biocriteria, including
use of Ecoregions {OW/ORD/US FWS)
Adopt fine sediment criteria for selected
waters (States)
Conduct workshops to discuss wildlife
and marine and estuarne criteria;
Develop criteria (OW/US FWS)
Conduct NPS monitoring workshops
(OW/US FWS)
Investigate sources of NPS pollution
(OW/ORD)
Conduct case studies to evaluate
biological improvements associated
with filter strips (OPPE)
Conduct research to understand more
about the extent of damages to wildlife
and habitat (OW/OPPE/ORD)
FY FY
89 90
FY FY
91 92
FY
93
EPA 27'
-------
ft has taken a fang time and significant efforts to get point
sources under control, so it is reasonable to expect that
controlling NPS pollution will take equal or greater efforts
and will not occur immediately. Over the next few years, we
must work together to institutionalize NPS programs, and to
forge an alliance to clean up and protect the Nation's waters
from N^S pollution. We must also be able to demonstrate
enough progress in meeting the water quality objectives of
the Act to win the continued support of Congress.
29
-------
\ Vision of the
ruture
We have been persuaded to take
path somewhat different from
tat taken for point sources.
'tates are given flexibility to
ientlfy priorities. And based on
ommltments made In this
iglslatlve cycle, It Is the
xpectatlon of Congress that this
rogram will result In a
ijniflcant Improvement In water
•L3/;'y and nationwide reduction
i; 'lutant loadings from
c olnt sources. We will, of
ourse, revisit this question In
-ie next legislative cycle on the
:tean Water Act. We will not find
lis program adequate If real
improvement In water quality has
ot occurred. WeHlrenotso
luch Interested In elements of a
tate program as we are
oncemed with meeting the goals
nd objectives of the Clean Water
ct."
enator Durenberger
snate Debate
ctoberW, 1986
As noted earlier, Congress gave us a four-year lease on life.
This is an enormous challenge, and Congress and the
American people are watching and waiting to see if we -
EPA, States and local governments together -- can succeed.
It is up to all of us to make the §319 program work well.
Otherwise, the next time Congress deals with NFS we may
see the program moved yet again-this time from Title III
(Standards and Enforcement) to Title IVJPermits .and
Licenses) of the Clean Water Act.
We need to set some realistic, yet challenging, goals for the
national NFS program so we can gauge our progress over
time. In the very near-term, we may be limited to tracking
progress by counting how many States/localities have
adopted regulations/ordinances, how many farmers have
installed BMPs, or how many new funding sources have
been established. By the time the next CWA reauthorization
rolls around, however, we need to be able to make a case in
environmental terms: How/where have we actually improved
the nation's water quality? Our goal should cover both
control and prevention of NFS, and should deal with the
nexus between ground; water and surface water. EPA is
adopting the following environmental goal:
To prevent further loss of water uses due to
NPS pollution. To restore and protect critical
aquatic resources (including habitat) and to
meet WQS in a growing number of water
bodies.
+ Short-term: To prevent further loss of
water uses due to NPS, including
surface water impacts from ground
water (five years);
• Medium-term: To maintain .water uses
in water bodies impacted by NPS
pollution (ten years);
+ Long-term: To achieve WQS in water
bodies previously impaired by NPS
pollution as reported in State NPS
assessments (fifteen years).
EPA
28
-------
United States Department of Agriculture
FS Forest Service
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
Clean Water Act
-Coastal Zone Management Act --———. - -
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and'
Rodenticide Act
Food Security Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Toxic Substance Control Act
Water Quality Act of 1987 (Amendments to the
CWA) -.
Statutes
Best Management Practice
Near Coastal Waters
National Estuary Program
Nonpoint Source
Point Source
Rural Clean Water Program
State Clean Water Strategies
State Revolving Loan Funds
Wasteload Allocation
Water Quality Standards
Other
EPA
31
-------
Acronyms
EPA Offices
OGC
OPPE
OEA
OW
OSWER
OPTS
ORD
Office of General Counsel
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of External Affairs
Office of Federal Activities
Office of Water
ODW
OGWP
OMEP
OMPC
OWEP
OWRS
OWP
Office of Drinking Water
Office of Ground Water Protection
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection
Office of Municipal Pollution Control
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits
Office of Water Regulations and
Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Research and Development
Federal Agencies
DOI
DOT
EPA
FEMA
FERC
NOAA
TVA
Department of the Interior
BLM
USGS
FWS
.Bureau of Land Management
United States Geological Survey
Fish and Wifdlife Service
30
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
OCRM Office of Coastal Resource
Management
Tennessee Valley Authority
-------
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
FS Forest Service ,
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
FSA Food Security Act
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SMCRA Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
WQA Water Quality Act of 1987 (Amendments to the
CWA)
Statutes
BMP Best Management Practice
NCW Near Coastal Waters
NEP National Estuary Program
NPS Nonpoint Source
PS Point Source
RCWP Rural Clean Water Program
SCWS State Clean Water Strategies
SRF State Revolving Loan Funds
WLA Wasteload Allocation
WQS Water Quality Standards
Other
31
-------
------- |