xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
CWH-553D
Washington, DC 20460
EPA 506/9-89/003
August 1989
Water
A Report to the Congress
Activities and Programs
Implemented Under
Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act -
Fiscal Year 1988
-------
A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS:
ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS
IMPLEMENTED UNDER SECTION 319 OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT-FISCAL YEAR
1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
ii 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
Abstract
This report summarizes the activities undertaken in Fiscal Year 1988 (FY88) at the state and federal levels with
respect to nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control. Section 319(m)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) calls
upon the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to submit to the Congress an annual
report that describes the activities and programs implemented under this section and the progress made in reducing
pollution in the navigable waters resulting from nonpoint sources and improving the quality of such waters. Section
319(m)(2) of the CWA calls for a "Final Report" on January 1, 1990 that describes in broader scope and in
greater detail the activities, successes, and lessons learned under section 319, and makes recommendations for
future directions to control nonpoint sources of pollution. This report is structured to cover several of the topics
that will also appear in the "Final Report" and to provide some preliminary information.
This report begins with the current assessment of NFS problems in the Nation, and describes in some detail the
history of NPS control efforts in the United States. Following the introductory material is an accounting of state
submittals of their NPS Assessment Reports and Management Programs, along with a description of EPA's re-
view process and actions taken in response to the state submittals.
Subsequent sections describe the FY88 NPS actions taken by EPA and other federal agencies. In addition, the
report offers some highlights of EPA's NPS activities planned for FY89.
Finally, the report includes summaries of the FY88 activities and highlights reported by each EPA Regional
Office. Included is an accounting of state highlights as summarized by EPA.
Abstract iii
-------
iv 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
Preface
EPA Regional Nonpoint Source Coordinators, EPA Headquarters offices within the Office of Water, the states,
and other federal agencies contributed information for this NPS Report to Congress. Steven A. Dressing of the
Nonpoint Sources Branch contributed to and compiled the report, with assistance from Thomas E. Davenport
of EPA Region V. The document was reviewed in various stages by EPA Regions, the Office of Water, and
other federal agencies.
Preface
-------
vi 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
State Assessment Reports 1
State Management Programs 1
Progress Made in Reducing NPS Pollution 2
EPA's Role 2
EPA's Agenda 2
INTRODUCTION 3
Major Nonpoint Sources 3
Major Nonpoint Source Impacts 7
History of Nonpoint Source Control Programs 9
Section 108 - Great Lakes Program 9
Section 208 10
Model Implementation Program 11
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program 11
Rural Clean Water Program 11
Section 314 12
Summary of Section 319 Requirements 13
Nonpoint Source Assessment Reports 13
NPS Management Programs 13
Incentives 14
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 15
EPA Review Process 15
Nonpoint Source Assessments 15
National Description of NPS Problems 15
Reports 16
Summary of Report Submittals 16
EPA actions 16
Nonpoint Source Management Programs 17
Reports 17
Summary of Report Submittals 17
EPA Actions 17
National Description of NPS Programs 19
Overview 19
Progress Made in Reducing Pollutant Loads and Improving Water Quality 20
FY88 EPA and Other Federal Activities 20
Actions EPA Took to Facilitate Preparation of State NPS Assessments and Management Programs ... 20
Issued Guidance 20
Provided Tools and Data 21
Provided Direct Assistance 22
Made Funds Available for State Use 22
Actions EPA Took to Support State Implementation of Effective NPS Programs 27
Helped Support USDA-Soil Conservation Service Personnel Detailed to EPA Regions 27
Established Memorandum of Understanding with Soil Conservation Service 28
National Estuary Program 28
Near Coastal Waters Initiative 28
Proposed Strategy to Address Pesticides in Ground-Water 29
Convened NPS Agenda Task Force 29
Table of Contents vii
-------
Issued Underground Storage Tank Regulations 29
Supported Professional Workshops 30
Actions other Federal Agencies Took to Implement NFS Control 30
USDA Elevated Water Quality to Higher Priority 30
USDA Allows Filter Strips Under Farm BUI 30
Soil Conservation Service Implemented New Water Quality Action Plan 31
SCS Assigned Details to State Water Quality Agencies 31
Extension Service Focus on Water Quality 31
Forest Service "Rise to the Future" 32
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Provided Technical Support 32
ASCS Supported Special Water Quality Projects 32
Federal Highway Administration 32
Federal Aviation Administration Developed Airport Standards 33
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Provided Data 33
Fish and Wildlife Service Focused on NPS Pollution Management 33
Tennessee Valley Authority Participated in Several NPS Efforts 34
FY89 EPA Activities 35
Issue Guidance 35
Provide Tools and Data for Section 319 35
Reporting Software 35
Data 35
Technical Documents 35
Provide Assistance 35
NPS Program as Focal Point for NPS Control Efforts 36
Implement NPS Agenda Task Force Recommendations 37
Support Professional NPS Workshops 38
Hold Workshops to Discuss State Pesticide/Ground-Water Management Plans 38
Continue Near Coastal Waters Activities 38
Propose Ground-Water Restricted-Use Rule 38
Revise Pesticide Storage and Disposal Regulations 38
Develop NPDES Storm Water Permitting Program 39
Issue Financial Responsibility Regulations for Underground Storage Tanks 39
Work With Other Federal Agencies 39
Report to Congress 39
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 41
Region I - Boston, MA 41
Regional Summary 41
Assessments 41
Management Programs 41
Regional Activities 41
State Highlights 42
CONNECTICUT 42
MAINE 42
MASSACHUSETTS 42
NEW HAMPSHIRE 42
RHODE ISLAND 43
VERMONT 43
Region II - New York, NY 43
Regional Summary 43
Assessments 43
Management Programs 43
Regional Activities 44
State Highlights 44
NEW JERSEY 44
NEW YORK 44
PUERTO RICO 44
VIRGIN ISLANDS 44
Region III - Philadelphia, PA 45
Regional Summary 45
Assessments 45
viii 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Management Programs 45
Regional Activities 46
State Highlights 47
DELAWARE 47
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 47
MARYLAND 47
PENNSYLVANIA 47
VIRGINIA 48
WEST VIRGINIA 48
Region IV - Atlanta, GA 49
Regional Summary 49
Assessments 49
Management Programs 49
Regional Activities 49
State Highlights 51
ALABAMA 51
FLORIDA 52
GEORGIA 52
KENTUCKY 53
MISSISSIPPI 53
NORTH CAROLINA 53
SOUTH CAROLINA 54
TENNESSEE 54
Region V - Chicago, IL 54
Regional Summary 54
Assessments 54
Management Programs 55
Regional Activities 55
State Highlights 56
ILLINOIS 56
INDIANA 57
MICHIGAN 57
MINNESOTA 57
OHIO 57
WISCONSIN 57
Region VI - Dallas, TX 57
Regional Summary 57
Assessments 57
Management Programs 57
Regional Activities 58
State Highlights 58
ARKANSAS 58
LOUISIANA 58
NEW MEXICO . 58
OKLAHOMA 58
TEXAS 58
Region VII - Kansas City, KS 59
Regional Summary 59
Assessments 59
Management Programs 59
Regional Activities 59
State Highlights 60
IOWA '.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 60
KANSAS 61
MISSOURI 62
NEBRASKA 62
Region VIII - Denver, CO 63
Regional Summary 63
Assessments 63
Regional Activities 64
State Highlights 64
Table of Contents ix
-------
COLORADO 64
MONTANA 64
NORTH DAKOTA 64
SOUTH DAKOTA 65
UTAH 65
WYOMING 65
Region IX - San Francisco, CA 65
Regional Summary 66
Assessments 66
Management Programs 66
Regional Activities 66
State Highlights 67
ARIZONA 67
CALIFORNIA 67
HAWAII 68
NEVADA . 68
Region X - Seattle, WA 69
Regional Summary 69
Assessments 69
Management Programs 70
Regional Activities 70
State Highlights 71
ALASKA 71
IDAHO 71
OREGON 71
WASHINGTON 71
GLOSSARY 73
1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
List of Illustrations
Figure 1. Primary Causes of Pollution in Surface Waters of the U.S 4
Figure 2. Relative Magnitudes of Nonpoint Source Categories 5
Figure 3. Major Sources of Ground-Water Contamination 6
Figure 4. Nonpoint Source Parameters Most Widely Reported 7
Figure 5. Primary NPS Pollutants in Impacted Rivers and Lakes 8
Figure 6. Location of Great Lakes, MIP, NURP, and RCWP Projects 10
List of Illustrations xi
-------
xii 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. NFS Categories and Specific Examples 6
Table 2. Examples of Nonpoint Source Impacts 9
Table 3. Nonpoint Source Assessment Report Submittals as of January 30, 1989 16
Table 4. Nonpoint Source Management Program Submittals as of January 30, 1989 18
Table 5. Availability and Use of 205(j)(5) Funds for NFS Programs 24
Table 6. Section 201(g)(l)(B) Funds Applied to NFS Management 26
Table 7. Monitoring Results of Colusa Basin Agricultural Drain, location near Knights Landing, Near
Sacramento River, California 68
List of Tables xiii
-------
xiv 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
In Fiscal Year 1988 the states and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) took major steps toward
implementing the national Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Program. The states took the lead, with EPA helping
direct their development of NPS Assessment Reports
and Management Programs called for by section 319
of the Clean Water Act.1 EPA also achieved better,
closer intra-agency and inter-agency coordination and
cooperation that should help assure strong federal
leadership for the NPS Program. (See "Actions EPA
Took to Support State Implementation of Effective
NPS Programs" on page 27.)
The National NPS Program can only succeed with
the strong support and commitment of the states.
While many states made progress in preparing their
Assessment Reports and Management Programs,
much more needs to be done at all levels of govern-
ment to make the NPS Program a success. As the
states move toward implementation of their pro-
grams, we will begin to face the most important
challenges of the national effort to"address NPS pol-
lution.
State Assessment Reports
The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the ex-
tent to which nonpoint sources cause water quality
problems, and calls upon the states to describe pro-
grams and means for addressing these problems.
Nine states and Puerto Rico had submitted final As-
sessment Reports by the statutory deadline, August
4, 1988. As of January 30, 1989, an additional 13
states had submitted final Assessment Reports (see
Table 3 on page 16). Six of these reports have been
approved by EPA as of January 30, 1989. An addi-
tional 27 states, three territories, and the District of
Columbia submitted draft Assessment Reports by
January 30, 1989, and one state and one territory had
not submitted any report by this same date.
The Clean Water Act created a large assessment and
reporting burden for the states, including reports for
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
section 304, section 305(b), section 314, section 319,
and section 320. These many Clean Water Act re-
quirements may have slowed state efforts under sec-
tion 319.
The Assessment Reports will be summarized in the
January 1, 1990, Report to Congress. At this time,
available information seems to corroborate the
findings of past reports regarding the major NPSs and
the extent of the NFS problem. The bulk of NPS
problems are caused by agricultural sources, urban
runoff, hydromodification, resource extraction, and
land disposal. Other sources such as septic tanks
seem to constitute a larger proportion of the NPS
problem than believed in past years.
State Management Programs
The Clean Water Act also calls upon states to develop
state Management Programs detailing the programs,
methods, timetables, and resources to be directed to
addressing the problems identified in the Assessment
Reports.
Five states and Puerto Rico had submitted final
Management Programs by the statutory deadline of
August 4, 1988. As of January 30, 1989, an additional
10 states had submitted final Management Programs
(see Table 4 on page 18). Thirty-one other states,
three territories and the District of Columbia had
submitted draft Management Programs by January
30, 1989, and four states and one territory had not
made any submittal by this same date.
One complete state Management Program and
portions of two others have been approved by EPA
as of January 30, 1989 (see "EPA Actions" on page
17). Thus far, EPA is finding the approval of portions
of Management Programs to be a valuable tool be-
cause it allows the Agency to approve program ele-
ments that will produce water quality improvements,
while holding in abeyance those program elements
that the states must strengthen prior to approval.
As amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
-------
Progress Made in Reducing
NFS Pollution
Some nonpoint source problems have been prevented
and remedied through state, local, and federal efforts
under the Clean Lakes Program, the Rural Clean
Water Program, the Nationwide Urban Runoff Pro-
gram, the Great Lakes Program, state and local pro-
grams, and other activities for which previous funding
was provided. EPA will continue its role in these
programs and encourage states and local governments
to do the same.
EPA is not currently able to determine the overall
trend regarding gains or losses in NPS control efforts,
but development, the continued use of agricultural
chemicals, past and present resource extraction, the
continued demand for wood and paper products, and
other environmental pressures all must be dealt with
if we are to achieve significant environmental gains
through our NPS control activities.
The aphorism, "An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure", is embodied in the NPS problem.
We must keep constant vigil over NPSs if we are to
succeed in preventing future problems. Both short-
term and long-term solutions are needed to remedy
the existing NPS problems.
EPA's Role
EPA's role in the NPS effort is to provide:
Research on NPS impacts to receiving water re-
sources.
Technical training.
Educational and informational materials.
Technology transfer materials.
Increased coordination with other federal agen-
cies.
EPA's Agenda
EPA has established a full NPS agenda for the next
few years (see "FY89 EPA Activities" on page 35).
The Agency will continue to help states develop their
Assessment Reports and Management Programs.
Through its five-year NPS Agenda (see "Convened
NPS Agenda Task Force" on page 29) EPA will
channel its resources and energies into assisting and
supporting states and local governments in the fol-
lowing ways:
Help raise the level of public awareness regarding
NPS pollution.
Provide information on practical, feasible, cost-
effective solutions.
Provide information on funding sources, and af-
fect federal policy decisions that drive behavior
that causes NPS pollution.
Help states and local governments improve their
capability to develop their own regulatory sol-
utions, where necessary.
Develop the "tools" to establish sound water-
quality based programs for NPS.
EPA will also continue to work with other federal
agencies, through existing programs such as the Rural
Clean Water Program and Land & Water 201 Pro-
gram, and through new initiatives such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's water quality initiative
proposed in the President's Fiscal Year 1990 Budget.
EPA is creating a NPS Clearinghouse that will serve
as the focal point for sharing technical, educational,
and informational materials among the states, local
governments, and federal agencies. EPA will sponsor
or co-sponsor several workshops to facilitate technol-
ogy transfer and the exchange of program informa-
tion.
EPA will produce several new- technical materials
pertaining to targeting in urban areas, NPS monitor-
ing and evaluation techniques, best management
practices for grazing lands and urban areas, the design
and implementation of agricultural best management
practices, and the utility and protection of wetlands
in NPS control activities. The Agency will also
produce a watershed project manual. Under its water
quality standards program, EPA will assist states in
developing water quality criteria that can be applied
successfully to NPS problem identification and mon-
itoring.
Through these activities and others, EPA intends to
aid the states in meeting the challenge of protecting
and restoring designated uses of the Nation's waters
by providing strong leadership for the National NPS
Program, and by helping state and local governments
overcome barriers to successful implementation of
NPS measures.
1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Major Nonpoint Sources
Over the past two decades, several national reports
and many site-specific reports have described the
types of nonpoint sources (NPSs) of pollution that
are impacting the uses of rivers and streams, lakes and
ponds, wetlands, ground water, estuaries, and coastal
waters. Nonpoint sources have been defined in se-
veral ways depending upon the perspective of the
group defining them. In simple terms, NPSs are not
point sources. Point sources are defined under section
502(14) of the Clean Water Act (CWA):
The term "point source' means any discernible,
confined and discrete conveyance, including but not
limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, con-
centrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or
other floating craft, from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term does not include
agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows
from irrigated agriculture.
In practical terms, NPS pollution does not result from
a discharge at a specific, single location (with the ex-
ception of agricultural stormwater discharges and irri-
gation return flows) but generally results from land
runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drain-
age, or seepage. NPSs have generally been grouped
in categories such as agriculture, urban runoff,
hydromodification, resource extraction, silviculture,
construction, land disposal, and in-place pollutants.
These categories have been used for NPS reporting
and program management, but are not exclusive of
point sources. For example, the agriculture category
includes both point sources (e.g., concentrated animal
feeding operations) and nonpoint sources (irrigation
return flows).
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most
recently published section 305(b) report, titled Na-
tional Water Quality Inventory, 1986 Report to Con-
gress, provides information regarding the percent of
the nation's waters that are not meeting their desig-
nated uses and the relative importance of various
INTRODUCTION
pollution sources in impaired waters. Most of the
assessed waters are meeting their designated uses.
NPSs are the predominant sources causing impair-
ment in waters not meeting their designated uses.
Figure 1 on page 4 shows the relative importance of
nonpoint sources in causing impairments to rivers and
streams, lakes, and estuaries. For rivers and streams,
the percentage represents that share of the impaired
miles (37 states reporting) for which NPSs are the
predominant sources causing use impairment. For
lakes (31 states) and estuaries (16 states), the percent-
ages show the portion of impaired area (acres and
square miles, respectively) for which NPSs are the
predominant sources causing use impairment. In all
cases nonpoint sources are the primary remaining
cause of water quality problems.
The majority of surface water quality problems
caused by NPSs are attributed to agriculture (typically
about 50-70% depending upon reference,2 analytic
approach used, and water resource). Urban runoff
(5-15%), hydromodification (5-15%), silviculture
(1-5%), resource extraction (1-10%), construction
(1-5%), and land disposal (1-5%) are the other
sources most responsible for NPS impacts (Figure 2
on page 5). These percentages are determined in se-
veral ways, including (1) the portion of waters im-
paired or threatened due to NPSs (miles for rivers,
area for lakes and estuaries) for which the specific
source is the primary NPS impacting the water, and
(2) the percentage of states reporting the specific NPS
as a problem. Table 1 on page 6 contains examples
of the types of specific activities that fall under the
major source categories.
These general categories are convenient, but only
partially descriptive. One cannot envision the nature
and magnitude of NPSs without further specificity
regarding the type of source, the pollutants delivered
from the source, the ways in which pollutants are
transported from the source to receiving water bodies,
and the perspective from which the source is ob-
served. The following examples illustrate this point.
EXAMPLE 1: The source category is agriculture.
The perspective from which agriculture is observed is
2 Including America's Clean Water, The States' Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985, published by ASIWPCA, and EPA's
National Water Quality Inventory, 1986 Report to Congress.
INTRODUCTION
-------
RIVERS AND STREAMS LAKES
IX CSOs
2X Other/UNK
6X Natural 8X Municipai poTWs
9X Induatrial -VJJlp^ 12X Natural
17X Municipal POTWs ., M . t
- 65% Nonpoint
*~
ESTUARIES
4X CSOs
3X Natural
8X Industrial
18X Other/UNK 811 '^" 45X Nonpoint
22X Municipal POTWs
Figure 1. Primary Causes of Pollution in Surface Waters of the U.S.: SOURCE: EPA, National Water Quality
Inventory, 1986 Report to Congress.
1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
that of farmer A who's small creek is being trampled
daily by his own dairy cows. Farmer A notes that the
bottom of this very shallow creek can no longer be seen
because the water is continually muddied by dairy
cows wading through the creek. This situation con-
cerns farmer A since his five-year-old girl often plays
in the creek. The girl cannot fully enjoy these activ-
ities in a dirty creek, so farmer A wishes to keep the
creek clean.
From the farmer's perspective, the source of his prob-
lem is his own dairy cows. The pollutant is suspended
sediment that is generated by the dairy cows as they
wade through the creek. The impaired use is recre-
ation, and the solution is for the farmer to prevent his
cows from entering the creek.
EXAMPLE 2: The creek in Example 1 flows into a
small estuary that is the source of crabs and oysters
for the surrounding communities. Three creeks flow
into the estuary, but the creek passing through farmer
A's dairy farm is the major tributary. Farmer A is at
the upstream end of the creek, and five other dairy
farms are situated along the creek as it winds down to
the estuary. Shcllfishing has recently been banned in
the estuary due to bacterial contamination.
From the perspective of the fishermen, the source of
the problem is the six dairy farms along the creek.
Farmer A, in Example 1, hadn't considered that his
cows were causing problems in the estuary, yet the
same act of wading in the creek has contributed bac-
terial contamination as well as suspended sediment.
The bacterial contamination results from the intro-
duction of cow droppings as the cows wade. Farmer
A hadn't thought of the creek as an important re-
source for shcllfishing, yet it is the major source of
freshwater to the estuary. Furthermore, from the
fishermen's perspective, farmer A's cows are only part
of the problem. The solution is to manage the dairy
wastes from those farms (perhaps all six) that are
polluting the estuary.
In the above examples, agriculture is the general
source category, and dairy operations are the specific
sources. Due to the different perspectives taken in the
two examples, however, the pollutants of concern and
the significance of farmer A's dairy operation are also
different. These examples illustrate the difficulty as-
sociated with describing adequately in overview, the
significance and complexity of nonpoint sources.
Local NFS problems are often unique, meaning that
site-specific information and perspective are needed to
properly describe the problems.
Information regarding ground-water and wetlands
problems is scarce due to the historical lack of moni-
toring activities targeted to these water resources.
States, however, have reported that nonpoint sources
a Agriculture
3 Urban Runoff
J Hydromodification
Resource Extraction
Silviculture
Construction
| Land Disposal
Range
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 ğ5 50 55 60 65 70
% of Problem
Figure 2. Relative Magnitudes of Nonpoint Source
Categories
are causing problems in both ground water and
wetlands. Figure 3 on page 6 shows that septic tanks,
underground storage tanks, and agricultural activities
are major sources of ground-water contamination in
at least three-quarters of the states.
In America's Clean Water, The States' Nonpoint
Source Assessment 1985, published by the Association
of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministrators (ASIWPCA), only 15 states were able to
comment regarding the impacts of nonpoint sources
on tidal and inland wetlands. In these 15 states, ap-
proximately 24,000 acres of wetlands were known not
to support uses because of NPS impacts. An addi-
tional 700,000 acres of wetlands supported uses de-
spite some known NPS impacts, whereas 1.6 million
acres of wetlands were determined to be on the road
toward impairment due to NPS impacts. The assess-
ments made by these 15 states accounted for less than
12 million acres of inland and tidal wetlands. In 1984,
it was estimated that there are 95 million acres of in-
land and tidal wetlands in the lower 48 states.3 As
states perform more and better assessments of
wetlands over time, we will have a more clear picture
of the exact magnitude of the NPS impacts.
3 Tiner, R.W. 1984. Wetlands of the. United States: Current Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
INTRODUCTION
-------
% of States Reporting Source
100
Agricultural Activities I XI On-Slte LM>
-------
Major Nonpoint Source
Impacts
Nonpoint source impacts have not been fully as-
sessed. The Nation has focused largely on impacts
caused by traditional point sources (POTWs and in-
dustrial dischargers) in the past because point source
discharges were causing major, visible problems in our
surface waters. Thus, very little attention has been
given to assessing the impacts of NPSs. Point sources
have been controlled to a large extent in most areas.
Since water quality problems still exist in many areas,
it is now very clear that NPSs have had and continue
to have widespread impacts upon surface waters.
While NPS impacts have not been fully assessed,
there is sufficient information to justify a strong
commitment to NPS control programs and to begin
implementation. The states have reported that the
greatest proportion of NPS impacts in assessed rivers
and lakes is caused by sediment and nutrients (Figures
4-5). Table 2 on page 9 illustrates the types of im-
pacts that are routinely caused by major NPS
pollutants. The relative severity identified for each
example is a rough guide for gauging the significance
of the various impacts. Since the importance of any
given use for any water resource is a function of many
factors, including human emotions, it is impossible to
accurately measure or predict the absolute cost of
NPS impacts.
It is clear, however, that NPSs can affect virtually ev-
ery water user. For example, the following excerpt
from the Tillamook Bay Rural Clean Water Project
Annual Report - 1987 shows how animal waste can
cause problems for both industrial and recreational
users of an estuary.
Downstream in the lowlands adjoining Tillamook
Bay and in the lower river valleys large concen-
trations of livestock, primarily dairy cows, produce
322,500 tons of manure each year. The combina-
tion of this "never ending" volume of animal wastes
and the predominantly wet climate created runoff
and contamination conditions not equalled any-
where else in Oregon.
Further downstream in the estuary is Oregon's pri-
mary oyster growing area, an industry that has an
economic impact from one to two million dollars
annually - and was continually threatened by un-
expected closure because of excessive fecal coliform
bacteria levels in the growing waters. Affected
along with the commercial oyster industry was rec-
reational clam digging, fishing, boating, and nu-
merous other activities attracting more than a
million tourists and sportsmen to the area each
year.
% of States Reporting Source
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tories I.-.V.I BOD/DO
^3 Turbidity I XI Nutrient*
Figure 4. Nonpoint Source Parameters Most Widely
Reported: SOURCE: 1986 305(b) Re-
port
All types of water resources - lakes, rivers, coastal
waters, ground water, wetlands, and estuaries - are
impacted by NPSs. Likewise, all types of water uses
- including drinking, recreation, fisheries, wildlife,
shellfishing, livestock watering, irrigation, transporta-
tion, industry - are impacted by NPSs.
Each state was required under section 319 of the
Clean Water Act4 to provide to EPA and to the public
a listing of those waters in the state that are either
impacted or threatened by NPSs. The national sum-
mary of these Assessment Reports, to be contained in
the January, 1990 "Final Report" for section 319, will
give more specific information regarding NPS im-
pacts.
4 As amended in 1987
INTRODUCTION
-------
J Sediment
Nutrients
Pathogens
I Habitat Changes
[Acidity
| Toxics
[ Oxygen Demand
Pesticides
| Salinity
RIVERS
15 30 25 30 35 40 45
% of Problem
LAKES
Nutrients
Sediment
Habitat Changes
Acidity
Oxygen Demand
Salinity
Toxics
_Pathogens
Pesticides (0.1%)
20 25 JO 35 *0 *3 50
% of Problem
Figure 5. Primary NPS Pollutants in Impacted Rivers and Lakes: SOURCE: America's Clean Water, The States'
Nonpoint Source Assessment 1985, ASIWPCA. ^^^
8 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
POLLUTANT
Sediment
Sediment
Nutrients
Nutrients
Pathogens
Pathogens
Pathogens
Pesticides
Pesticides
Pesticides
Oxygen Demand
Physical Habitat Alteration
Physical Habitat Alteration
Physical Habitat Alteration
Toxics
Toxics
Acidity
Acidity
Salinity
IMPACT
Salmon populations dwindle due to habitat de-
struction
Navigation restricted due to sediment deposition
Lake weed problems impair recreational activities
Excessive and/or undesirable vegetation harms
fisheries
Shellfishing beds closed
Public beaches closed
Drinking water supplies impaired
Ground- water supplies not potable; wells capped
Fish kills
Waterfowl and species that feed on aquatic species
die
Fish suffocate
Fisheries spawning areas destroyed; populations
decline; fishing banned
Wetlands destroyed so waterfowl disappear; hunt-
ing banned
Wetlands and riparian areas developed; flooding
increases
In-place toxics contaminate food chain
Fish kills
Lakes sterilized; no fishing
Silvicultural and agricultural yields decline
Crop irrigation water impaired
RELA TIVE
SEVERITY
(Range)
5-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
5-10
7-10
5-10
7-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-10
1-5
1-5
Table 2. Examples of Nonpoint Source Impacts: Severity ranges from 1 (impact is localized, and/or of minor im-
portance to ecology/society, and/or reversible) to 10 (impact is to large geographic areas, and/or of major
importance to ecology/society, and/or irreversible), indicating the relative magnitude of impacts likely
across the U.S.
History of Nonpoint Source
Control Programs
This brief history of NFS control programs is in-
tended to give some perspective on what has already
been accomplished in NPS control efforts, and to
trace the origins of section 319 of the CWA.
Section 108 - Great Lakes Program
The CWA of 1972 authorized EPA to demonstrate
pollution control technologies in the Great Lakes
Basin.5 The program under which this demonstration
was conducted addressed a wide variety of pollution
control technologies, such as soil conservation, con-
servation tillage, and animal waste management,
through grants to municipalities and soil and water
conservation districts. Locations of the Great Lakes
demonstration projects and other NPS projects are
shown in Figure 6 on page 10.
5 Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing. 1987. Pollution from nonpoint sources, Where we are and where we
should go. Environmental Science and Technology. 21(8): 737-742.
INTRODUCTION
-------
KU1UI CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PROJECTS
MODEL IMPLEMENTATION PROCSAM PROJECTS
Q NATIONI1DE UB8AN RUNOFF PJOCRAH PROJECTS
O GREAT LAKES JEHOICSTRAT I ON PROGRAM PROJECTS
Figure 6. Location of Great Lakes, MIP, MURP,
and RCWP Projects
Some impacts of and lessons learned from the Great
Lakes Program include:6
Phosphorus loads have been identified as a key
factor in the degradation of freshwater lakes,
particularly in Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and
Saginaw Bay. The phosphorus load reduction
plans developed and implemented by Indiana,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
relied heavily on the lessons learned from 108a
demonstration projects.
State-implemented Remedial Action Plans for
water quality limited areas in the Great Lakes
drainage basin will use the information generated
by the 108a demonstration projects to correct the
NPS problems.
The 108a multi-dimensional projects pioneered
many methods (e.g., NPS water quality moni-
toring) used in subsequent NPS control pro-
grams (Rural Clean Water Program, Special
Agricultural Conservation Program, and Model
Implementation Program) and demonstrated the
importance of one-on-one technical assistance to
sustained landowner participation for creating a
successful NPS program.
During the Black Creek demonstration project,
the development of a computer simulation model
to identify critical areas and to predict treatment
effectiveness preceeded an increased critical area
emphasis in subsequent land treatment and water
quality programs. Critical area delineation is be-
coming a standard component of new NPS
projects.
State NPS programs such as the Wisconsin
Nonpoint Source Abatement Fund have been
altered or established as a result of lessons
learned.
From the 108a projects we have come to recog-
nize the importance of public awareness and
participation in clean water goals, the practical
necessity of targeting NPS control efforts to the
most critical areas, and matching the specific
water quality impairment to the most effective
land treatment.
The program has shown that the effects of NPS
pollution can be moderated substantially using
specific low-cost runoff management systems.
Section 208
As part of the water quality management program,
planning under section 208 of the CWA required state
and areawide agencies to identify water quality prob-
lems related to point and nonpoint sources. From
1974 to 1981, federal grants were provided to states,
territories, and 176 areawide agencies for overall water
quality management under section 208. Portions of
these funds were directed at identifying NPS problems
and developing strategies for their control. By 1982,
213 water quality management plans, which contained
elements addressing NPS control, were approved by
EPA.
Development and demonstration of best management
practices (BMPs) for all NPSs occurred as part of
section 208 water quality management plan develop-
ment. Several states established information and ed-
ucation programs and formed interagency
mechanisms to coordinate and target NPS efforts. In
conjunction with section 208 plan development, the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) initiated the Agricultural Conservation Pro-
gram (ACP) Special Water Quality Program. Some
states combined this ACP program with section 208
plan development to evaluate possible control strate-
gies. The lessons learned from developing section 208
water quality management plans served as the foun-
dation for existing state NPS programs and section
319 program development and implementation.
6 USEPA Great Lakes National Program Office, Great Lakes Demonstration Programs, Section 108a, May, 1988.
10 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Model Implementation Program
In early 1977, the USDA and EPA examined several
alternative methods for implementing the agricultural
and silvicultural NFS pollution portions of water
quality management plans developed under section
208 of the CWA.7 In September 1977, USDA and
EPA issued a Memorandum of Understanding to
conduct the Model Implementation Program (MIP).
This program was a large-scale cooperative effort to
implement soil conservation and water quality-related
agricultural land management practices in watershed
projects in seven states across the Nation.8 The seven
MIP projects, administered on a watershed basis, used
existing program authorities and delivery systems of
soil and water conservation districts, ASCS,
USDA-Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and the Co-
operative Extension Services (ES). State environ-
mental agencies monitored water quality to evaluate
project results.
The Yakima MIP in Washington reduced sediment
yield from irrigation tracts, while the Cannonsville
Reservoir MIP in New York reduced animal waste
pollution from barnyards.9 Other MIP projects re-
duced cropland and pasture land erosion, or at-
tempted to prevent ground-water contamination or
stream bed erosion. None of the MIP projects,
however, demonstrated clear-cut improvements in
their designated impaired water resource areas, be-
cause monitoring periods were too short (two to three
years) and pollution control efforts were generally
scattered too widely to produce measurable improve-
ments.
A number of major lessons, however, were learned
from the MIPs.10 These were:
NPS control programs should be administered
on the basis of watershed boundaries rather than
political boundaries.
NPS programs need pre-project planning and
identification of those critical areas in which the
largest water quality benefits can be achieved by
land treatment.
NPS programs should be directed by an agency
with a water quality orientation that can coordi-
nate the efforts of cooperating agencies.
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
was developed by EPA in 1978 as a five-year program
to obtain data on control of urban runoff quality and
its impact on receiving waters." Data from 28 projects
around the country confirmed that pollution prob-
lems such as coliform bacteria, nutrients, or heavy
metals result from urban runoff. The most significant
effects of urban stormwater runoff on aquatic life,
however, are caused by hydrologic changes related to
urbanization and construction activities. NURP data
indicate that the impacts of urban runoff are highly
site-specific and depend largely on the fraction of the
drainage basin urbanized and the characteristics of the
receiving water body.
Wet detention basins and infiltration of stormwater
through recharge basins were shown to be effective for
reducing the volume of surface runoff and surface
water pollutant concentrations.12 The ground-water
impacts of these practices must be considered, how-
ever, before widespread application can be recom-
mended. Other practices, such as installing stream
buffers and grass swales and establishing wetlands also
have been identified as potential urban NPS control
practices. The effectiveness of street sweeping was
highly variable.
Rural Clean Water Program
In 1977, Congress amended the CWA to include a
new section 208(j), which provided for a program to
enter into contracts with owners and operators of ru-
ral lands to implement BMPS to control NPS pol-
lution. This program, the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP), is administered by the USDA.
The RCWP was ultimately authorized and funded
under the Agriculture, Rural Development and Re-
lated Agencies Appopriations Acts. Congress appro-
7 From: Dressing, S.A., J.M. Kreglow, R.P. Maas, F.A. Koehler, F.J. Humenik, W.K. Snyder, W.A. Marks, L. Marston,
M. Rubino, and R. Weaver. 1983. An Evaluation of the Management and Water Quality Aspects of the Model Imple-
mentation Program, Final Report. North Carolina State University and Harbridge House, Inc. for the USDA and EPA,
p. 1.
8
Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing. 1987. Pollution from nonpoint sources, Where we are and where we
should go. Environmental Science and Technology. 21(8): 737-742.
' Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
INTRODUCTION
II
-------
priated $50 million in 1980 (P.L. 96-500) and $20
million in 1981 (P.L. 98-528) to carry out an exper-
imental program.
The RCWP began in 1980 in a cooperative model
based on the MIP. The program funds 21 watershed
projects whose objectives are to improve water qual-
ity, to help agricultural landowners and operators
employ pollution control practices, and to develop
and test programs, policies, and procedures for con-
trol of agricultural NPS pollution. Five of the
projects were selected to receive additional funds for
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (CM&E).
These CM&E projects were designed to provide more
detailed water quality information than the other 16
projects.
The RCWP gained considerably from the Great
Lakes Program, ACP Special Water Quality Projects,
and MIP experiences.13 The implementation time
frames are longer (10-15 years); critical area targeting
is required; water quality objectives are clearly speci-
fied; and projects monitor water quality. Each project
is administered locally and overseen by state and na-
tional RCWP coordinating committees. Strong local
involvement and identification with the project ob-
jectives has been the key to success in several RCWP
projects.
The RCWP has a much stronger water quality em-
phasis than most preceding conservation or demon-
stration programs.14 Approved BMPs include water
management systems, animal waste management sys-
tems, and fertilizer and pesticide management, all of
which are practices and systems designed to improve
water quality and are not necessarily oriented to soil
conservation or farm productivity.
Eight years into the program, most projects have ex-
ceeded their land treatment goals of contracting to
treat agricultural NPSs in 75% of their critical areas.
Projects that have achieved a high level of farmer
participation have been successful because they offer
cost-sharing for practices farmers want, such as ani-
mal waste storage structure installation, conservation
tillage, and irrigation system improvements.15 Cost-
sharing incentives, however, were unsuccessful in se-
veral projects when economic problems were too
great in the farm community or when farmers were
not enthusiastic about government programs.
Indications are that pest-scouting, manure sampling,
and soil sampling may be the most effective and eco-
nomical approaches to agricultural NPS control.16
These activities provide farmers with information
needed to apply nutrients and agricultural chemicals
in an efficient and effective manner to protect the
environment and save money. Negative inducements
have been effective for obtaining participation in se-
veral projects. Such inducements include invoking
existing local or state regulations to gain compliance
with water quality objectives, and milk cooperative
penalties to dairy farmers using unsatisfactory animal
waste management practices. The combination of
negative inducements with technical and financial as-
sistance seems to be effective in gaining fanner par-
ticipation in NPS programs.
EPA has supported RCWP workshops for the past
six years. These workshops, held for both land treat-
ment and water quality technical experts, have been
directed toward:
Data analysis.
Reporting.
Tech transfer among all RCWP projects.
Involving experts from outside RCWP.
Teamwork.
The workshops have benefited the program consider-
ably, resulting in improved data analysis and reporting
by projects, and a greater understanding of NPS pol-
lution and NPS control tools and strategies.
Water quality improvements have already been docu-
mented statistically in five of the RCWP projects, and
it is possible that even more projects will show envi-
ronmental benefits before the program ends. In fact,
in a number of projects, there is the public perception
that water quality has improved. It has, however,
been shown by North Carolina State University,
working under an RCWP grant, that a time frame
longer than five years is usually necessary to docu-
ment water quality improvements in agricultural NPS
projects.
Section 314
The EPA's Clean Lakes Program began in 1975 with
the purpose of demonstrating restoration, manage-
ment, and protection activities for protecting
publicly-owned freshwater lakes. Demonstration
projects funded under this program proved that tech-
" Ibid.
"Ğ Ibid.
is Ibid.
iĞ Ibid.
12 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
niques existed that could be applied to restore, pro-
tect, and manage lakes, and that lake restoration is an
integral component of national water quality man-
agement strategy.
Because long-term effectiveness is a major concern,
the Clean Lakes Program requires an integrated ap-
proach to solving lake water quality problems.
Projects include provisions for controlling pollutants
at the source, largely through watershed management,
rather than simply eliminating their symptoms in the
lake. Septic tank management ordinances,
stormwater controls, and various institutional frame-
works have been developed through the Clean Lakes
Program. Since the Program's inception, 365 projects
have been initiated. Most recently, EPA funded 17
Phase II implementation projects with FY87 funds
totalling $2.5 million.17
Summary of Section 319
Requirements
The Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) amended the
CWA such that section 101(a)(7) states:
it is the national policy that programs for the con-
trol 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 pol-
lution
This goal focuses on the importance of developing
and implementing NPS controls while developing
comprehensive programs, involving both point and
nonpoint sources, to improve water quality. With the
enactment of section 319 of the CWA, new direction
and significant federal financial assistance for the im-
plementation of state NPS programs has been au-
thorized.18 The CWA requires two major documents
to be completed by each state: an Assessment Report
describing the state's NPS problems and a Manage-
ment Program explaining what the state plans to do
in the next four fiscal years to address its NPS prob-
lems. The CWA authorizes financial assistance for
developing these reports and for implementing the
states' NPS Management Programs.
Nonpoint Source Assessment Reports
Section 319 of the CWA requires that each state (or
EPA in the event that a state fails to do so) submit a
NPS Assessment Report which:
1. Identifies those navigable waters within the state
which, without additional action to control
NPSs, cannot reasonably be expected to attain
or maintain applicable water quality standards
or the goals and requirements of the CWA, and
2. Identifies those categories and subcategories of
NPSs or, where appropriate, particular NPSs
which add significant pollution to each portion
of the navigable waters identified in (1) above in
amounts which contribute to such portion not
meeting such water quality standards or such
goals and requirements.
NPS Assessment Reports submitted by states (but
not those submitted by EPA in cases where states fail
to submit reports) must also include sections which:
1. Describe the process, including intergovern-
mental coordination and public participation, for
identifying BMPs and measures to control each
category and subcategory of NPSs and, where
appropriate, particular NPSs identified under (2)
above and to reduce, to the maximum extent
practicable, the level of pollution resulting from
such category, subcategory, or source, and
2. Identify and describe state and local programs for
controlling pollution added from NPSs to, and
improving the quality of, each such portion of
the navigable waters, including but not limited to
those programs which are receiving federal as-
sistance under subsections 319(h) and (i).
States that do not submit a report are not eligible for
section 319 funding. All Assessment Reports were
due to EPA by August 4, 1988, in accordance with
the CWA.
NPS Management Programs
The required contents of a state NPS Management
Program are:
1. An identification of the BMPs and measures
which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category, subcate-
gory, or particular NPS designated in the As-
sessment Report, taking into account the impact
of the practice on ground-water quality
2. An identification of programs (including, as ap-
propriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs
for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology trans-
fer, and demonstration projects) to achieve im-
plementation of the BMPs designated in (1)
17 Clean Lakes Program 1987 Annual Report, EPA.
18 Nonpoint Source Guidance. December 1987. USEPA Office of Water, page 1.
INTRODUCTION
13
-------
3. A schedule containing annual milestones for
a. Utilization of the program implementation
methods identified in (2), and
b. Implementation of the BMPs identified in
(1) by the categories, subcategories, or par-
ticular NPSs designated in the Assessment
Report.
Such schedule shall provide for utilization of the
BMPs at the earliest practicable date
4. A certification of the attorney general of the state
or states (or the chief attorney of any state water
pollution control agency which has independent
legal counsel) that the laws of the state or states,
as the case may be, provide adequate authority
to implement such Management Program or, if
there is not such adequate authority, a list of such
additional authorities as will be necessary to im-
plement such Management Program. A schedule
and commitment by the state or states to seek
such additional authorities as expeditiously as
practicable.
5. Sources of federal and other assistance and fund-
ing (other than assistance provided under sub-
sections 319(h) and (i)) which will be available in
each of such fiscal years for supporting imple-
mentation of such practices and measures and the
purposes for which such assistance will be used
in each of such fiscal years
6. An identification of federal financial assistance
programs and federal development projects for
which the state will review individual assistance
applications or development projects for their
effect on water quality pursuant to the proce-
dures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in
effect on September 17, 1983, to determine
whether such assistance applications or develop-
ment projects would be consistent with the NPS
Management Program; for the purposes of this
subparagraph, identification shall not be limited
to the assistance programs or development
projects subject to Executive Order 12372 but
may include any programs listed in the most re-
cent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and
objectives of the state's NPS Management Pro-
gram.
The CWA specified that the NPS Management Pro-
grams were to be submitted to EPA by August 4,
1988.
Incentives
There are no penalties for states failing to prepare
section 319 assessments and programs. EPA's initial
challenge under section 319 was to encourage states
to prepare and submit adequate Assessment Reports
and strong Management Programs. EPA has worked
and continues to work with the states to assure that
section 319 is understood, and to foster development
of sound NPS programs. Some states have already
begun effective NPS programs, and most states will
likely cooperate under section 319. EPA is providing
technical and administrative leadership in trying to
gain the support of all states under section 319.
Grant funds and funding guidance are two of EPA's
tools for encouraging state action in NPS control
programs. EPA has issued guidance regarding mech-
anisms for using CWA Title II and Title VI funds for
section 319, and will continue to assist states in this
area.
14 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
EPA Review Process
EPA transmitted to the states in December, 1987 its
Nonpoint Source Guidance which included criteria for
approval of the state Assessment Reports and state
Management Programs. EPA Regions developed
further guidance based upon the Nonpoint Source
Guidance and section 319, and have worked with
EPA Headquarters to assure understanding of the
Assessment Report and Management Program ap-
proval criteria.
Approval/disapproval authority for the Assessment
Reports and Management Programs was delegated to
the EPA Regions on August 12, 1988. Thus, EPA
Headquarters plays an advisory role in the review
process. In a coordinated effort to obtain consistent,
comprehensive reviews, several EPA offices have been
given the opportunity to assist in the reviews of state
reports:
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Office of Municipal Pollution Control
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
Nonpoint Source Assessments
National Description of NFS Problems
As shown in "Reports" on page 16 , most of the state
NPS Assessment Reports have not been approved
yet. Because of this, it is not possible to utilize the
section 319 assessment data in a national description
of NPS problems. Instead, EPA has chosen to use
its 1988 Strategic Planning and Management System
(SPMS) database as a substitute for the section 319
data. The SPMS data consist largely of 1988 state
section 305(b) data, with some updating provided by
the EPA Regions. The SPMS data are not likely to
match the section 319 assessment data, and are not
available for all states and territories. Therefore, these
data should not be considered as representative of the
content of state section 319 assessments, even though
the data may ultimately be the same in some cases.
Instead, the data are used in this report to illustrate
the relative constitution of the Nation's NPS problem
at this point in time, with particular emphasis placed
upon comparisons with data from past reports (see
"Major Nonpoint Sources" on page 3 and "Major
Nonpoint Source Impacts" on page 7 ). The section
319 assessment data will be reported in the "Final
Report" which is due on January 1, 1990.
Since the SPMS data are approximate, the informa-
tion is presented in a qualitative manner. The reasons
for the approximate nature of these data include, but
are not limited to:
All states and territories are not represented. For
example, 21 states have not provided useful data
for lakes.
Source category data are inflated due to the
summation of subcategory data. For example, a
mile of river impacted by pasture, irrigated
cropland, and feedlots would be reported as three
miles of river impacted by agriculture. It is likely
that the data are inflated for the other source
categories as well (e.g., urban, silviculture, land
disposal). Compounding this problem is the fact
that more than one source can impact upon any
given portion of a water resource.
The data cannot be used to quantify the extent
of nonsupport or partial support of uses caused
by NPSs versus that caused by point sources.
Because of the limitations inherent in using the SPMS
data, this report seeks only to illustrate the relative
importance of NPS categories.
The SPMS data indicate that agriculture probably
plays a much larger role than other NPSs in causing
partial support or nonsupport of uses in the Nation's
rivers. Forty states reported information useful to this
analysis, but some states with high levels of NPS ac-
tivity, such as Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas,
Alaska, and Idaho are not included.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 15
-------
EPA's 1988 Report to Congress: Water Quality of the
Nation's Lakes documents that of the pollution
sources causing lake use impairments, 76 percent are
nonpoint sources. Most states find that NPSs are re-
sponsible for the majority of use impairments in lakes,
and several states attribute 100 percent of lake use
impairments to NPSs. The SPMS data show that
agriculture is probably the largest contributor to NPS
problems in lakes. Twenty-nine states provided in-
formation for this analysis. Again, states such as
Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin,
Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Alaska, Idaho, and
Oregon are not included in this analysis.
The SPMS data for estuaries (19 states) are difficult
to interpret since much of the NPS problem is cred-
ited to unknown and unspecified sources, states not
reporting estuary data include Maine, Delaware,
Texas, Oregon, and Alaska.
Land disposal is likely to be a major contributor to
NPS problems in the Great Lakes and coastal waters.
The information regarding land disposal is largely in-
fluenced by New York which reported that 500 miles
of Great Lakes shoreline are impacted by land dis-
posal. Land disposal includes septic tanks, landfills,
sludge, industrial land treatment, and hazardous
wastes. As for estuaries, unknown and unspecified
sources are relatively important. Further data inter-
pretation is made difficult by the lack of specific
source information.
A comparison of these data with those from earlier
reports ( see "Major Nonpoint Sources" on page 3 )
appears to show that agriculture is possibly less re-
sponsible for NPS problems than believed in 1986.
This is likely not the case for several reasons. Part of
the explanation is that the total waters assessed and
states providing the data are different in the SPMS
data. Similarly, the information presented has been
in the form of percentages, and do not tell the story
regarding absolute miles or acres impaired. The sec-
tion 319 assessment data must be analyzed to provide
a more accurate information base for comparison
against earlier data.
The relative importance of urban runoff,
hydromodification, silviculture, resource extraction,
and contruction are about the same in the 1988 SPMS
database as in earlier reports. The major differences
in the SPMS data are the relative importance of land
disposal (with the exception of rivers) and
unknown/unspecified sources. These differences may
be the result of refined assessments, differences in re-
porting, or differences in state representation in the
various databases. Again, the section 319 data are
needed to resolve these issues.
Reports
Summary of Report Submittals
All NPS Assessment Reports were due to EPA by
August 4, 1988. For a variety of reasons, most states
did not submit final Assessment Reports before or on
the deadline date. However, nearly all states have
now submitted final or draft reports. Some of the
reasons for late submittals include:
Very short time-frame in which to develop the
reports and to encourage public participation.
Lack of available data on a watershed basis.
Public review process.
A summary of the status of state and territory sub-
mittals is given in Table 3. It can be seen from this
table that while nine states and Puerto Rico had sub-
mitted final Assessment Reports by August 4, 1988,
as of January 30, 1989, an additional 13 states had
submitted final reports. Twenty-seven states, three
territories, and the District of Columbia had submit-
ted draft reports by January 30, 1989, while only one
state and one territory had made no submittals by that
same date.
EPA actions
EPA has approved six Assessment Reports as of Jan-
uary 30, 1989. The states of Delaware and South
Dakota both received approval of their Assessment
Reports in September, 1988. The reports submitted
by Rhode Island and Vermont were approved in Oc-
tober, while Colorado's report was approved by EPA
in November, 1988. Nebraska's Assessment Report
was approved on January 5, 1989.
STATE/TERRITORY
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
SUBMITTAL
DATE
8/4/88 Draft
1/11/89 Draft
6/9/88 Draft
5/30/88 Draft
8/13/88 Final
4/30/88 Draft
5/2/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
4/1/88 Draft
8/12/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
16 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
STATE/TERRITORY
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Marianas
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
SUBMITTAL
DATE
8/4/88 Draft
8/9/88 Draft
5/19/88 Draft
4/30/88 Draft
5/20/88 Draft
10/28/88 Final
4/1/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
10/24/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
4/1/88 Draft
11/23/88 Final
8/8/88 Draft
11/10/88 Final
8/4/88 Final
10/4/88 Final
Not Submitted
4/13/88 Draft
10/6/88 Draft
10/12/88 Final
11/17/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
12/28/88 Final
8/30/88 Draft
4/11/88 Draft
10/18/88 Final
8/88 Draft
8/9/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
8/4/88 Final
8/18/88 Draft
9/8/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
7/25/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
Not Submitted
STATE/TERRITORY
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
SUBMITTAL
-DATE
8/4/88 Final
9/21/88 Final
9/12/88 Final
4/1/88 Draft
10/28/88 Final
Table 3. Nonpoint Source Assessment Report Sub-
mittals as of January 30, 1989
Nonpoint Source Management
Programs
Reports
Summary of Report Submittals
All NFS Management Programs were due to EPA by
August 4, 1988. Most states did not submit final
Management Programs by the deadline date. How-
ever, nearly all states have now submitted final or
draft reports. The reasons for late submittals are
basically the same as those given for late submittals
of Assessment Reports (see "Summary of Report
Submittals" on page 16).
A summary of the status of state and territory sub-
mittals is given in Table 4 on page 18. Five states
and Puerto Rico had sent final Management Pro-
grams to EPA by August 4, 1988, and as of January
30, 1989, an additional 10 states had submitted final
Management Programs. Thirty-one states, three ter-
ritories, and the District of Columbia had submitted
draft Management Programs by January 30, 1989, and
four states and one territory had made no submittal
by that same date.
EPA Actions
EPA approved Nebraska's Management Program on
January 5, 1989. As of January 30, 1989, this was the
only Management Program fully approved by EPA.
However, in September, 1988, EPA approved
portions of two state Management Programs, those
of Delaware (see "DELAWARE" on page 47) and
South Dakota. Approval of portions means that
EPA has approved certain elements of a state's Man-
agement Program, but not the complete program.
Elements may be functional (e.g., educational pro-
gram), source-specific (e.g., agricultural management
program), or geographic (e.g., a program of demon-
stration projects located in strategic areas across the
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
17
-------
state) in nature. Approved elements can be funded
under section 319, while the disapproved elements
cannot be funded under section 319.
The major reasons for states not gaining EPA ap-
proval are:
Lack of a strong statewide element to the Man-
agement Program.
Lack of measurable milestones and schedule for
program implementation.
Lack of synthesis of existing federal, state & local
programs into a comprehensive NPS program.
Little or no delegation of authority and/or re-
sponsibilities among cooperating agencies and
groups.
STATE/TERRITORY
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
SUBMITTAL
DATE
7/30/88 Draft
1/30/89 Draft
8/7/88 Draft
8/25/88 Draft
8/13/88 Final
5/20-88 Draft
10/1 SS Draft
8/4, s Draft
8/4.,' SS Final
8/15/88 Draft
8/12/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
8/9/88 Draft
Not Submitted
12/14/88 Draft
8/1/88 Draft
8/9/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
10/24/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
Not Submitted
8/4/88 Draft
8/2/88 Draft
11/23/88 Final
8/8/88 Draft
STATE/TERRITORY
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Marianas
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
SUBMITTAL
DATE
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
10/27/88 Final
Not Submitted
8/1 2/88 Draft
10/3/88 Draft
1/25/89 Draft
12/31/88 Draft
8/4/88 Draft
12/28/88 Final
8/30/88 Draft
8/30/88 Draft
11/9/88 Draft
10/30/88 Draft
8/9/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
12/12/88 Final
8/18/88 Draft
9/8/88 Final
8/4/88 Draft
8/4/88 Final
5/10/88 Draft
11/21/88 Final
Not Submitted
8/4/88 Final
9/21/88 Final
9/12/88 Final
8/1/88 Draft
Not Submitted
Table 4. Nonpoint Source Management Program
Submittals as of January 30, 1989
EPA has and continues to work with all states to im-
prove their Management Programs. For example,
EPA has met with the state of Delaware to discuss its
Management Program, and to provide recommen-
dations for improving the statewide components of its
program. Furthermore, EPA has explored creative
ways in which it can convince states to develop better
Management Programs while still allowing the states
to take advantage of available funds to get their pro-
grams underway.
18 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
National Description of NFS Programs
Overview
One of the major goals of EPA is that states will
institutionalize their NFS programs through their
section 319 efforts. For example, it is felt by at least
one EPA Region that a successful Management Pro-
gram first "institutionalizes" NPS within the daily op-
erations of both the EPA Regional office and the
states. In this way, NPS will become an integral part
of the water quality control actions of the state and
not just a continual planning process.
Some states have established strong NPS programs
through means other than section 319, but many
other states can take advantage of the focus on this
program to strengthen their statewide NPS efforts.
For example, most states in Region VI either do not
have water quality standards for NPS parameters
(nutrients, salinity, sediment) or have narrative stand-
ards that are not enforced for NPS pollutants.
Adoption of both numeric and narrative water quality
standards for NPS pollutants, and subsequent
"enforcement" or management through BMPs to
meet these standards would represent considerable
progress in these states.
The process of developing NPS Management Pro-
grams under section 319 has not been easy, as dis-
cussed in "Reports" on page 17. While in the past
states have been able to develop NPS programs as
needed to deal with specific problems and/or specific
areas, section 319 requires that states develop much
more comprehensive NPS Management Programs
(see "NPS Management Programs" on page 13).
Many states were slow in responding to this new sec-
tion 319 requirement for several reasons, including:
Large workload related to other requirements of
the WQA of 1987.
Difficulty in addressing problems related to "ex-
otic" types of NPSs such as toxic waste sites.
Several states have developed their NPS Management
Programs from a base of programs and liaisons es-
tablished under the earlier section 208 planning efforts
(see "Section 208" on page 10). For example, Hawaii
plans to revitalize public awareness regarding NPSs
by calling upon those interested groups that were in-
volved in section 208. Minnesota utilized many of the
activities, resources, and accomplishments of the 208
planning process to prepare its NPS Assessment Re-
port. North Carolina's Agriculture Task Force,
which was established under section 208, is the means
by which agricultural agencies in the state cooperate
regarding NPS control.
Several states had difficulty with regard to setting im-
plementation priorities for a variety of reasons, in-
cluding:
Lack of specific data and/or criteria to develop
the definitive assessment required for setting im-
plementation priorities.
Considerations regarding leveraging and targeting
of funds.
Several draft state NPS Management Programs fell
short with respect to integration of existing programs
that address different NPSs. For example, a few states
had proposed separate BMP processes for the major
NPSs. In its review comments to the states, EPA re-
commends to states with these types of problems that
they do a better job of integrating the various NPS
programs and provide for a single lead agency.
States are in general agreement that better statewide
education and information transfer is needed as a pri-
ority implementation activity. One Region has noted,
however, that most cooperating agencies from which
support for this activity is sought are themselves
looking for sources of funding to conduct these addi-
tional water quality activities.
With regard to state NPS efforts that have been
undertaken independent of section 319, several states
have an impressive record of achievements. For ex-
ample, NPS implementation has complemented
Clean Lakes Program projects in a number of
watersheds across the U.S. The Rural Clean Water
Program, Great Lakes Program, ACP Special Water
Quality, and similar programs have fostered successful
NPS control implementation in many other areas.
These programs, although federally funded, generally
require financial, technical, and administrative com-
mitments at the state, local, and landowner levels.
These non-federal commitments have not been trivial;
in fact, under the Rural Clean Water Program it is
very common for farmers to contribute several thou-
sands of dollars to implement agricultural control
practices.
Beyond these federally funded efforts, many states
have embarked upon NPS control efforts funded
totally by the state and/or local governments. Exam-
ples include North Carolina's Agriculture Cost Share
Program for which the state provides $7 million per
year to cost share with farmers in the installation of
BMPs in 56 counties. Another example is Florida's
Surface Water Improvement and Management Act for
which the state provided $15 million in FY88 to pre-
serve and restore surface waters throughout the state,
largely through NPS management. In addition, the
state of Michigan awarded $450,000 in FY88 to local
units of government to implement NPS pollution
abatement plans previously developed under
Michigan's Clean Water Incentives Program.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
19
-------
Progress Made in Reducing Pollutant Loads
and Improving Water Quality
Urban NFS Control: The City of Baltimore, with
assistance from the Clean Lakes Program, retrofitted
existing stormwater detention ponds for water quality
purposes. Initial analysis of the quality of the water
entering and leaving the modified basins indicates that
the retrofit design removes over 90 percent of all
participate material and between 30 and 40 percent
of total phosphorus. The low cost of the modifica-
tions and the high degree of sediment removal make
this project a model for urban NPS control projects.
Other Clean Lakes projects, such as Lake Jackson
(FL), Iroquois Lake (NY), and Lake Hopatcong
(NJ), documented the effectiveness of retention and
detention areas for stormwater and urban NPS con-
trol. In addition, other urban NPS controls, such as
runoff and construction ordinances, have been dem-
onstrated as being effective in a number of Clean
Lakes projects; South Fork Rivanna Reservoir (VA),
Lake Ballinger (WA), and Devil's Lake (OR).
Agricultural NPS Control: Through the Clean Lakes
Program, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency in cooperation with various federal and state
agencies, demonstrated the effectiveness of watershed
management in improving the water quality in Lake
Le Aqua-Na, IL. After implementation of all
watershed management activities, sediment yields had
fallen 57 percent from pre-restoration levels. Contin-
ued monitoring of dissolved oxygen and visual exam-
inations indicate that in-lake water quality is
continuing to improve. Other Clean Lakes projects
recently completed (Green Valley Lake, IA;
Spiritwood Lake, ND; Panguitch Lake, UT; Swan
Lake, IA; and Broadway Lake, SC) snowed water
quality improvements as a result of agricultural NPS
control activities.
Several RCWP projects have documented water
quality improvements associated with agricultural
NPS management. These projects include:
Rock Creek, Idaho - irrigated agriculture.
Taylor Creek, Florida - dairy management.
Tillamook Bay, Oregon - dairy management.
Highland Silver Lake, Illinois - soil erosion con-
trol.
Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa - soil erosion control.
St. Albans Bay, VT - manure management.
In-place Pollutants: The state of Vermont, with as-
sistance from the Clean Lakes Program, successfully
demonstrated the treatment of phosphorus laden,
hypolimnetic sediment with alum and sodium
aluminate to reduce internal phosphorus loading in
Lake Morey. Two-year, post-treatment monitoring
documented a reduction in total phosphorus concen-
tration ranging from 50 to 75 percent from pre-
treatment concentrations. Dredging is another lake
restoration technique that is utilized to abate in-place
pollutant problems. This technique was successfully
utilized in the Lake Lansing (MI) and Ada City Lake
(OK) Clean Lakes projects.
FY88 EPA and Other Federal
Activities
Actions EPA Took to Facilitate
Preparation of State NPS Assessments
and Management Programs
Issued Guidance
EPA issued the Nonpoint Source Guidance in De-
cember, 1987. This 33-page guidance spelled out in
some detail EPA's interpretation of section 319, in-
cluding development of the Assessment Reports and
Management Programs, annual reports, the procedure
for approval, and other adminstrative provisions.
EPA supplemented this guidance with a number of
clarifications, including:
Section 305(b) Waterbody System User's Guide
(12/87).
Checklist for Approval of State Assessment Re-
ports (2/88).
Checklist for Headquarters Review of Manage-
ment Programs (7/88).
Funding Questions and Answers (7/88).
Federal Consistency guidance (revisions under-
way 8/15/88).
Reporting Formats (1/88 and revised 4/88).
Guidance on NPS Funding for Development and
Implementation (6/88).
State Revolving Fund and 201(g)(l)(B) guidance.
REACH File Documentation.
EPA required all states to submit by April 1, 1988 the
list of waters impaired or threatened by NPSs, and the
categories and subcategories of NPSs impacting the
waters on this list. The central purpose of this exer-
cise was to guide states toward meeting the due date
(August 4, 1988) for submittal of complete Assess-
ment Reports (see "Nonpoint Source Assessment
Reports" on page 13).
20 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Provided Tools and Data
Reporting Software: EPA created the section 305(b)
Waterbody System to organize and manage informa-
tion that is to be reported under the CWA, as
amended in 1987. This software program provides a
geographically based framework for entering, tracking,
and reporting information on the quality of individual
waterbodies as they are defined by each state. EPA
directed states to use - or provide information com-
patible with - the Waterbody System for their NFS
Assessment Reports.
EPA issued reporting guidance for section 319 that
included use of the 305(b) Waterbody System for the
Assessment Reports, data forms for the Management
Program, and draft reporting procedures and forms
for annual reports required under section 319. EPA
developed new software to assist states in reporting
the information specified on the Management Pro-
gram data forms. This software is separate from, but
compatible with, the Waterbody System. The annual
report formats have been distributed for review and
comment by the states, with several states agreeing to
test the formats on a pilot basis.
EPA's digital data base of surface waters, the REACH
File, is the standard reference for surface waters in the
United States, and is utilized as such by EPA and
other agencies. The REACH File was updated in
1988 to double its existing size. The REACH File is
the core of the Waterbody System, and additions to
the REACH File mostly consisted of lower order
streams which are those streams typically impacted
more by nonpoint sources than by point sources.
Therefore, REACH File enhancements are critical to
states that use the Waterbody System to report their
NPS assessments. EPA also provided in 1988 new
software that enables state REACH File users to edit.
the REACH File from a personal computer (PC).
This capability is critical to the survival and utility of
the REACH File as it enables the users to monitor
and manage the quality of the data base.
Data: EPA developed a summary of the NURP data
base for use by all states and localities. Brochures
describing the data base were distributed to all states.
In addition, simplified procedures for estimating ur-
ban NPS pollutant discharges have been developed
for and distributed by EPA.
EPA has developed a NPS Data Base for use by states
and localities with access to EPA's mainframe com-
puter. The data base consists largely of county infor-
mation collected by other agencies such as the
Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Commerce.
EPA prepared a document titled Municipal
Facility I Waterbody Computerized Information, An
Introduction (October, 1987), which describes the
waterbody and municipal facility data that are com-
piled on EPA's mainframe computer. Contact per-
sons are identified for each data file or software
program listed. Several of the data files and software
programs could have been used by states in preparing
their NPS assessments.
In support of state assessments, EPA mailed to the
states data developed by the Ocean Assessments Di-
vision of the National Oceanographic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA had
worked with EPA to develop ways in which NOAA's
data could be useful to EPA's programs. This coop-
erative effort led to the sharing of NOAA's estuarine
nonpoint source data with the states.
Technical Documents: EPA Headquarters and Re-
gional staff prepared and/or cooperated in the devel-
opment and distribution of several technical
documents. These documents include:
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: a Guide,
which presents information on best management
practices and NPS assessment techniques.
Interfacing Nonpoint Source Programs With the
Conservation Reserve: Guidance for Water
Quality Managers, which provides management
guidance for gaining water quality benefits from
USDA's Conservation Reserve program.
Creating Successful Nonpoint Source Programs:
The Innovative Touch, which is intended to help
state and local program managers save time,
money, and energy in solving their NPS man-
agement problems.
Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation
Guide: DRAFT, which provides technical infor-
mation regarding NPS monitoring strategies, data
analyis, and data interpretation.
Effectiveness of Agricultural and Sitvicultural
Nonpoint Source Controls, which summarizes the
types of NPS-related aquatic monitoring pro-
grams executed in the Pacific Northwest.
Setting Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source
Control, which is a working outline of the tar-
geting process for identifying and managing pri-
ority water resources.
In addition to the above documents, the Soil and
Water Conservation Society prepared for EPA a bro-
chure, Vegetative Filter Strips Now Eligible for CRP
Enrollment - Consider the Advantages, which explains
how filter strips can be established under USDA's
Conservation Reserve Program to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat. Also, EPA has contrib-
uted to the development of Assessment and Control
of Nonpoint Source Pollution of Aquatic Systems: A
Practical Approach, which is being produced for
UNESCO to provide sound information and guide-
lines for NPS assessment and control in a wide range
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 21
-------
of environmental settings. Several other technical
documents have been published in past years, includ-
ing publications from the NURP and RCWP, and a
handbook for evaluating the leaching potential of ag-
ricultural chemicals.
Provided Direct Assistance
EPA provided limited assistance to the states regard-
ing the REACH File update and PC software. A few
states received considerable direct assistance from
EPA, yet most states were provided minimal assist-
ance due to time constraints. Waterbody System
training was also provided to EPA Regions and states.
In addition to the above guidance, EPA Headquarters
has met twice with all EPA Regional NPS Coordi-
nators to discuss various aspects of section 319. Each
EPA Regional office, in turn, has held several section
319 workshops with the states and with other federal
agencies.
EPA directly assisted several states as they prepared
their assessments and Management Programs, in-
cluding working with the states in the field and in state
offices. For example, EPA representatives worked
directly with Idaho, Delaware, the Virgin Islands, and
Alaska, providing technical and administrative guid-
ance.
Made Funds Available for State Use
Although there are several CWA funding sources that
can be used to develop and/or implement state NPS
programs, it is unlikely that large amounts of these
funds will be used by the states for this purpose. For
example, while some section 106 and section 205(j)(l)
funds have been used in the past for NPS activities,
the competition for these funds has increased due to
the new point source activities required by the 1987
amendments to the CWA (e.g., toxics assessments
and control strategies, stormwater runoff manage-
ment). Still, states can link activities such as those
under section 314 (the Clean Lakes Program) and
section 320 (the National Estuary Program) to their
NPS programs.
The fact that a non-federal match is required for im-
plementation under section 319" illustrates the intent
of Congress to have the states commit a fair share of
their own funds for NPS Management Program im-
plementation. As discussed earlier (see "EPA
Actions" on page 17), however, most states cannot
begin implementation since their Management Pro-
grams have not yet been approved. Nearly all funds
utilized to date for section 319 purposes have been
used for program development, which requires no
non-federal funds. In fact, the states have provided
very little new funding in response to section 319.
Successful implementation will require a significant
increase in state NPS expenditures.
Federal funds will also be important for successful
implementation. The following discussion focuses on
the use of section 319(h) and (i), section 205(j)(5),
section 201(g)(l)(B), section 603(c)(2), and section
604(b) funds for implementation of the NPS Man-
agement Programs.
Section 319: Section 319(h) authorizes "grants for
implementation of Management Programs", but not
for the development of Assessment Reports or pro-
grams. Such grants may be made to states with ap-
proved Assessment Reports and approved or partially
approved Management Programs provided that those
states meet certain conditions that include a non-
federal match of 40 percent20 and state maintenance
of effort funding.21 As noted in "EPA Actions" on
page 17, grants can be made for implementing those
approved elements of a partially approved Manage-
ment Program.
Section 319(i) authorizes grants for assisting states in
carrying out groundwater protection activities that
will advance the state toward implementation of a
comprehensive NPS control program. Such activities
include research, planning, groundwater assessments,
demonstration programs, enforcement, technical as-
sistance, education, and training. These grants can
be made to states with approved assessments and ap-
proved or partially approved Management Programs
provided that those states meet conditions that in-
clude a non-federal match of 50 percent.
There was no Congressional appropriation of 319
grant funds for either FY88 or FY89.
Section 205(j)(5): Section 205(j)(5) of the Clean Wa-
ter Act establishes a set-aside of construction grant
funds "...for the purpose of carrying out section 319
of this Act." These funds may be used for
Program development, the preparation of state
NPS Assessment Reports and/or Management
19 Nonpoint Source Guidance. December 1987. USEPA Office of Water, page 30.
20 For example, a federal grant of 560,000 would have to be matched with $40,000 from non-federal sources, for a total
of $100,000.
21 Maintenance of effort means that the level of state spending for NPS control in FY85 and FY86 must be maintained for
the state to be eligible for a federal grant under section 319.
22 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Programs, and the development, installation and
refinement of NFS data management systems.
The implementation of state Management Pro-
grams.
Grants from the 205(j)(5) reserve are awarded under
the authority of section 319(h). The conditions for
use of 205(j)(5) grant funds for program implementa-
tion are the same in every respect as the conditions for
use of 319(h) and (i) grant funds, including the match
requirements. However, no match is required for
205(j)(5) funds that are used for program
development.
The greater of $100,000 or 1% of the state's con-
struction grants allotment is available for grants from
the 205(j)(5) set-aside. New 205(j)(5) funds will be
available as long as states receive construction grant
allotments, the last of which are authorized for FY90.
These funds are available for obligation for state use
during the fiscal year in which they are appropriated
and during the following fiscal year. For example,
FY90 funds may be used to award grants in FY91.
EPA has tracked the availability and use of 205(j)(5)
funds for NPS program development. The process
by which states receive and spend these funds begins
with the Congressional appropriation of Title II funds
and the subsequent reservation22 of 205(j)(5) funds,
followed by the award or obligation of these funds for
state use, and the expenditure or drawdown of these
funds. In general, these funds are used to maintain a
minimum level of NPS staff, and are not used directly
for NPS implementation.
Of the 57 states and territories, 51 received all or
nearly all (less than $1,000 unobligated) of their FY87
205(j)(5) funds as of September 30, 1988.23 Two ter-
ritories and four states had not applied for large
amounts of available funds, including the states of
Maryland ($180,010 unobligated), Virginia
($136,930), and Georgia ($95,740), as well as the
Pacific Trust Territories and the Virgin Islands
($100,000 each). It is important to note that all states
and territories, with the exception of the Pacific Trust
Territories and the Virgin Islands, had received the
minimum of $100,00(P4 by September 30, 1988. From
the national perspective, $12.5 million of FY87
205 (j) (5) funds were reserved, and EPA awarded 95
percent ($11.9 million) for section 319 program de-
velopment by the end of FY88. Because these funds
were targeted for program development no state match
was required.
As shown in Table 5 on page 24, only 13 states and
one territory had received 100 percent of their FY88
205(j)(5) funds by September 30, 1988. All other
states and territories had large sums of FY88 funds
available at that date. Nationally, $23.1 million of
FY88 205(j) (5) funds were reserved, and only 20 per-
cent ($4.6 million) was obligated by the end of FY88.
No state match was required since the funds were
obligated for program development. As indicated
above, these funds are available for obligation until
the end of FY89.
In summary, through September 30, 1988, $35.7
million of FY87 and FY88 funds was reserved for
section 319 purposes under section 205(j)(5). Of this
total reserve, $16.6 million ($11.9 million of FY87
and $4.6 million of FY88 funds) has been obligated
for section 319 program development, and therefore
required no state match. EPA's records show that
nationally only 17 percent ($2.8 million) of the obli-
gated FY87 and FY88 funds had been drawn down
from letters of credit by September 30, 1988.
The sum of the FY89 reservation and the unobligated
FY8825 amount for each state is the total amount of
205(j)(5) funds available for section 319 purposes as
of October 1, 1988. Nationally, the total available
was $29.1 million. Based upon the $100,000 mini-
mum and obligations as of 9/30/88, however, it can
be shown that a minimum of $14 million of the
22 For the purposes of this Report, financial terms are used in the following manner. Section 205(j)(5) funds are reserved
by EPA from each state's Title II allotment to be used for NPS activities. While EPA retains these funds and before they
are provided to a state by a grant award, the funds are available and unobligated. An award is the legal act of signing
a grant and obligating 205(j)(5) funds for the use of the grantee (i.e., the state).
23 SOURCE: EPA's Financial Management System, supplemented by information from EPA's Grants Information and
Control System.
24 If a state chooses not to use a minimum of $100,000 of its reserve for NPS purposes, the difference between what is
actually used for NPS purposes and $100,000 will be reallotted to other states as construction grant funds, pursuant to
40 CFR 35.155. On the other hand, section 205(j)(5) states that "sums so reserved in a state in any fiscal year for which
such state does not request the use of such sums, to the extent such sums exceed $100,000, may be used by such state
for other purposes under this title". In other words, for states with a reserve greater than $100,000 the state may choose
to use the amount in excess of $100,000 for Title II purposes instead of for section 319. Three states (Georgia, Maryland,
and Virginia) chose this option in applying for FY87 funds.
25 Unobligated FY87 205G)(5) funds are no longer available.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
23
-------
available funds ($8.3 million from FY88, $5.7 million
from FY89) will be used.26
These funds can be used for program implementation
(see "Section 319" on page 22 for implementation
grant requirements) and/or development. If the states
and territories use only the minimum amount of
available funds ($14 million) solely for program de-
velopment, then the total amount of FY87-89
205(j)(5) derived funds utilized for section 319 pur-
poses would be $30.6 million ($16.6 million already
used + $14 million). No state match would be pro-
vided under this extreme scenario. At the other ex-
treme, if states and territories use the maximum
amount of available funds ($29.1 million) solely for
implementation, the total amount of FY87-89
205(j)(5) derived funds used for section 319, including
the 40 percent match, would be $65.1 million ($16.6
million already used -f $48.5 million). It is likely that
the actual amount will fall somewhere between $30.6
million and $65.1 million.
STATE or TER-
RITORY
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
FY88
RESERVED
256,820
137,460
155,130
150,250
1,642,650
183,720
281,370
112,750
112,750
775,280
388,300
177,880
112,750
1,038,760
553,520
310,850
207,320
292,320
252,480
177,790
555,500
779,800
987,570
422,150
206,930
636,710
112,750
UNOBLI-
GATED
0
137,460
155,130
0
1,642,650
42,413
281,370
0
112,750
775,280
388,300
177,880
112,750
1,038,760
479,791
310,850
207,320
0
252,480
177,790
555,500
779,800
459,096
0
206,930
636,710
0
FY89
RESERVED
104,347
100,000
100,000
100,000
667,412
100,000
114,322
100,000
100,000
314,999
157,781
100,000
100,000
422,050
224,897
126,298
100,000
118,769
102,585
100,000
225,700
316,835
401,252
171,520
100,000
258,696
100,000
TOTAL AVAIL-
ABLE
104,347
237,460
255,130
100,000
2,310,062
142,413
395,692
100,000
212,750
1,090,279
546,081
277,880
212,750
1,460,810
704,688
437,148
307,320
118,769
355,065
277,790
781,200
1,096,635
860,348
171,520
306,930
895,406
100,000
26 It was assumed for this analysis that funds in excess of $100,000 that have not been obligated as of 9/30/88 will be di-
verted for Title II purposes.
24 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
STATE or TER-
RITORY
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern
Marianas
Pacific Trust Ter-
ritory
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL US.
FY88
RESERVED
117,480
112,750
229,530
938,560
112,750
2,535,110
414,520
112,750
1,292,990
185,560
259,460
909,790
154,220
235,290
112,750
333,650
1,049,770
121,020
112,750
470,040
399,410
358,040
620,920
112,750
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
299,560
100,000
23,122,980
UNOBLI-
GATED
117,480
0
229,530
544,150
112,750
2,535,110
0
0
1,292,990
185,560
0
909,790
73,220
235,290
112,750
333,650
1,049,770
0
112,750
470,040
247,748
0
275,900
0
100,000
100,000
0
100,000
299,560
100,000
18,469,048
FY89
RESERVED
100,000
100,000
100,000
381,340
100,000
1,030,022
168,419
100,000
525,345
100,000
105,418
369,650
100,000
100,000
100,000
135,562
426,525
100,000
100,000
190,979
162,283
145,472
252,283
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
121,713
100,000
10,642,474
TOTAL AVAIL-
ABLE
217,480
100,000
329,530
925,490
212,750
3,565,132
168,419
100,000
1,818,335
285,560
105,418
1,279,440
173,220
335,290
212,750
469,212
1,476,295
100,000
212,750
661,019
410,031
145,472
528,183
100,000
200,000
200,000
100,000
200,000
421,273
200,000
29,111,522
Table 5. Availability and Use of 205(jX5) Funds for NFS Programs: SOURCE: EPA's Financial Management
System and Grants Information and Control System
Section 201(g)(l)(B): The Water Quality Act of 1987
amended CWA section 201(g)(l) by adding sub-
section (B) which established a new purpose for
which these funds can be used: "...any purpose for
which a grant can be made under section 319(h) and
(i) of this Act (including any innovative and alterna-
tive approaches for the control of nonpoint sources
of pollution)." The conditions for use of these funds
are the same as those for the use of 319(h) and (i)
grant funds, including the matching requirements.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 25
-------
The Act does not mandate use of these funds for NFS
development or implementation. The funds can,
however, be used to fund implementation of NFS
Management Programs as a matter of state discretion.
EPA is encouraging the states to use these funds for
NPS purposes.27 States can obligate up to 20 percent
of their annual section 205 allotments for uses under
section 319. However, FY90 is the last year that Title
II funds are authorized for appropriation. These
FY90 funds can be used to award grants in FY91.
Table 6 shows the amount of section 201(g)(l)(B)
funds that were available for use under section 319 for
FY87.28 Similar amounts were available in FY88, but
no states have yet used FY88 Title II appropriations
for section 319 purposes. The table illustrates the
general lack of use of these funds for NPS programs
(0.5% nationally). Only two states (Delaware and
South Dakota) have applied these funds to NPS im-
plementation efforts. As discussed earlier (see "EPA
Actions" on page 17), however, EPA had only ap-
proved Nebraska's Management Program and
portions of the Delaware and South Dakota Man-
agement Programs by January 30, 1989. Since ap-
proval of Management Programs is a precondition for
obligation of Title II funds for section 319 purposes,
it is not surprising that only two states have used these
funds for NPS implementation. It is also clear, how-
ever, that the potential for using Title II funds for
NPS implementation was a strong incentive for those
states to develop approvable Management Programs.
The absence of more approvable Management Pro-
grams by January 30, 1989 may be an indication that
few other states had a strong desire to use Title II
funds for NPS implementation.29
States are not expected to use a large portion of their
section 201(g)(l)(B) funds for NTS management
largely because of the high priority accorded to con-
struction of publicly owned treatment works. Given
that these funds are not authorized for appropriation
after FY90, states with backlogs of wastewater treat-
ment needs are not likely to use the 20 percent set-
aside for NPS management. As one state reported,
"neither the state revolving loan fund nor the Gover-
nor's discretionary funds will be used for NPS activ-
ities because of a backlog of point source needs".
STATE or
TERRITORY
Alabama
FY87
FUNDS
AVAIL-
ABLE ($)
5,324,600
FY87
FUNDS
USED FOR
NPS ($)
0
STATE or
TERRITORY
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
FY87
FUNDS
AVAIL-
ABLE ($)
2,850,000
3,216,400
3,115,000
34,056,000
3,809,200
5,833,600
2,328,200
2,328,200
16,073,600
8,051,000
3,688,000
2,328,200
21,536,200
11,476,000
6,444,800
4,298,200
6,060,600
5,234,600
3,661,600
11,517,000
16,167,400
20,474,800
8,752,200
4,290,400
13,200,600
2,328,200
2,435,800
2,328,200
4,758,600
19,458,800
2,328,200
52,700,400
FY87
FUNDS
USED FOR
NPS ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 For details on EPA policy regarding use of Title II and VI funds for NPS activities, see Office of Water memo of January
17, 1989.
28 Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 83, April 30, 1987 and Vol. 52, No. 231, December 2, 1987.
29 SOURCE: EPA's Grants Information and Control System
26 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
STATE or
TERRITORY
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern
Marianas
Pacific Trust
Territory
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTAL U.S.
FY87
FUNDS
AVAIL-
ABLE ($)
8,593,800
2,328,200
26,807,000
3,847,000
5,379,200
18,862,400
3,174,800
4,878,000
2,328,200
6,917,400
19,877,200
2,509,000
2,328,200
9,745,200
8,280,800
7,423,000
12,873,400
2,328,200
427,400
309,200
198,600
387,400
6,210,800
248,000
468,717,000
FY87
FUNDS
USED FOR
NPS ($)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,300,000
Table 6. Section 201(gXlXB) Funds Applied to NPS
Management
Section 603(c)(2): The Water Quality Act of 1987
added a new Title VI to the CWA that establishes a
State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund
(SRF) program, and provides federal grants to capi-
talize SRFs. While Title II funding is being phased
out, Title VI will continue through FY94. SRFs will
provide funds in the form of loans, refinancings, bond
insurance and guarantees, but not grants, that may
be used for:
The construction of publicly owned treatment
works.
The implementation of state NPS Management
Programs.
The development and implementation of state
estuary conservation and management plans.
Section 603(c)(2) authorizes states to provide financial
assistance "for the implementation of a Management
Program established under section 319 of this Act..."
CWA section 602(b)(5) states that "all funds in the
fund as a result of capitalization grants under this title
and section 205(m) of this Act will first be used to
assure maintenance of progress, as determined by the
Governor of the State, toward compliance with en-
forceable deadlines, goals, and requirements of this
Act, including the municipal compliance deadline".
States may satisfy the "first use" requirement by certi-
fying that all National Municipal Policy projects in
the state are: (1) in compliance, (2) on enforceable
schedules, (3) have enforcement actions filed, or (4)
have funding commitments during or prior to the first
year covered by the Intended Use Plan. Other funds
in the SRF, including state funds deposited in the
SRF in excess of the required match, and bond pro-
ceeds from leveraging, are not so restricted as to initial
use.
There were six SRFs established in FY88, and six
more established in the first quarter of FY89. EPA
expects that a majority of states will have approved
SRFs by the end of FY89.
Section 604(b): Beginning in FY89, states must re-
serve each year one percent of their Title VI allot-
ments or $100,000, whichever is greater, to carry out
planning under 205(j) and 303(e). Although NPS
planning activities are eligible for funding under
205(j), EPA does not anticipate that significant addi-
tional funds will be available for NPS activities
through the 604(b) reserve.
Actions EPA Took to Support State
Implementation of Effective NPS
Programs
Helped Support USDA-Soil Conservation
Service Personnel Detailed to EPA Regions
In a cooperative effort with the Department of Agri-
culture, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has as-
signed persons to work in each of EPA's 10 Regions
and EPA Headquarters. These 11 individuals have
been instrumental in coordinating EPA NPS activities
with USDA activities.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 27
-------
Established Memorandum of Understanding
with Soil Conservation Service
EPA and SCS signed (October 20, 1988) an interim
memorandum of understanding (MOU) that "estab-
lishes policies and administrative procedures for addi-
tional cooperative efforts toward water quality
maintenance and improvement, particularly through
using SCS and EPA authorities and programs to assist
in the implementation of State Nonpoint Source
(NPS) Management Programs". Some of the high-
lights of the MOU include:
SCS agrees to utilize the results of the section 319
Assessment Reports, and future updates, in fu-
ture water quality initiatives.
EPA agrees to encourage states to include SCS
in their ongoing development, update, and review
of section 319 state Management Programs.
SCS agrees to maintain and/or inczed to protect
wetlands, as well as inc to states for developing
and implementing water quality programs and
projects, including the state NPS Management
Programs.
SCS agrees to help states and EPA ensure that
recommended practices are applied and
watershed water quality objectives are being met.
SCS agrees to implement internal policies that
elevate the importance of water quality in all SCS
programs and assure consistency of SCS actions
with state NPS Management Programs.
SCS agrees to continue to promote ways by
which the Conservation Reserve Program will
reduce NPS pollution.
SCS agrees to encourage the targeting of P.L.
83-566 land treatment projects to watersheds in-
cluded in the state NPS Management Programs
and those selected as Clean Lakes projects.
EPA agrees to encourage states to select agricul-
tural BMPs that are, as a minimum, in accord-
ance with SCS standards and specifications.
EPA agrees to encourage states, consistent with
state NPS Management Programs, to use the
SCS and the conservation districts' existing de-
livery system to implement BMPs on agricultural
lands.
EPA agrees to encourage states to enter into
agreements with SCS and/or conservation dis-
tricts for levels of technical assistance established
mutually by SCS and the state.
EPA and SCS will jointly pursue the develop-
ment of a broader agreement that designates wa-
ter quality objectives as a priority in future
program and budget initiatives (including the
Conservation Title in the 1990 Farm Bill).
SCS and EPA have agreed to enter into a final agree-
ment following EPA's adoption of its NPS Agenda
(see "Convened NPS Agenda Task Force" on page
29).
National Estuary Program
EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), which be-
gan in 1985, focuses basinwide management attention
on specific estuaries around the country. The NEP
will continue as a formally established program under
the Water Quality Act of 1987 amendments to the
CWA. The new law encourages Governors to nomi-
nate estuaries, based upon national significance, for
which the EPA Administrator would convene man-
agement conferences. The conferences will develop
comprehensive conservation and management plans
to protect and enhance estuarine environmental qual-
ity. These plans will address both point sources and
nonpoint sources.
Estuaries that have been officially designated are
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds (NC), Long Island Sound
(NY and CT), Narragansett Bay (RI), Buzzards Bay
(MA), Puget Sound (WA), New York-New Jersey
Harbor (NY and NJ), Delaware Bay (DE, PA, and
NJ), Delaware Inland Bays (DE), Sarasota Bay (FL),
San Francisco Bay (CA), Galveston Bay (TX), and
Santa Monica Bay (CA).
Near Coastal Waters Initiative
The Near Coastal Water Initiative (NCW) began in
1985 as one of several long-term strategic planning
initiatives developed by EPA. In 1986 EPA identified
five major national environmental problems affecting
near coastal waters:
Toxics contamination.
Eutrophication.
Pathogens.
Habitat loss or alteration.
Changes in living resources.
In FY88 EPA worked with other federal agencies to
inventory available data for near coastal waters. EPA
and NOAA developed a case study assessment,
producing the document Strategic Assessment of Near
Coastal Waters: Northeast Case Study in November
1987. A supplemental document was also prepared,
Susceptibility and Status of Northeast Estuaries to
Nutrient Discharges, in July, 1988. This work ac-
counted for both point and nonpoint sources, proba-
ble sources, and susceptibility of 17 Northeast
estuaries to nutrient enrichment. EPA is also funding
28 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
several demonstration pilot projects in selected coastal
waters around the country that include NFS control
solutions.
Proposed Strategy to Address Pesticides in
Ground- Water
In its Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: EPA's
Proposed Pesticides Strategy, EPA establishes a goal
of protecting the ground-water resource with a focus
on preventing unacceptable contamination of current
or potential drinking water supplies or ground water
of ecological importance. The strategy also provides
the states with the opportunity to take the lead role
in meeting this goal by designing and implementing
plans to manage pesticides to prevent unacceptable
ground-water contamination. EPA believes that these
state Pesticide/Ground-Water Management Plans can
be used to strengthen EPA's foundation for the fed-
eral registration within states of pesticides posing
ground-water contamination concerns.
EPA released the proposed strategy for public review
and comment on February 26, 1988. EPA held
workshops in late 1988 to explore with state agencies
and others the Management Plan concept, including
the appropriate components and emphasis of such
plans and the degree of oversight that EPA should
have in its development and implementation.
Convened NPS Agenda Task Force
EPA Headquarters, under the direction of the Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water, initiated a NPS
Agenda Task Force to lay out plans for Headquarters
NPS activities for FY89-93. This Task Force in-
volved all offices within the Office of Water (OW); the
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS);
the Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation (OPPE);
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER); the Office of External Affairs (OEA); the
Office of General Counsel (OGC); three EPA Re-
gional offices; and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Task Force was created to explore new, creative,
proactive approaches to implementing the NPS pro-
visions of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Several
workgroup level meetings were held in a six-month
period to assess the situation, determine program
needs, and decide upon actions to be taken by EPA.
The Task Force established the following national
NPS agenda goal:
"To protect and restore designated uses of the Na-
tion'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."
Other federal agencies, private interest groups, and
environmental groups were invited to comment on an
early draft of the NPS agenda, and a widespread
public comment period was held prior to Agenda
finalization. The Agenda focuses on the section 319
state NPS Management Programs as the cornerstone
of the national NPS program. The Agenda was ap-
proved by the EPA Administrator on January 18,
1989, and includes the following general themes:
Help states and local governments raise the level
of public awareness about how NPS pollution
affects water quality and their daily lives.
Provide states and local governments with infor-
mation on practical, feasible solutions to prevent
or control NPS pollution.
Examine the economic forces that drive behavior
causing the NPS problem.
Help states and local governments improve their
capability to develop their own regulatory sol-
utions.
Develop the tools states and local governments
need to establish sound water quality-based pro-
grams for NPS, particularly water quality criteria
and monitoring protocols that are specifically
designed to evaluate NPS controls.
Issued Underground Storage Tank
Regulations
Protection of ground water is the primary objective
of EPA's regulations issued in September 1988 de-
signed to prevent leaks and spills from underground
storage tanks (USTs) and to ensure that the problems
from existing leaks and spills are corrected properly.
These regulations, which affect nearly two million
tanks containing petroleum and hazardous sub-
stances, require owners and operators to test and up-
grade existing tanks, to ensure new tanks are protected
from corrosion and properly installed, and to report,
investigate, and clean up any releases promptly.
States have the lead role in implementing the UST
regulations, and the number and effectiveness of state
programs continued to grow this year. At the end of
FY88, 42 states had UST-specific statutes, covering
about 90 percent of federally regulated USTs.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund began its first full year of operation in
FY88, and EPA provided states with $34 million from
the fund to ensure that releases from USTs are ad-
dressed. The fund enables states to oversee corrective
actions by owners and operators, and where neces-
sary, to take enforcement actions or to clean up a re-
lease if a capable responsible party is not found. State
programs funded by the LUST Trust Fund were
underway in 53 states and territories by the end of the
year. Corrective actions had been initiated at more
than 8,000 sites, of which 135 were Trust Fund fi-
nanced.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 29
-------
Supported Professional Workshops
USD A Allows Filter Strips Under Farm Bill
EPA sponsored or co-sponsored two workshops in
FY88:
1988 RCWP Workshop, St. Paul, MN - Focused
on nutrient and pesticide management, ground-
water monitoring, and NPS data analysis. All
states were invited as RCWP lessons learned
were shared with those developing section 319
Assessment Reports and Management Programs.
National Monitoring Symposium, Annapolis,
MD - All states were invited to this meeting that
included several presentations on NPS monitor-
ing, aquatic life criteria, and GIS applications.
A proceedings was published and distributed to
all states.
Actions other Federal Agencies Took to
Implement NPS Control
USD A Elevated Water Quality to Higher
Priority
The goals expressed in USDA's updated National
Program for Soil and Water Conservation (NCP) are
to assure through 1997 that USDA programs assist
land owners and land users to:
1. Maintain and enhance the quality of the resource
base for sustained use.
2. Improve and protect the quality of the environ-
ment to provide attractive and satisfying places
to live and opportunities for orderly growth.
3. Improve the standard of living and quality of life
in rural communities.
The top priorities for USDA are:
1. Reducing the damage caused by the excessive soil
erosion on crop, pasture, range, forest, and other
rural lands.
2. Protecting the quality of ground and surface wa-
ter against harmful contamination by nonpoint
sources.
In short, the updated NCP has elevated water quality
to the number two priority in SCS.
The Food and Security Act of 1985 (PL 99-198, also
known as FSA or the Farm Bill) includes a conser-
vation title that provides ways in which those lands
posing off-farm environmental effects can be dealt
with.30 The three key provisions of the conservation
title are (1) the Highly Erodible Land Conservation
Provision commonly referred to as Conservation
Compliance (CC) and Sodbuster, (2) the Wetland
Conservation Provision commonly referred to as
Swampbuster, and (3) the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP). A fourth key provision, Conserva-
tion Easements, is included in the credit title of the
legislation.
The Highly Erodible Land Conservation Provision
provides exemptions to those producers of agricul-
tural commodities on highly erodible land who have
approved conservation plans. Those producers who
sodbust highly erodible land after December 23, 1985
must have a conservation plan applied at the time
sodbusted land is planted. The CC applies to those
highly erodible lands used to produce agricultural
commodities in any of the years 1981 through 1985.
Those lands must have an approved conservation
plan by January 1, 1990, and the plan must be fully
implemented before January 1, 1995 to enable the
producer to retain USDA program benefits.
Swampbuster provides that any person who in any
crop year produces an agricultural commodity on any
converted wetland shall be ineligible for any USDA
program benefits. Converted wetland is any wetland
drained, dredged, leveled, filled, or leveed after De-
cember 23, 1985.
The CRP will take up to 40-45 million acres of the
most erodible cropland out of agricultural production
during a 10-year period by developing rental agree-
ments with landowners.
The potential water quality benefits that can accrue
from the Farm Bill will not be fully realized unless (1)
the CRP idles those lands causing water quality
problems and (2) conservation plans mandated by the
CC program are oriented to water quality-related
problems.
EPA has and continues to work with USDA to
modify the CRP to increase its potential for reducing
off-farm environmental threats. Section 1231(c)(2)
of the Farm Bill authorizes the Secretary of Agricul-
ture to include in the CRP "...lands that are not
highly erodible lands but that pose an off-farm envi-
ronmental threat ..."; it is this option that EPA con-
tinues to encourage USDA to exercise in the CRP.
30 Parts of this section are taken from: Humenik, F.J., M.D. Smolen, and S.A. Dressing, 1987. Pollution from nonpoint
sources, Where we are and where we should go. Environmental Science and Technology. 21(8): 737-742.
30 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
EPA and other environmental groups represented on
the CRP Work Group have cooperated with USDA
to make riparian filter strips eligible under the CRP.
EPA has published a Filter Strips brochure for the
CRP that will help inform decision-makers, the agri-
cultural community, and the general public regarding
this modification to the program. Through the sev-
enth filter strip enrollment in July, 1988, about 29,000
acres of filter strips were planned for installation.
In addition to the Filter Strips brochure, EPA has
developed and distributed a guidance document that
informs water quality managers of ways to link the
CRP with their NFS Management Programs. For
example, states may increase CRP enrollment in high
priority watersheds by augmenting CRP rental pay-
ments with state cost-share funds.
ASCS has the lead responsibility for implementing the
CRP, the CC, Swampbuster, and Sodbuster. Because
it is the primary agency that administers USDA's
commodity programs, ASCS is responsible for with-
holding program benefits for noncompliance with the
new Farm Bill conservation title provisions. For ex-
ample, in FY87, ASCS obtained 2.1 million certif-
ications from agricultural producers who participated
in federal farm programs to determine whether such
producers have or have not newly cultivated highly
erodible land or wetland. The ASCS also completed
a 15 percent random sample compliance review of
these agricultural producers to verify compliance with
the law.
Soil Conservation Service Implemented New
Water Quality Action Plan
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) established a
task force to implement its new Water Quality Action
Plan (WQAP) in December, 1987. The WQAP, in
general, is a program to develop and implement spe-
cific procedures to enable SCS to account for water
quality in its activities. The key components of the
WQAP include:
Design of a comprehensive water quality evalu-
ation system (CES).
Formulation of a technical guidance (TCG) for
the CES.
Training of SCS and other USDA field office
personnel, state water quality professionals, state
agriculture department staff, and Conservation
District personnel.
By early 1989, SCS will begin implementation of new
nutrient management and pesticide management
practices. These two practices are essential to SCS
activities in controlling agricultural NPS pollutants.
By September, 1989, SCS expects to have completed
training of SCS field personnel.
EPA will play a role by helping to disseminate infor-
mation to state water quality agencies, asking states
to make available to SCS its water quality problem
area maps and data, providing information and as-
sistance to SCS as it attempts to set priorities for
managing pesticide problems, providing assistance to
SCS as it develops the CES and TCG, and by assist-
ing in the development of predictive models and other
tools for estimating the water quality impacts of SCS
activities.
SCS Assigned Details to State Water
Quality Agencies
SCS has personnel detailed to the state water quality
agency in 17 states to provide assistance in developing
their water quality programs. This arrangement
should provide a boost to those 17 states as they im-
plement their NPS Management Programs.
Extension Service Focus on Water Quality
In 1986-1987 the Cooperative Extension System
identified eight National Priority Initiatives, one of
which was water quality.31 Extension Service identi-
fied four critical issues under its Water Quality initi-
ative:
What are the attributes of the hydrologic situ-
ation that make our water resources vulnerable
to contamination?
What are the impacts of agricultural, industrial,
and household chemicals on water quality and
on subsequent uses or users of the water?
What can domestic, agricultural, and municipal
water users do to conserve their water resource
and to protect or enhance its quality?
What can private citizens and/or local govern-
ment officials do to address public concerns
about the interactions of land use, chemical use,
and water quality?
EPA and Extension Service have an opportunity to
meet common goals under section 319 and the Water
Quality initiative by working closely together. Ex-
tension's Water Quality initiative is focused primarily
on human uses of water, whereas the state NPS
Management Programs - although many have a
strong drinking water focus - devote considerable at-
tention to maintaining and restoring fish habitats,
31 United States Department of Agriculture, Extension Service. 1988. Cooperative Extension System National Initiatives,
Focus on Issues.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 31
-------
recreational water uses, shellfishing beds, and other
non-human uses of surface waters. Governor-
designated state NFS management lead agencies
should work with the Extension System to help them
direct better their Water Quality initiative to meet
state NPS needs.
Forest Service "Rise to the Future''
In 1987, the USDA Forest Service (FS) developed
goals for an "aggressive program to maintain and en-
hance fishery resources in National Forests and Na-
tional Grasslands".32 The importance of this program
is highlighted by the fact that FS lands "in 43 states
contain about 128,000 miles of streams and rivers; 2.2
million acres of ponds, lakes, and reservoirs; and
16,500 miles of coast and shorelines".
Action items of this FS fisheries program were to be
implemented beginning in FY88. The following is a
list of program goals:
Enhance program identification by increasing
awareness of fish habitat management through-
out the Forest Service and among fishery users
and cooperators.
Use the best management technologies to in-
crease habitat management efficiency and effec-
tiveness.
Communicate fish habitat improvement and ac-
cess needs and market fishing opportunities.
Strengthen partnerships with states, federal agen-
cies, Tribal Governments, conservation groups,
and publics to share in fisheries management.
Use valid economic techniques to determine
fishery values, supplies, and demands in the de-
cision making process.
Maintain a highly skilled workforce with strong
managerial, analytical, and technical skills.
Implement a program of activities and develop
budgets to accomplish the above goals.
EPA is enthusiastic about the Forest Service's
forward-thinking approach in its "Rise to the Future"
program. In fact, EPA staff in the western Regions
are working with their counterparts in the forests to
promote new monitoring and restoration techniques
that will ensure that fishery habitat will be maintained
and improved in the vast tracts of public land man-
aged by the Forest Service.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
Provided Technical Support
ARS continues to support the development and im-
plementation of agricultural NPS models, such as
CREAMS (Chemical and Runoff Effects of Agricul-
tural Management Systems), GLEAMS
(Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Man-
agement Systems), and AgNPS (Agricultural
NonPoint Source). ARS is also developing tech-
niques that predict and quantify pesticide contam-
ination in ground and surface waters.
ASCS Supported Special Water Quality
Projects
In FY88, ASCS allocated $8 million of ACP funds to
24 special water quality projects nationwide. The
agency continues to encourage state Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation committees to fund ad-
ditional water quality projects with their state ACP
allocation.
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) im-
plements NPS through two facets of the highway de-
velopment process; environmental analysis pursuant
to the National Environmental Policy Act and the
policies and procedures for the control of erosion,
abatement of water pollution, and prevention of
damage by sediment deposition.
Erosion control is emphasized in the preparation of
plans, specifications, and estimates. It is also
FHWA's policy to include permanent erosion and
sediment at the earliest practicable time consistent
with good construction practices. Also pollutants
used during highway construction or operation and
material from sediment traps shall not be stockpiled
or disposed of in a manner that makes them readily
susceptible to being washed into any watercourse by
runoff or high water. These policies that are directed
toward the design and construction phase of highway
development are preceded by FHWA's policy during
the environmental analysis process.
The FHWA technical advisory on guidance for pre-
paring and processing environmental documents dis-
cusses water quality issues. The advisory indicates
that proposed highway alternatives where roadway
runoff or other NPS pollution may have an adverse
impact on sensitive water resources must be addressed
during the environmental process. The advisory also
indicates that FHWA has procedures to determine the
32 United States Department of Agriculture-Forest Service. 1987. Rise to the Future, Fish Your National Forests.
32 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
level of potential impacts and appropriate mitigative
measures.
Listed below are the publications that discuss meas-
ures to identify and mitigate highway runoff concerns:
Sources and Migration of Highway Runoff
Pollutants.
Vol. I: Executive Summary.
Vol. II: Methods.
Vol. Ill: Research Report.
Vol. IV: Appendix.
Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters.
Vol. I: Executive Summary.
Vol. II: Research Report.
Vol. Ill: Resource Document for Environ-
mental Assessments.
Vol. IV: Procedural Guidelines for Envi-
ronmental Assessments.
Vol. V: Guidelines for Conducting Field
Studies.
Highway Maintenance Impacts to Water Quality.
Vol. I: Executive Summary.
Vol. II: Investigation of Impacts of Se-
lected Highway Maintenance Practices on
Water Quality.
Vol. Ill: Reference Manual for Assessing
Water Quality Impacts from Highway
Maintenance Practices.
Vol. IV: Guidelines Manual for Minimiz-
ing Water Quality Impacts from Highway
Maintenance Practices.
Management Practices for Mitigation of Highway
Stormwater Runoff Pollution.
Vol. I: Guidelines.
Vol. II: Literature Review.
Vol. Ill: Research Report.
Vol. IV: Executive Summary.
These tools are being combined into the development
of an "Interactive User Interface System" for assessing
water pollutant impacts from highway stormwater
runoff. The system is being developed on a micro-
computer disc to be compatible with other FHWA
systems for hydraulic evaluations, using FORTRAN
77 language. A users guide is also being prepared to
provide background information and guidance for use
of the program provided on the microcomputer disc.
Federal Aviation Administration Developed
Airport Standards
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) devel-
oped standards for the control of storm water dis-
charges at new airports. These new standards should
significantly reduce the potential for NFS problems
associated with airports.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Provided Data
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) supplied EPA with nutrient dis-
charge estimates for estuaries across the U.S. These
discharge estimates were used to assist the coastal
states in developing NPS Assessment Reports. EPA
is tracking the use of the NOAA data as it reviews the
state reports.
NOAA also completed a database on agricultural
pesticide use and runoff in estuarine drainage areas.
The database contains estimates of agricultural pesti-
cide use for 28 environmentally-important pesticides
on 71 crops in the 92 estuarine drainage areas identi-
fied in Volume 1 of NOAA's National Estuarine In-
ventory. The database will form the basis for a series
of assessment products evaluating pesticide use, run-
off, and impact in estuarine drainage areas. These
analyses are being conducted over the next two years
as part of the National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
Inventory.
NOAA completed and distributed a series of National
Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory reports and
data summaries characterizing the sources, magnitude,
and relative importance of pollutant discharges on the
West Coast. The series included a report on the
analysis of West Coast point source discharges and
data summaries for Puget Sound, the Columbia
River, San Francisco Bay, Southern California Bight,
and San Diego Bay. These reports were sent to over
200 users in federal, state, and local environmental
agencies; academic institutions; and environmental
organizations.
Fish and Wildlife Service Focused on NPS
Pollution Management
During FY88, the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) fo-
cused attention on NPS pollution problems in a
number of operational and research areas, including
the following:
Service research personnel continue to study the
effects of pesticide chemicals on fish and wildlife
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 33
-------
species and their habitats, work that has been
continuously ongoing for over 40 years. Signif-
icant Service research efforts are also ongoing to
define the scope and effect of NFS pollutants
from urban runoff, resource extraction, and
hydromodification, as well as agriculture. Other
efforts focus on development of BMPs and opti-
mal mitigation alternatives.
Through the Department of the Interior's Irri-
gation Drainwater Program, Service personnel
are defining the causes and extent of problems
associated with excessive levels of micronutrients
(e.g., selenium, boron) in irrigation wastewaters
in arid western states, and developing controls
and mitigation alternatives.
Service operational personnel review thousands
of permit/license applications, federal project
construction and operational plans, resource
management plans, conservation easements, and
other types of land management plans each year
and provide recommendations on BMPs to con-
trol NPS pollution at its source as well as miti-
gation measures to offset damages to fish and
wildlife resources from these land management
activities.
On National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish
Hatcheries, and other Service lands, a concerted
effort is underway to identify and control sources
of NPS pollutants. On refuges, for example,
buffer strips are required along stream banks and
around tilled areas, biological control methods
are used to replace pesticides when possible, and
other agricultural BMPs are being implemented.
The Service has agreed to assist EPA in the re-
view of state NPS Assessment Reports and
Management Programs. The Service has also
agreed to assist the states, if requested, in the
preparation of their Assessment Reports.
Tennessee Valley Authority Participated in
Several NPS Efforts
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) carries out its
statutory authority related to land management, ad-
ministration of landrights, and permitting jurisdiction
under section 26a of the TVA Act so as to protect or
enhance the quality of the environment on its reser-
voir properties. In conducting its own operations and
construction activities, TVA ensures the use of BMPs
to control NPS pollution. In compliance with section
401 (a) of the CWA, TVA requires that applicants
proposing activities that may result in discharge into
navigable waters provide state certification that they
will comply with applicable provisions of the CWA.
In addition, TVA requires that any permit approval,
contract, license, or other authorization of any land-
disturbing activity (except agriculture) contain the
following condition:
The applicant will conduct all land-disturbing ac-
tivities in accordance with best management prac-
tices as defined by section 208 of the Clean Water
Act and implement these practices to control ero-
sion and sedimentation so as to prevent adverse
water quality and related aquatic impacts. Such
practice shall be consistent with sound engineering
and construction principles; applicable federal,
state, and local statutes, regulations, or ordinances;
and proven techniques for controlling erosion and
sedimentation.
TVA has established criteria for selection of TVA
lands suitable for agricultural licensing for row crops.
Agricultural licenses, as necessary, contain special
provisions for NPS control.
The Land Between The Lakes is TVA's 170,000-acre
recreation, environmental education, and natural re-
source management demonstration area in western
Kentucky and Tennessee. Activities in this demon-
stration area include the establishment of cover crops
on row-cropped lands, and BMPs for harvested forest
lands.
TVA is a major participant in the Land and Water
201 Project (see "Land & Water 201 Project" on page
50). Demonstration projects include the Copper
Basin in Tennessee where TVA has cooperated with
industry to reclaim more than 1,500 acres of land de-
nuded long ago by crude copper smelting practices.
In addition, TVA has worked closely with US DA
agencies, local soil and water conservation districts,
and landowners to install conservation practices to
clean agricultural runoff in the Middle Fork Holston
River watershed in Virginia. In FY88 TVA cooper-
ated with the FS and landowners to reclaim 135 acres
of abandoned manganese mines as part of the South
Fork Holston River basin rehabilitation effort in
Tennessee and Virginia.
Other TVA activities under the Land and Water 201
Project include participation on an interstate com-
mittee to address the water quality concerns in the
Clinch and Powell River watersheds of Tennessee and
Virginia. TVA's participation in the Bear Creek
floatway project is described under "ALABAMA" on
page 51.
TVA is involved in several other activities related to
water quality, including:
Reclamation of the Double Top abandoned coal
mine in Fentress County, Tennessee.
Farm waste management demonstration projects.
An innovative technology farm demonstration
program.
34 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Resource management conservation demon-
stration farms.
Nitrogen fertilizer research at TVA's National
Fertilizer Development Center.
The James and Mattubby Watershed Project (see
"MISSISSIPPI" on page 53) and the Gilbert Farm
Project (see "ALABAMA" on page 51) are described
elsewhere in this report.
among the various agencies that play a role in NPS
management.
EPA will establish a NPS Clearinghouse in FY89.
Initially, the Clearinghouse will serve as a source of
reference materials and contact people for federal,
state, and local use. As the Clearinghouse grows and
user needs are more clearly focused, changes in the
scope and/or level of information maintained will be
adjusted to respond to user preferences.
FY89 EPA Activities
Issue Guidance
EPA will update its guidance on use of alternative
federal funding sources for implementation of Man-
agement Programs. The Agency will also develop
guidance on alternative federal and state financial in-
centives.
Provide Tools and Data for Section 319
Reporting Software
EPA will continue to improve upon the Waterbody
System. In addition, REACH File updates and re-
finement will continue as planned.
EPA will work with selected states to test and refine
its section 319 annual reporting format and software.
Grant funds have been set aside for this task.
Data
EPA will add to its NPS Data Base data from the
USDA, Department of Commerce, and other sources
of useful information. Efforts will continue to link the
NPS Data Base to other EPA databases.
EPA will have a functional electronic data base of
information on the water quality benefits that can be
expected from agricultural NPS management prac-
tices. The "BMP Matrix" project was initiated in
FY88, with the focus on developing the data base
structure. USDA has participated extensively in the
initial stages of the project, and is expected to be a
major benificiary of the final product.
EPA will continue to develop its database for tracking
CRP filter strip enrollment. This database,
AGTRACK, will help EPA determine whether filter
strips are being installed in counties where water re-
sources are being impacted by agricultural NPSs. The
linkage of EPA databases with those of USDA and
other agencies is critical to enhancing coordination
Technical Documents
EPA has initiated several projects that will result in
technical documents in FY89. Included are:
A manual on the design and implementation of
agricultural NPS management practices.
A manual on NPS control measures for grazing
land.
Proceedings of a conference on urban runoff.
Guidance on selection and targeting of BMPs in
urban areas.
A watershed project manual.
A small watershed monitoring manual.
A literature review of the utility of wetlands for
NPS management.
In addition to the above projects, EPA has made a
grant to test the utility of the model AgNPS in
northern agricultural watersheds. The model, one
which is used by many NPS professionals, will be
tested in two watersheds where intensive water quality
monitoring has been performed for several years.
This kind of testing is absolutely necessary if we are
to use models for NPS implementation planning and
evaluation.
EPA will also develop screening procedures for as-
sessing NPS impacts on receiving waters. The first
phase of this effort will be to adapt the current urban
runoff methodology (see "Data" on page 21) to lakes.
In addition, EPA will continue its development of the
Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide.
Provide Assistance
EPA will continue to review state Assessment Re-
ports and Management Programs in FY89. The re-
view process used in FY88 (see "EPA Review
Process" on page 15) will be followed in FY89, and
actions taken in FY88 (see "FY88 EPA and Other
Federal Activities" on page 20) will be emulated in
FY89.
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 35
-------
EPA and SCS will support a water quality specialist
detailed to the Conservation Technology Information
Center (CTIC) in West Lafayette, Indiana. The
CTIC reaches out to a wide range of audiences in the
agricultural community through a newsletter and by
other means.
EPA will begin a national outreach program to help
meet the information and education needs at the na-
tional level. Materials generated through this activity
will be adapted for state and regional use as appro-
priate. In some cases materials may be developed to
help meet specific state or regional needs. EPA real-
izes that these efforts are often much more successful
if the materials are produced and delivered at the local
level. Thus, EPA may serve more as a catalyst for
outreach activities at the state and local levels.
NFS Program as Focal Point for NPS
Control Efforts
The National NPS Program will provide the frame-
work for coordinating and targeting efforts to control
and prevent NPS pollution. The NPS Program's
implementation and demonstration activities will
complement existing programs (e.g., Clean Lakes and
Superfund) whose purpose is restoration of impaired
waterbodies. The NPS Program and state's section
319 Management Programs will be coordinated with
other EPA programs, such as wellhead protection,
in-place pollutants, and stormwater. The NPS pro-
gram and state Management Programs will also pro-
vide direction for other agencies' programs. The
federal consistency requirements of section 319 will
ensure that states have the opportunity to integrate
the existing federal programs into their program,
wherever possible.
Where the wellhead protection program is linked to
state Management Programs, the section 319 demon-
stration and implementation activities can be targeted
to support these ground-water initiatives. The NPS
Program can effectively prevent ground-water pol-
lution if properly targeted. The provision in section
319 that requires states to take into account the im-
pact of BMPs on ground-water quality and the federal
consistency requirements, together, will minimize the
potential adverse impacts that NPS control activities
on the surface could have on ground-water.
With respect to air programs, the state section 319
Assessment Reports and future updates can identify
atmospheric deposition problems and pollutants that
could then be targeted for load reductions.
In-place pollutants (e.g., contaminated sediments) are
considered a NPS according to section 305(b) guide-
lines. Presently, EPA has four programs that deal
with the problem of contaminated sediments: Super-
fund, Clean Lakes, and sions 115 and 118 of the
CWA. The NPS Program will transfer the lessons
learned through these programs to the states via the
information/education program. Section 319 funds
can be utilized to remedy contaminated sediments.
Presently the Clean Lakes Program regulations pro-
hibit the use of section 314 funds to perform con-
struction grant activities. There is no similar
restriction for NPS work. Because long-term effec-
tiveness is the major concern in lake management,
projects must control pollutants at the source, largely
through watershed management, rather than simply
eliminate their symptoms in the lake. Because lake
pollution comes from many sources, restoration
projects are encouraged to cooperate in combining the
resources of all available federal, state, and local pro-
grams to provide the most comprehensive pollution
abatement possible. Section 319 activities can sup-
port the watershed management plan development
and implementation in Clean Lakes projects, thus
maximizing the potential benefits of both programs.
Urban stormwater has been found to include signif-
icant quantities of pollutants (see "Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program" on page 11). To address urban
stormwater problems, EPA and state pollution con-
trol agencies will begin to issue National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge
permits to the owners/operators of stormwater col-
lection and conveyance systems and the related out-
falls. These permits will require data collection and
reporting, and the development and implementation
of programs for reducing pollutant loadings to receiv-
ing waters. Programs in some cases will call for cap-
ital improvements, but in many instances the
cost-effective approaches for solving the problems will
be BMPs. These BMPs will reduce the introduction
of pollutants to the storm sewer systems.
Section 319 Assessment Reports can be utilized to
identify those areas appropriate for case-by-case des-
ignations for stormwater permits, in addition to those
prescribed by law. The Management Programs pro-
vide the framework by which the urban NPS controls
will be integrated with the stormwater permits.
For waters listed on the section 304(1)(1)(A) lists, state
Management Programs can be integrated with the
point source control efforts to identify both NPSs and
point sources. The Management Programs can be
used to implement control strategies for the NPSs,
and the NPDES program can handle the point source
problems. Future NPS assessment activities can assist
in updating the section 304(1) lists.
The National NPS Program and state Management
Programs can be implemented to assist in the cleanup
at Superfund national priority list (NPL) sites by re-
ducing off-site loads to the NPL sites. Section 319
efforts can also help in remedial efforts for sites that
are not on the NPL, but are managed under state
programs.
36 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Section 319 provides the opportunity for states in or
covered by the Great Lakes Program, Chesapeake
Bay Program, and National Estuary Program to es-
tablish a foundation for controlling NPSs statewide
rather than just within these designated watersheds.
The statewide programs can be established to prevent
future problems and to direct state resources outside
of the designated watersheds. The processes for set-
ting priorities in the statewide programs will, however,
incorporate considerations for these national priority
areas. Within the Great Lakes Basins, states will be
utilizing their section 319 programs to develop and
implement watershed management plans for Areas of
Concern (AOCs). AOCs are waterbodies that the
state has represented to the International Joint Com-
mission as not meeting designated uses. States are
expected to take similar approaches in watersheds
designated under the National Estuary Program. As
noted earlier (see "Section 108 - Great Lakes
Program" on page 9), the Great Lakes Program has
provided many lessons for the National NPS Pro-
gram.
Section 319 Management Programs can be utilized to
protect wetlands, as well as incorporate wetlands as
BMPs for controlling NPSs. Section 319 watershed
management plans can be integrated with section 404
(permits for dredge or fill material) activities to effec-
tively protect high quality wetlands in critical areas for
aquatic habitat. Similarly, mitigation efforts under
section 404 can be targeted to priority watersheds
identified in the Assessment Reports.
State NPS efforts can be integrated with Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) programs to effectively reduce
NPS impacts. The CZM programs provide the de-
livery system, while section 319 provides the state
authority and framework for controlling NPSs in a
comprehensive manner.
State Assessment Reports and Management Programs
should help direct US DA programs to high priority
watersheds. The overall statewide programs should
assist USDA in reducing the off-site impacts of their
resource base programs. State Management Pro-
grams can be integrated with P.L. 83-566 activities to
develop and implement land treatment activities to
reduce NPS loads to water bodies.
The CRP (see "USDA Allows Filter Strips Under
Farm Bill" on page 30) can be targeted to highly im-
pacted NPS water bodies to reduce the impacts of
agricultural operations in these watersheds. State As-
sessment Reports and Management Programs can be
utilized by ASCS to identify potential Special ACP
Water Quality Projects.
The National NPS Program can develop assessment
techniques and NPS abatement practices that the
Forest Service can utilize to develop and implement
Forest Management Plans that will allow water qual-
ity standards to be met and aquatic habitat to be
protected. State Management Programs can ensure
that the same is done on state and private forests as
appropriate. The Assessment Reports can be utilized
to identify high priority waterbodies within the Na-
tional Forest System that require special management
due to their sensitivity to NPS impacts. The federal
consistency requirements under section 319 will assist
states in ensuring that Forest Management Plans and
operations are consistent with the state NPS efforts.
Aerial fertilization and pesticide applications are two
areas in which states will be directing their efforts.
State Assessment Reports can be utilized to identify
and set priorities for abandoned mining sites needing
reclamation. State Management Programs can pro-
vide the BMPs for reducing the off-site impacts of
these mining sites either under the Rural Abandoned
Mines Program or under other programs.
The off-site impacts of transportation facilities (e.g.,
railroad yards, airports) can be identified through state
NPS assessment efforts. Federal consistency require-
ments and the state Management Programs can be
utilized to correct these NPS problems. The inclusion
of NPS controls as part of the storm water permits
will probably be utilized to address most of these
problems.
The national NPS and Wetlands programs will be
working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) on the development of "boiler plate" language
for section 404 permits that would specifically outline
stormwater and sediment control responsibilities for
permittees. The state Management Programs will
provide BMPs for hydromodification (e.g., dredging
and channelization) that permittees must utilize.
Under the National NPS Program, EPA's NPS per-
sonnel will work with the Agency's monitoring pro-
grams to develop and refine NPS assessment, analysis,
and quantification techniques. The NPS Program
will also develop a long-term, NPS research program,
as well as an information/education program. The
NPS Program will work with the Office of Research
and Development, the Criteria and Standards Divi-
sion, and the states in ensuring that there are adequate
water quality criteria for assessing NPS impacts.
Similarly, the NPS Program will be working with
various federal agencies to identify where NPS con-
cerns can be addressed within their permitting and
grant programs.
Implement NPS Agenda Task Force
Recommendations
Three public meetings were held in November and
December of 1988 to allow a broad range of groups
(EPA Regions, states, public interest groups, other
federal agencies) to review and comment on the draft
Agenda. The Agenda was finalized in January, 1989,
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 37
-------
with implementation scheduled to begin as soon as
possible in FY89. Implementation priorities will be
acted upon as part of the Office of Water's work plans
for FY89 and subsequent years.
Support Professional NFS Workshops
EPA will sponsor or co-sponsor several NFS work-
shops in FY89, including:
North American Lake Management Society's
(NALMS) 8th Annual International Symposium
on Lake & Watershed Management, St. Louis,
MO - This meeting addresses NFS assessment
and control options in a number of sessions.
Off-site Evaluation Workshop, St. Louis, MO -
This workshop is designed to help participants
recognize and quantify NFS problems and con-
nect them with contributing sources.
Nonpoim Source Conference, St. Louis, MO -
This conference will provide a forum to review
and examine existing local NFS pollution control
efforts and effective local NFS control programs.
1989 Rural Clean Water Program Workshop -
This workshop will help RCWP project partic-
ipants share problems and lessons learned with
other RCWP participants. The focus will be on
technical matters such as BMP selection, moni-
toring, and data analysis and reporting.
International Symposium on Dairy Manure
Management, Syracuse, NY - This symposium,
co-sponsored by EPA, several professional or-
ganizations, USDA, and industry, will focus on
dairy manure and the environment, manure
utilization, manure processing, and manure han-
dling and storage.
International Poultry Meeting.
Ten workshops on strengthening state NFS
Management Programs.
National conference on wetlands protection and
lake management.
National Conference on Low-input Agriculture,
Omaha, NE
Hold Workshops to Discuss State
Pesticide/Ground-Water Management
Plans
EPA held 10 workshops in November and December
of 1988 to meet with states to discuss issues in estab-
lishing and implementing state
Pesticide/Ground-Water Management Plans (see
"Proposed Strategy to Address Pesticides in Ground-
Water" on page 29). The development of these plans
is a critical component of EPA's proposed strategy for
addressing the concern regarding pesticides in ground
water.
Continue Near Coastal Waters Activities
EPA Headquarters will continue to work with the
Regions to assist in the development of coastal strat-
egies and to develop better tools for near coastal water
assessment and management. Nonpoint source man-
agement is included in these initiatives.
Assessment activities will be ongoing to provide in-
creased understanding of the environmental problems
in near coastal waters. This will include NFS assess-
ments. A proposed near coastal waters segmentation
scheme has been developed, and will be refined and
integrated into the section 305(b) Waterbody System
(see "Provided Tools and Data" on page 21).
Propose Ground-Water Restricted-Use
Rule
EPA will propose adding new criteria for classifying
pesticides for restricted-use classification based upon
ground-water concerns. Pesticide products classified
for restricted-use under authority of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
section 3(d) may be purchased and used only by cer-
tified applicators or individuals under their super-
vision. The Agency, in cooperation with Cornell
University and the University of California, has de-
veloped a ground-water module that is now part of
the training required to become a Certified Pesticide
Applicator.
Revise Pesticide Storage and Disposal
Regulations
As a result of the 1988 Amendments to FIFRA, EPA
will be revising its pesticide storage, transportation,
and disposal regulations. These Amendments au-
thorize the Agency to establish labeling requirements
for the transportation, storage, and disposal of pesti-
cides and their containers within three years after
enactment of the law. In addition to promulgating
regulations, the Agency plans to develop public out-
reach and training programs to encourage waste min-
imization and recycling for all pesticide applicators.
38 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
Develop NPDES Storm Water
Permitting Program
Although urban runoff, construction site runoff, and
other diffuse sources of pollution are considered NFS
pollution for the purpose of section 319, when col-
lected and discharged from a discrete conveyance such
as a separate storm sewer, the discharge is legally a
point source, subject to section 402 of the CWA.
(Agricultural storm water discharges and irrigation
return flows are statutorily exempt from the definition
of point source under the CWA.) On December 7,
1988, (53 FR 49416) EPA published a notice of pro-
posed rulemaking (NPRM) that requested comments
on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit application requirements and application
deadlines for:
Storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity.
Discharges from large municipal separate storm
sewer systems (systems serving a population of
250,000 or more).
Discharge from medium municipal separate
storm sewer systems (systems serving a popu-
lation of 100,000 or more, but less than 250,000).
Storm water discharges that the Administrator
or the state NPDES Director determines con-
tributes to a violation of a water quality standard
or is a significant contributor of pollutants to
waters of the United States.
Other storm water discharges are to be described in
two reports to Congress required under section
402(p)(5). Based on the two reports, EPA, in con-
sultation with state and local officials, is required to
issue regulations by no later than October 1, 1992
which designate additional storm water discharges to
be regulated to protect water quality and establish a
comprehensive program to regulate such designated
discharges, including requirements for state Storm
Water Management Programs.
Appropriate portions of section 319 Assessment Re-
ports and Management Programs can be used by
EPA and state NPDES Directors to identify storm
water discharges that contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard or are a significant contributor
of pollutants and are appropriate for case-by-case
designation requiring a permit. In addition, section
319 reports will be considered in the development of
the storm water reports to Congress. Implementation
of section 319 Management Programs can establish a
foundation for the development of state Storm Water
Management Programs.
Issue Financial Responsibility Regulations
for Underground Storage Tanks
In early FY89, EPA will issue Financial Responsibil-
ity regulations for underground storage tanks (USTs).
These regulations will help to make sure that owners
and operators of USTs can pay for correcting the
problems created if their USTs leak. EPA will begin
"approving" state programs to operate in lieu of fed-
eral programs. State activity under the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund will
also increase as EPA increases the amount available
to the states to $42.5 million.
Work With Other Federal Agencies
EPA will continue to work with other federal agencies
that have a role in NPS pollution abatement and/or
prevention. For example, EPA will work toward
improving the environmental aspects of the Farm Bill
which will be considered for reauthorization in 1990.
Report to Congress
EPA will prepare in FY89 a Report to Congress that
will meet the requirements under section 319(m)(2).
EPA has decided to use the same reporting format for
FY88 as it will use in the FY89 Report to Congress.
It is expected that the states will respond favorably to
consistent reporting guidance, which will enable EPA
to address better the issues listed under section
319(m)(2).
Despite state and EPA efforts to meet the reporting
requirements under section 319, it is highly unlikely
that the FY89 report will be as complete as envi-
sioned by the Congress. As this report illustrates,
states have only just begun to implement their section
319 Management Programs. Therefore, it will be very
difficult for states to provide by January 1, 1990 the
answers to the issues listed under stion 319(m)(2).
Even the four-year program called for by the Act is
much too short for states to assess their NPS prob-
lems; plan their NPS control activities; organize their
financial, technical, and administrative resources;
convince landowners to change the way they use
and/or manage their land; implement NPS control
measures; and document with water quality data the
benefits gained from these NPS control activities.
Agricultural research projects have demonstrated very
clearly that at least five years are needed before
meaningful water quality results can be expected from
NPS implementation efforts. Furthermore, it can
take as many as three years to implement NPS con-
trol measures on any given parcel of land even when
the landowner volunteers to participate in a NPS
Management Program, and could take much longer
NATIONAL OVERVIEW 39
-------
for implementation on an entire watershed. One state gain enough NFS implementation in a fair number
commented in its annual report that "EPA's hope of watersheds across the Nation to reach the point
that "success" can be documented within one or two where water quality should improve over the course
years is completely unrealistic". Thus, it may take the of a few more years.
entire four years of the section 319 program to simply
40 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
Region I - Boston, MA
Regional Summary
Assessments
Three New England states had submitted final As-
sessment Reports by August 4, 1988, while the other
three states had submitted draft reports by the same
date (see Table 3 on page 16). The Assessment Re-
ports prepared by Rhode Island and Vermont have
been approved by EPA. Each state organized an NFS
Task Force, comprised of key state and federal agen-
cies, regional and local officials, environmental or-
ganizations, and interest groups.
Management Programs
Two states had submitted final Management Pro-
grams by the middle of December, 1988, and the
other four states had submitted draft programs in
August (see Table 4 on page 18). Several states con-
ducted regional/statewide workshops and used the
process as a first step in developing state Clean Water
Strategies. EPA involved other federal agencies such
as the SCS, FS, FWS, and FHWA. An EPA inter-
program team reviewed each draft Assessment Report
and Management Program, and consolidated written
comments were sent to each state by the Regional
NFS Coordinator.
Regional Activities
Region I has been providing intensive guidance,
checklists, handbooks, workshops, and technical as-
sistance. The Regional workshops with the states
addressed all Assessment Report requirements, and
focused on technology transfer with regard to BMFs
and estimating NFS loads. The technology transfer
workshop drew over 150 state, federal, academic, en-
vironmental, and consultant participants from
throughout New England. Technical guidance in-
cluded a "NFS Ready Reference Guide for BMPs."
Regional guidance focused on:
Targeting priority preventive measures and
BMPs on priority waters.
Strengthening state and local regulatory programs
to prevent as well as mitigate NFS problems.
Preventing degradation of existing high quality
waters threatened by accelerated development
pressures facing New England.
Developing "creative financing" approaches to
funding NFS programs; e.g., user fees on "direct
identifiable beneficiaries," expanded state Re-
volving Funds (using the public utility concept),
real estate transfer tax, tax incentives, state cost-
sharing, etc.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 41
-------
State Highlights
CONNECTICUT
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
adopted its Environment/2000 process in September,
1987, and held the first annual public conference in
January, 1988. This planning process, which involves
extensive public participation, provides DEP with
clear definition of its mission and goals, and guides
policy and program development, establishment of
priorities, and budgetary requests.
The state held "Municipal Inland Wetland Commis-
sioners Training Program Workshops" for all eight
counties in Connecticut. Through September, ap-
proximately 70 municipalities submitted revisions to
their Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Regulations
in accordance with revisions enacted to state law in
1987. DEP is providing technical assistance and sup-
port as delegation of authorities to about half of the
state's towns that had no Inland Wetland Commis-
sion has been accomplished.
The Aquifer Protection Task Force submitted a re-
port of its study and recommendations on the pro-
tection of aquifers to the General Assembly in March
of 1988. Legislation passed in 1988 directed the Task
Force to consider implementation of its aquifer pro-
tection recommendations.
The Task Force held weekly meetings to address
topics such as the need for greater acquisition of
property around wellfields, and the need to regulate
or ban certain high risk activities (contamination
threats) in critical areas surrounding the wellfields.
DEP forwarded proposals to the Task Force regard-
ing land acquisition, banned activities, zoning, regu-
lation, enforcement, agriculture, monitoring, and
education.
During 1988, repeat sampling was performed at 17
existing, stratified drift well monitoring sites as part
of a cooperative study of pesticides in ground water.
In addition, early and late summer sampling were
completed at 26 new sites (13 non-agricultural uses,
13 sites in till/bedrock system).
MAINE
The state of Maine is developing an ambient
biomonitoring program through enactment of narra-
tive biological standards in its water classification
statutes and development of administrative rules for
data interpretation.33 The primary role of the biolog-
ical information is to serve as impact standards as-
sessing overall progress toward program goals.
Maine has developed an index of the relative vulner-
ability of lakes to additional phosphorus loadings as-
sociated with land development, reflecting the
geohydrologic sensitivity of a lake and development
trends. The state has been using this "Vulnerability
Index" to show localities, regional planning commis-
sions, and lake associations the water quality conse-
quences of development patterns on a lake. The goal
is to help localities plan for patterns, types, and in-
tensities of land uses and management practices that
will maintain lake quality.
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts has launched demonstration projects
to assist the localities implement BMPs, including
stormwater management, in two Buzzards Bay
estuaries that are closed to shellfishing. These
projects are in concert with the Buzzards Bay Na-
tional Estuary Program project.
In 1987 and again in 1988 legislation has been filed to
create a state NPS pollution control program. The
proposed program would provide grants to most
public entities to conduct diagnostic/feasibility studies
and implementation projects for the prevention, con-
trol, and abatement of NPS pollution in
Massachusetts. Funding would total $50 million over
10 years. Projects would have to be prioritized based
upon water quality data, use or potential use as a
potable water supply, recreational use, economic im-
portance, and other relevant factors.
The transportation bond bill that recently passed the
legislature contained stormwater runoff control meas-
ures. It authorizes a $5 million stormwater runoff
grant program to assist cities and towns in updating
measures to control pollution from road runoff. It
authorizes another $5 million for local salt storage
sheds and $6 million for state sheds. Another pro-
vision authorizes $20 million to protect the
Cambridge Reservoir from stormwater runoff.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
One of the success stories of the existing NPS abate-
ment effort in New Hampshire is the implementation
of an intensive and extensive sediment and erosion
control program. Focused on developers, loggers, and
general construction activities, the Water Supply and
Pollution Control Division of the Department of En-
vironmental Services has established a permit appli-
cation and plan review requirement that has
33 Taken from: Courtemarch, D.L. and S.P. Davies, Biological Standards in Maine, IN: National Symposium on Water
Quality Assessment, Meeting Summary, EPA, 1988.
42 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
significantly reduced sediment loading and erosion
problems.
Region II - New York, NY
RHODE ISLAND
The state established a Water Quality Advisory
Committee composed of various state, federal, and
local agencies and environmental groups to assist the
state in development of its Clean Water Strategy. The
Committee has been further divided into subcommit-
tees; the Nonpoint Source Pollution Subcommittee
has been closely involved with development of the
NPS Management Program. Establishment of the
Water Quality Advisory Committee has helped to
strengthen a network of agencies and individuals with
expertise and/or legal jurisdiction in NPS pollution
control issues. This interagency coordination has
greatly benefited the Department of Environmental
Management's NPS Pollution Management Program
as well as the Narragansett Bay Project's Land Man-
agement Project.
A GIS was used to prepare maps to support the
preparation and implementation of a watershed pro-
tection plan for the Scituate Reservoir. This reservoir
provides drinking water for about 60 percent of the
state's population. Surface and ground-water moni-
toring and modeling have been performed as an inte-
gral part of the watershed protection effort. The
Scituate watershed protection effort serves as a model
for developing and implementing stormwater man-
agement technical guidelines.
VERMONT
The St. Albans Bay RCWP project includes one of
the most extensive NPS monitoring and evaluation
efforts in the Nation. Due south of the St. Albans
Bay project is the LaPlatte River (P.L. 83-566)
watershed project which, like the RCWP project, is
focused on the management of dairy wastes to reduce
the impacts of NPS pollution on Lake Champlain.
Results to date show a significant decrease in bacteria
levels throughout both study areas. Data analysis in-
dicates that the decreases in bacterial contamination
are correlated with improvements in animal waste
management in both watersheds. From these projects
the state and federal cooperators have learned valu-
able lessons regarding water quality and land use data
collection, statistical approaches to analyzing NPS
data, and GIS applications. The information gained
from these projects has been shared with other states
through presentations at Region I workshops, RCWP
workshops (see "Rural Clean Water Program" on
page 11), and EPA workshops and guidance docu-
ments.
Regional Summary
Assessments
Puerto Rico submitted its final Assessment Report
on August 4, 1988 (see Table 3 on page 16). The
Region has begun its review of the document, in-
cluding review and comment from both the Region
and EPA Headquarters, as well as public notification
of the availability of the document. New Jersey and
New York submitted draft Assessments by the end
of November, 1988. The Virgin Islands had not made
a submittal as of January 30, 1989.
Major NPS problems in the Region are caused with
acid rain, agriculture, construction, urban runoff,
landfills, underground storage tanks, and vessel
wastes. These NPSs have impacted the Region's
estuaries, bays and shoreline, ground water, rivers,
and lakes.
Management Programs
Puerto Rico submitted its final Management Program
on August 4, 1988 (see Table 4 on page 18). New
Jersey submitted a draft Management Program in
October, 1988, while New York submitted a draft on
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 43
-------
December 31, 1988. The Virgin Islands had made no
submittal as of January 30, 1989.
Regional Activities
The Region has entered into an Interagency Agree-
ment (IAG) with SCS that allows for an SCS em-
ployee to work at the Regional office providing
needed expertise to accelerate the Region's NFS pro-
gram. In Puerto Rico, the Region revitalized the NFS
Task Force consisting of ranking officials from fed-
eral, state, and local agencies dealing with NFS pol-
lution. This group provides guidance and input in the
development and implementation of Puerto Rico's
NFS control programs, including the Clean Lakes
Program. In addition to providing guidance to states
in the preparation and development of their Assess-
ment Reports and Management Programs, the Re-
gion has assisted states in many other ways:
Participated in several state and local meetings
throughout the Region to provide input for states
in their public awareness and outreach programs.
Gave presentations at annual meetings of the
Northeast Association of Conservation Districts,
New Jersey Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts, New York Association of Conservation
Districts, and the New York SCS.
Coordinated interagency meetings at the Re-
gional and state levels.
State Highlights
NEW JERSEY
NFS efforts in the state will be focused on estuaries,
bays and shoreline, urban runoff, agriculture, site de-
velopment, landfills, septic systems, surface mining,
spills, channelization, and dredging. Implementation
of the state's Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act
continues to have a significant effect on controlling
NFS pollution at construction sites.
Groundbreaking ceremonies were held for a horse
manure composting facility in the Navesink River
watershed where a large population of horses is the
major contributor of NFS pollution. Several federal,
state, and local agencies are cooperating in this effort,
including the local Freehold Soil and Water Conser-
vation District which is a project co-sponsor along
with EPA and SCS. state environmental and agri-
cultural officials are considering the development of a
permit process for similar composting plants.
NEW YORK
The New York Department of Environmental Con-
servation (NYSDEC) has made some major efforts
toward completion of the Assessment Report and
Management Program. "Friends of NFS Pollution
Control" throughout the state were invited to form a
working group to develop the Assessment and Man-
agement Program. Some 75 individuals representing
environmental groups and federal, state, and local
agencies participated in four meetings. Additional
meetings will be scheduled as needed.
Meetings co-sponsored by local Soil and Water Con-
servation Districts were held at various regions in the
state to solicit information for the Assessment Report
and Management Program. NYSDEC also met with
the SCS for a complete review of SCS's activities re-
lated to NFS. The Assessment Report and Manage-
ment Program are being coordinated with the Clean
Lakes Program; Long Island Sound; New York Har-
bor, Delaware Bay, and the Chesapeake Bay projects;
and Management Program activities in watersheds
shared with adjacent states.
PUERTO RICO
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) has completed both the Assessment Report
and the Management Program for the Common-
wealth of Puerto Rico. Both documents were sub-
mitted by the statutory deadline.
Major NFS problems on the island are associated
with animal waste, agriculture, urban runoff, and
landfills. Chicken waste disposal has been identified
as a critical problem in the Lake La Plata watershed.
Lake La Plata, one of the several reservoirs that pro-
vide drinking water to San Juan, has been severely
impacted by animal waste. Through a Clean Lakes
project, EPA, EQB, and other commonwealth and
local agencies are cost-sharing in a demonstration
project to construct a plant that will process chicken
waste. The end-product from the plant will be used
by farmers as fertilizer and/or soil amendments. The
site is being located for construction that will be
completed by June, 1989.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
The Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Na-
tural Resources (DPNR) has received technical as-
sistance from Region II in developing its draft
Assessment Report and Management Program. As-
sistance from EPA is required since the DPNR finds
it difficult to locate and retain qualified employees
with expertise in NFS planning and implementation.
Major NFS problems on the islands are associated
with site development, vessel wastes, and leaking
underground storage tanks.
44 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
Region HI - Philadelphia, PA
Regional Summary
Assessments
Three states had submitted final NFS Assessment
Reports by September 12, 1988, while two states and
the District of Columbia had submitted drafts by early
August (see Table 3 on page 16). On September 29,
1988, EPA approved the Assessment Report submitted
by the state of Delaware. EPA will complete its re-
view of these documents in early 1989. Generally, the
Assessment Reports indicate that major NFS pol-
lution is associated with nutrients and sediment, with
both nitrogen and phosphorus emanating principally
from various agricultural activities, and with acid mine
drainage that significantly impacts a number of water
uses. Two other sources of NFS pollution that have
received increased attention are oil and gas production
and the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen. Overall,
these reports show that NFS pollutant loads are the
leading contributor in 54% of the use-impaired
stream miles and in 66% of the use-impaired lake
acreage in the Region.
Nutrients: The upper Chesapeake Bay receives
48.6% of its phosphorus and 76.9% of its nitrogen
from NPSs. The early spring runoff events move
large amounts of phosphorus into the Bay, followed
a few weeks later by nitrogen carried by high base
flows in the rivers. High nutrient levels are not only
a problem in the Chesapeake Bay, but are also the
cause of accelerated eutrophication in several mill
ponds in Delaware. In addition, nitrate concen-
trations that exceed the drinking water criterion are
found in southeastern Pennsylvania.
Acid Mine Drainage: Acid mine drainage, mainly
from active and abandoned mines, is the cause of
roughly 3,000 miles of ecologically impaired streams
in Pennsylvania, northern West Virginia, and western
Maryland. Adverse effects associated with acid mine
drainage include impacts to aquatic life, contact re-
creation, water supplies, aesthetics, and man-made
concrete and metal structures. Significant local con-
tamination from mine wastes and tailings also pose a
serious threat to water resources, particularly in many
old mines that remain unreclaimed.
Oil and Gas Production: Foremost among the prob-
lems caused by oil and gas production is the disposal
of brine that is produced as a natural by-product
along with the oil or gas. Brine is the pre-historic
deep ground water that is present in the oil and gas
bearing zones. The brine contains contaminants such
as sodium, chlorides, barium, arsenic, strontium,
cadmium, iron, and sulfate in concentrations up to
several thousand times higher than drinking water
standards. Historically, brine disposal has occurred
by methods such as discharge to pits, streams, or
roads. In addition, in Pennsylvania many gas pro-
ducers dispose of their brine by using "blow boxes",
which are shallow in-ground basins that allow the
percolation of the brine into the ground water.
A particular problem area regarding oil spills is in
northwestern Pennsylvania, centered around the
Allegheny Reservoir and Allegheny National Forest.
The Allegheny Reservoir and its tributary streams
currently support a diverse range of gamefish. How-
ever, as a result of oil spills, in particular, spills re-
sulting from past operations or abandoned wells, the
potential for water quality impacts on the reservoir is
significant. Field investigations have identified serious
problems along tributary streams and in forest areas.
These problems include destroyed vegetation and
polluted streams that can no longer support trout
populations or, in some cases, appear totally devoid
of aquatic life.
Management Programs
Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia had all sub-
mitted final Management Programs to EPA by the
middle of September, 1988 (see Table 4 on page 18).
EPA is presently in the process of reviewing these
documents, and will complete its review in early 1989.
EPA has approved a portion of Delaware's Manage-
ment Program (see "EPA Actions" on page 17), and
has awarded the state one of the Nation's first NFS
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 45
-------
implementation grants (see "DELAWARE" on page
47). Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia sub-
mitted draft Management Programs in August, 1988,
while Maryland had made not submittal as of De-
cember 14, 1988.
Regional Activities
Chesapeake Bay Program
The EPA's 1983 study of the Chesapeake Bay found
that NPSs were among the chief causes of the Bay's
decline. Consequently, in December 1983, the Gov-
ernors of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the Admin-
istrator of EPA pledged to address nonpoint as well
as other sources of pollution to restore and protect the
Bay. This commitment, known as the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement of 1983, established the Chesapeake
Executive Council to coordinate Bay cleanup efforts
undertaken by the signatories to the Agreement. EPA
provides funding to support this effort, as well as
technical and administrative assistance. Implementing
programs to reduce NPS pollution is one of the most
significant elements of the cooperative cleanup effort.
In December 1987, a new Chesapeake Bay Agreement
was signed which set not only goals for cleanup, but
also specific schedules for accomplishing needed plans
and actions to restore and protect the Bay's fragile
living resources. One of the most significant goals in
the 1987 Agreement is the commitment to nutrient
enrichment, which states:
By July of 1988, to develop, adopt, and begin im-
plementation of a basinwide strategy to equitably
achieve by the year 2000 at least a 40 percent re-
duction of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy
should be based on agreed upon 1985 point source
loads and on nonpoint loads in an average rainfall
year.
This "Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy" was fi-
nalized in July of 1988 and is now in place.
Each state strategy called for the inclusion of nutrient
management as a BMP. Pennsylvania is leading the
way with manure management. Both Maryland and
Virginia have developed manure and fertilizer man-
agement efforts that are now moving out of the pilot
stage. Currently, all states are working to expand and
intensify their nutrient management program for ag-
riculture to include both animal manure and com-
mercial fertilizer.
From 1984 through 1988 the states and EPA had
committed $61 million in NPS grants (50% match),
with 60% of these funds used for BMP installation to
treat 6.2% of the cropland needing treatment and
8.9% of the manure needing management. The
L'SDA, through! its ACP, has treated an additional
6.3% of the cropland within the basin. Also, some
states are funding NPS control activities independent
of the grants.
To enhance interagency cooperation and coordination
within the Bay drainage area, Memoranda of Under-
standing (MOU) were negotiated and signed in 1984
between EPA and F&WS, SCS, NOAA, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). In addition, ASCS es-
tablished an MOU with EPA concerning the 1987
agreement. EPA and the Department of Defense
signed a Joint Resolution on Pollution Abatement in
the Bay. Each of these agencies are contributing their
own program expertise in implementing NPS pro-
grams.
SCS is the principal agency that will provide on-site
conservation planning and nutrient management
technical assistance to landusers in the Bay area. Over
the past several years, SCS has increased its resources
in the Bay states and the District, having 31 staff po-
sitions to .provide needed technical expertise to the
farm community in producing conservation plans.
From 1984 through 1986, the SCS helped prepare
conservation plans for more than 500,000 acres of
farmland draining to the Bay.
Other Activities: In addition to the Chesapeake Bay
activities, states have also participated in the USDA's
Conservation Reserve Program (see "USDA Allows
Filter Strips Under Farm Bill" on page 30). Through
the sixth sign-up of the CRP, landusers in the five
states in Region III had established 3,792 CRP con-
tracts covering 114,359 acres.
46 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
State Highlights
DELAWARE
Management Program: EPA awarded Delaware $1.0
million from FY87 funds available under section
20l(g)(l)(B) (Table 6 on page 26). This grant, which
required a state match of about $600,000, has been
made to fund implementation of the approved por-
tion of Delaware's Management Program.
Delaware's Management Program includes strategies
to address pollution from various NPS categories, and
includes a demonstration program addressing the fol-
lowing sources:
Animal holding/management areas.
Construction - involving highway/road/bridge
construction and land development.
Urban runoff - involving storm sewers and sur-
face runoff.
Land disposal - involving sludge, wastewater, and
on-site wastewater systems.
The state's Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC), as the NPS lead
agency, will conduct demonstrations through local
conservation districts in targeted basins, with the
overall purpose to transfer successful program ele-
ments to other parts of the state and Nation as ap-
propriate. One important component of the
demonstration program that will be undertaken is a
poultry management program geared to reduce the
amount of nitrogen that is available for potential
contamination of ground water.
Other Highlights: Almost all of the RCWP work has
been completed in the Appoquinimink River
watershed, and the results are impressive. Because of
the high usage of no-till (90% of cropland), soil loss
has been reduced by seven tons per acre per year. The
reduced erosion, along with improved fertilizer and
pesticide management techniques, has lowered the
level of suspended solids in the river by 60 percent.
In one of the ponds, analysis of monitoring data
shows that both sediment and total phosphorus levels
are declining. The benefits of the project have spilled
over into other parts of New Castle County as well,
in that most farmers in the county have voluntarily
adopted no-till as their primary tillage practice.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The District of Columbia implemented a major com-
ponent of its multi-year program to mitigate the ef-
fects of its combined sewers on the Anacostia River.
The $14-million swirl concentrator facility, an inno-
vative structure which will remove solids and organic
material, while disinfecting water discharged to the
river was dedicated in August, 1988, and will begin
operating in the spring of 1989.
The CSO (combined sewer overflow) Abatement
Program is one part of the Anacostia Restoration
Agreement of 1987, a cooperative effort between
Maryland and the District to improve water quality
and protect aquatic life in the Anacostia River Basin.
Two major parts of this effort are the BMP retrofit
and streambank stabilization projects. Currently, a
survey of retrofit sites is being undertaken and sta-
bilization projects are underway on Watts Branch and
Oxon Run.
MARYLAND
In 1970, a new Maryland law required each county to
set up its own sediment/erosion control program.
The program affects all construction sites with the
exception of scattered, single-family dwellings. Since
the program is run both at the state and at the county
levels, there are probably at least 150 people imple-
menting the law statewide.
The statewide Stormwater Management Program was
enacted in 1982, and built upon the relationships es-
tablished with local governments under the
sediment/erosion control program. Currently,
stormwater management is required of all develop-
ment sites in the state.
PENNSYL VANIA
The greatest emphasis in the Conestoga Headwaters
RCWP project has been placed on nutrient manage-
ment to reduce the nutrient loading to both the sur-
face water and the ground water. At Pennsylvania
State University, agronomists and computer scientists
have developed a computer program to aid in making
detailed nutrient management plans on a field-by-field
and/or farm basis. Implementation of these plans has
not necessarily involved a cost for the farmers, but
instead could produce substantial savings.
The state of Pennsylvania, under its Chesapeake Bay
program, has been promoting the RCWP's nutrient
management techniques in 13 other watersheds that
are part of the Susquehanna system. Project officials
believe that their work will someday result in an
overall reduction of agricultural NPS pollution in the
upper Bay. In addition, this farm-level approach to
nutrient management has been presented at several
technical workshops across the U.S.
Also in the Conestoga Headwaters project, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
sources and USGS have implemented an exper-
imental system to show the effects of terraces and
nutrient management on ground-water quality and
surface runoff. Results to date are not definitive, yet
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 47
-------
the highly sensitive monitoring program is capable of
detecting impacts that may occur within the next few
years, provided that funding is continued.
VIRGINIA
Since 1985 nutrient loads from agriculture have been
reduced by up to 12% in river basins draining to the
Chesapeake Bay. These efforts have resulted in a re-
duction of 270,000 pounds of phosphorus and
1,500,000 pounds of nitrogen entering the Bay.
A major success in Virginia has been the recognition
by the legislature of the importance of NFS control
efforts. This has resulted in increased state cost-share
assistance funding, authorization for greatly expanded
staffing for NFS control activities, and tightened laws
for erosion and sediment control.
A particular ongoing success has been the develop-
ment of a geographic information system (GIS) to
quantify and identify the sources of agricultural NFS
pollution. The VirGIS program will be the main tool
to be utilized in targeting and prioritizing funding for
agricultural NFS control in the future.
All of the major livestock operations, primarily swine,
have participated in Virginia's RCWP project. Con-
tracts have been signed for implementation of BMPs
on two-thirds of the critical area of the Nansemond
River and Chuckatuck Creek project area. Coordi-
nation among federal, state, and local agencies in this
RCWP project has been exceptional, and serves as a
model for other NPS implementation efforts.
WEST VIRGINIA
The Department of Energy-Abandoned Mine Lands
Division and the Department of Natural Resources-
Water Resources Division (DNR-WRD) entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement on May 22, 1987, for
the purpose of strengthening cooperative involvement
in matters relating to each agency's areas of responsi-
bility in abating water quality problems associated
with abandoned mine lands (AML). This agreement
also establishes the use of BMPs during the reclama-
tion of AML sites. By recognizing the need to protect
and, in many cases, improve the quality of the state's
water resources being degraded by drainage from
abandoned mines, coordinative efforts are employed
by the two agencies to deal with this NPS problem.
Final plans for reclamation at the Meridian "A"
Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD) project were
changed to avoid the re-creation of acid water quality
from the site. The pre-reclamation discharge was
alkaline while the coal involved is the highly acidic
Kittanning seam. Reclamation called for drilling
6-foot boreholes to the mine void to directly drain
water off. This was changed, after review by the NPS
Mining Program, to eliminate the boreholes and col-
lect water in french drains where it seeps from the
ground. The project is complete and water quality is
still alkaline.
An example of technical assistance being provided is
the AMD water quality improvement project in Big
Sandy Creek in Preston County. A preliminary fea-
sibility report was prepared for the Webster Gob
project site that incorporated abatement techniques
suggested through the NPS Mining Program. As a
means to neutralize the acid mine drainage from the
problem area, water discharging from three deep mine
portals is directed into an alkaline leach bed before
leaving the project site. Monitoring of Webster Gob
since completion of the project shows that the dis-
charge from the alkaline leach bed is greatly improved,
thus reversing the pre-reclamation pH level from 3.2
to 7.2.
In July 1988, a massive fish kill associated with a se-
vere pH depression was reported on the Tygart Valley
River at Belington due to drought conditions. Field
investigation revealed that the problem was caused by
acid mine drainage, which constituted a growing pro-
portion of the flow because of the drought. The
source of the pollution problem was tracked to aban-
doned deep mine discharges in the Grassy Run
watershed located 10 miles upstream of Belington.
The DNR-WRD, unable to correct the problem
alone, sought and received the assistance of private
and public organizations. Donations and other as-
sistance were used to begin efforts to protect the
Tygart Valley River from further damage and to neu-
tralize those areas already impacted by acid mine
drainage. Donations from coal, oil, and other com-
panies included a pump and hoses, soda ash, sodium
hydroxide, a large tank, diesel fuel, and hydro spraying
of lime. As donations dried up, the U.S. Office of
Surface Mining was called upon to take over the
abatement activities through a contract with the
DNR. The result of this cooperative effort was the
successful protection of the Tygart Valley River.
An aggressive educational program has been devel-
oped for silviculture. The program is directed to both
the logger and the owner of forested lands, and in-
cludes such topics as landowner/logger responsibilities
for protecting water quality, BMPs, and the spin-off
benefits each group can realize. Technical assistance
and awards programs for exemplary performance help
support the program.
Through cooperative efforts of government and in-
dustry, a demonstration project for the West Virginia
construction industry is underway at Cedar Lakes
near Ripley, WV. The purpose of the project is to
demonstrate a wide variety of BMPs and commer-
cially available sediment control products. On-site
training and the production of films that illustrate the
proper installation of the BMPs and products are two
of the planned outputs for this project. Film editing
48 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
has begun as practice installation is essentially com-
plete.
Region IV - Atlanta, GA
Regional Summary
Assessments
Georgia submitted its final Assessment Report on
August 4, 1988, while the other seven states in Region
IV submitted draft reports in August, 1988 (see
Table 3 on page 16). Review of these reports is
underway, and EPA's formal responses to the sub-
mittals were tentatively scheduled for early Novem-
ber, 1988.
For both the Assessment Reports and the Manage-
ment Programs, Region IV has established a review
team that includes a representative from the following
EPA programs: EPA's Land & Water 201 Designee,
Groundwater, Pesticides, Environmental Support
(Athens technical support), Wetlands, Coastal, Con-
struction Grants, Federal Activities and Drinking
Water. Other federal agencies assisting the review in-
clude FWS, SCS and FS.
Criteria used in these reviews relate directly to evalu-
ation criteria set forth in EPA's section 319 Guidance
dated December, 1987. The Region will work with
states to improve those assessments that fall short of
meeting EPA's approval criteria.
Clearly, nonpoint sources of pollution contribute a
significant threat to waters within Region IV's eight
states. Not only are main stems of major rivers and
tributaries adversely affected by NPS pollution, but
also many of the Region's numerous small mountain
streams, natural and man-made lakes, its 29 estuaries
and the Gulf of Mexico are impaired from these
largely uncontrolled sources. Agricultural runoff from
croplands and animal waste facilities rank among the
highest contributors of NPS pollution. Untreated and
uncontrolled urban runoff is a significant contributor.
Runoff from construction, surface mining/resource
extraction, and silviculture contribute varying degrees
of localized pollution sources.
Management Programs
By August, 1988, one state had submitted a final
Management Program and the other seven states had
submitted draft Management Programs in response to
section 319 requirements (see Table 4 on page 18).
EPA is currently reviewing the Management Pro-
grams through its Regional review team, and will
work with the states to improve those Management
Programs that do not meet EPA's criteria for ap-
proval.
Several states within the Region have very active ag-
ricultural cost sharing programs for BMP installation,
programs that have been developed independently of
section 319 guidelines. For example, FY88 cost
sharing budgets in North Carolina, Florida and
Alabama were $7 million, $3 million and $2 million
respectively, with plans for program expansion. Sim-
ilarly, ordinances dealing with stormwater, partic-
ularly as related to new construction, are not unusual.
Existing federal programs particularly some housed
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are being
implemented on a broad scale and promise significant
reduction of nonpoint sources of pollution. EPA is
directly involved in several demonstration efforts
aimed at NPS reduction.
Regional Activities
In addition to the Assessment Reports and Manage-
ment Programs described above, the section 319 ac-
tivities in Region IV have significantly improved
communication and coordination between the state
water quality agencies and myriad citizens, local, state,
and federal agencies with overlapping interests and
responsibilities. EPA contributed to these improve-
ments by hosting state NPS coordinators meetings.
Regular discussions and advisement were provided by
the Region regarding funding issues, programmatic
issues, and in coordinating document preparation.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
49
-------
Region IV NFS Staffing: Region IV has taken posi-
tive steps to initiate an effective NFS program by as-
sembling a team of four qualified staff. During FY
88, several staff changes occurred, including the addi-
tion of one staff member and the partial funding of
one state employee. One NFS staff member is on
indefinite assignment to the Land & Water 201
Project Office, TVA at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. His
work is devoted primarily to the NFS pollution
problems within the 6-state Tennessee River Valley.
The fourth staff member is an SCS employee on detail
to the NFS program. Region IV is co-funding with
TVA the costs for an engineer who will work for the
state of North Carolina to develop new designs for
animal waste treatment facilities.
EPA staff participated in several activities, including:
Attended and made presentations at related con-
ferences, field days, workshops sponsored by
various local, state and federal agencies.
Presented NFS paper at NALMS conference.
Distributed to state, federal, and other agencies
and groups information and educational materi-
als including section 319 guidance, EPA's journal
(agriculture theme), CRP filter strip pamphlet,
wetlands documents, articles, and reprints relative
to NFS concerns.
Participated through WQ data collection, techni-
cal advice/review, and study/implementation
plan formulation for various multiagency special
projects designed to deal with impaired water
body(ies). Examples include Sand Mountain
Project (AL), Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough/Lake
Okeechobee (FL), Mississippi Delta/SCS (MS),
and Boone Reservoir and Reelfoot Lake (TN).
Supported coastal initiatives and cooperative ef-
forts.
Gulf Initiative (Gulf of Mexico).
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds Estuarine Study
(NC).
Nominations of Sarasota Bay & Charleston
Harbor to National Estuary Program (NEP)
(FL & SC respectively).
Perdido Bay Near Coastal Waters Initiative
Pilot Project (FL/AL).
Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 has led
to three major accomplishments to date:
Identification (subject to EPA approval) of im-
paired and threatened waters and categories of
nonpoint sources of pollution that affect these
waters in eight states.
Development of management programs which,
if approvable, could be implemented to lessen the
identified pollution sources in eight states.
Significantly improved communication and co-
ordination between the state water quality NFS
programs and myriad citizens, local, state and
federal agencies with overlapping
interests/responsibilities.
Estimated FY88 Federal Expenditures on NFS
control: Region IV estimates that a total of $52,500
of abatement, control and compliance (AC&C) funds
were spent on the NFS program as follows. Note,
however, that only $15,000 of the total was applied
to an implementation effort.
Support for SCS Detailee - $30,000.
Assistance for Sand Mountain Multiagency
Demonstration Project - $15,000.
Support to North Carolina for Animal Waste
Treatment Design - $7,500.
Land & Water 201 Project: EPA Region IV is an
active participant in the Land & Water 201 Project
(L&W; 201), a multiagency cooperative project to
improve management of resources to 1) reduce soil
erosion, 2) improve water quality, 3) increase farm
income, and 4) serve as a national demonstration.
This project encompasses the 201 counties of the
Tennessee River watershed. L&W 201 provides a
mechanism for agencies to work together, pooling
their knowledge and expertise to solve problems of
mutual interest. Involved are the USDA agencies, the
TVA, EPA, and the states of Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina , Tennessee
and Virginia.
Several demonstration projects are underway, the
most significant being the Sand Mountain/Lake
Guntersville project in Alabama that is characterized
by a high density rural population with numerous
poultry and hog operations. A task group, made up
of representatives of several local organizations, de-
termined that stormwater run-off rich in nutrients has
affected the mountain streams and highly used recre-
ational Lake Guntersville. At this point, several P.L.
83-566 watershed planning activities are underway
and $10 million has been allocated for cost sharing.
ASCS has made available $500,000 in special ACP
funds. EPA, TVA, SCS and the state of Alabama are
devoting approximately $75,000 for baseline environ-
mental monitoring, including biological and water
chemistry monitoring.
In addition to the above activity, L&W 201 is helping
with the $7.0 million dollar North Carolina agricul-
tural cost-share program (see "NORTH
CAROLINA" on page 53). EPA and TVA are col-
lectively providing $37,000 to the North Carolina Soil
SO 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
and Water Conservation Commission to hire an en-
gineer to assist with animal waste management facility
planning and design.
Gulf Initiative: Tremendous pollutant loads discharge
into the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi and
other major rivers. Coastal areas sustain great pres-
sures for residential, navigation/port and
recreational/tourism support. Gulf of Mexico states
accounted for 35% of the U.S. population growth
between 1980 and 1985. In recognition of these nu-
merous factors affecting the health of the Gulf of
Mexico, Region IV began its "Gulf Initiative", aimed
at elevating to a national priority the continued health
and production of the Gulf. Immediate efforts are
aimed at initiating a comprehensive assessment of the
system and developing and implementing sound,
workable management strategies. No section 319
funding is available for this project.
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds Estuarine Study (APES),
North Carolina: Formal planning activities began in
1986 to address the problems associated with changes
in the water quality and fisheries in the
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds areas of North Carolina.
Conflicts between agricultural activities and fisheries
is emphasized in the work plan. APES was formally
designated as a "management conference" pursuant to
the 1987 Act (see "National Estuary Program" on
page 28), supported by a Region IV allocation of $1.2
million for FY88. While much of the problems as-
sociated with the APES are thought to be agricultural
and other NPS-related, no section 319 funding is
available to assist in this effort.
Conservation Reserve Filter Strip Participation: SCS
has aggressively applied its Conservation Reserve Fil-
ter Strip program in Region IV states. Of all nation-
wide participation in the CRP, 53% of all acreage
signed up was from seven of Region IV's eight states.
FY89 Key Activities: The Region plans to initiate the
development of a NPS video. A video that has na-
tional application is needed, yet a video tailored to the
needs of the Region may also be considered. The
Region will also encourage states to develop their own
educational materials, including videos.
State-sited, multi-agency/organization NPS confer-
ences in each state are planned for FY89 following
EPA approval of the Management Programs as an
assistance effort to the states in their initial imple-
mentation efforts. In addition, a Regional External
Awards program will be developed to identify partic-
ularly noteworthy accomplishments in NPS pollution
control and technology development.
EPA also plans to continue its participation in the
Land & Water 201 national demonstration project
and the Sand Mountain Project.
State Highlights
ALABAMA
TVA and SCS have funded and designed BMP im-
plementation activities for the control of animal
wastes in the watershed associated with the Bear
Creek floatway in Alabama. The canoe trail has been
closed over recent years due to high levels of bacteria.
Voluntary participation by landowners in the program
has been high and TVA is conducting water quality
monitoring to determine the effectiveness of the BMP
implementation.
The Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, in
conjunction with the TVA and SCS has installed an
artificial wetland for the treatment of animal waste at
the Sand Mountain Experiment Station for research
and demonstration purposes. Additional NPS sur-
veys are being conducted in the Warrior River Basin
to determine NPS pollution impacts to streams and
reservoirs below areas with a high density of poultry,
mining or silvicultural operations.
Investigations of NPS related water pollution by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM) are generally in response to citizen water
pollution complaints. Investigations in FY88 have
been made of agricultural, silvicultural, construction,
mining and urban NPS water pollution. Specifically
through the third quarter, 34 agricultural facilities, six
silvicultural operations and 36 construction sites have
been inspected. ADEM initially employs an educa-
tional and cooperative approach in resolving these
complaints. Generally these efforts result in the im-
plementation of best management practices. However
when this approach is not unsuccessful, ADEM uti-
lizes a graduated enforcement strategy to require
compliance. Numerous Notices of Violation and two
Administrative Orders have been issued to operations
that previously failed to comply with the State Water
Pollution Control Act and rules developed there-
under.
TVA operates a demonstration project that measures
fertilizer runoff and soil erosion rates from conven-
tional and conservation tillage at Gilbert Farm in
Colbert County, Alabama. Following three years of
data collection from a conventional tillage cotton
system (1984-86), the 6-year watershed study is cur-
rently in its second year of measuring nutrient and
sediment runoff after conservation tillage was imple-
mented. Data to date show that sediment runoff loss
has been reduced by from 29 to 65 percent under
conservation tillage, depending upon the conventional
tillage year selected for comparison. The information
obtained from this study should be useful in selecting
BMPs and evaluating the erosion and nutrient runoff
losses that occur under cotton production in the karst
terrain soils of the Limestone Valley region of north-
ern Alabama.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 51
-------
FLORIDA
The state of Florida has a well established, ongoing
program involving numerous state
agencies/regulations/practices relating to NFS man-
agement. Florida's existing NFS management pro-
gram was developed as part of the state's areawide
water quality management planning program (section
208 program) conducted during the late 1970's and
early 1980s. The program involves a complex net-
work of participants in several federal, state and local
agencies. The program is multi-faceted and includes
regulatory and non-regulatory elements, technical as-
sistance, financial assistance, education, training,
technology transfer and research. The program has
stressed and required the implementation of both
structural BMPs and nonstructural controls. The el-
ements of this broad NFS management program in-
clude the storm water rule, requiring all new
storm water discharges to use design and BMPs such
that performance standards are met that result in
80%-95% of the total annual pollutant load removed
prior to discharge.
The Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Act was enacted in 1987 to preserve and re-
store surface waters throughout the state. Each water
management district is directed to develop and im-
plement watershed management plans and programs
for the improvement and management of targeted,
priority watersheds. The primary focus of these pro-
grams is NFS management.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation (FDER) is now implementing the "Dairy Rule"
to reduce stormwater pollutant loadings from dairies
within the Lake Okeechobee Drainage Basin. All
dairies are to develop and implement site-specific
management plans to collect, store, and treat all
wastewater from the milking barn and 25 year storm
runoff from high intensity areas of concentrated ani-
mal density. The state cost-share program was funded
at $3 million for FY 88.
The Lake Okeechobee, FL project is an example of
multi-agency cooperation aimed at addressing the
nullification problems in the lake, its tributaries and
distributaries. Dairy farm waste, along with intensive
cropland run-off, are principle contributors to the
nutrient loadings. The South Florida Water Man-
agement District (SFWMD) and the Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) have taken ag-
gressive steps through application of the state's
Stormwater Regulation, the newly-adopted Dairy
Rule and the Surface Water Improvement and Man-
agement Act (SWIM-1987). The 110,000-acre Taylor
Creek-Nubbin Slough watershed tributary to the Lake
was designated as an project RCWP in 1981. Over
95% of this area is devoted to agriculture which was
determined to be a major source of phosphorus, and
to a lesser extent nitrogen entering the lake. As of
November 1987, 89% of the total critical areas were
under contract for BMP implementation.
Total project costs exceed $2.3 million and include
funds from RCWP, SCS, farmers and SFWMD. The
program has been cooperatively implemented by the
ASCS, Cooperative Extension Service (ES), SCS,
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Okeechobee Soil and Water Conservation
District, SFWMD and FDER.
A second RCWP was initiated in the area in 1987
within the Lower Kissimmee River watershed and is
scheduled for completion over the a three-year period.
Water impairment problems and pollutant sources are
similar in this project, funded at $4.7 million, with the
same slate of federal, state and landowner funding
sources.
In 1987, the Lake Jackson project was named the
Outstanding Restoration Project of the year by the
North American Lake Management Society. This
project represents the cooperative efforts of EPA, the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
and the Northwest Florida Water Management Dis-
trict. A stormwater treatment facility was built along
a natural inflow stream. This facility includes a de-
tention pond, intermittent underdrain filters to re-
move solids and nutrients and a 3-cell marsh
impoundment. Three years of post-project water
quality monitoring data indicates that the detention
pond/filter bed system can remove 91 to 98% of the
suspended load while the marsh removes 75% of the
remaining load. All other loading parameters show
reduction ranging from 37 to 90%.
GEORGIA
Urban Stream Management: The Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) has continued efforts to
encourage three cities to develop stream management
programs. Sustained efforts are underway to develop
or foster urban stream assessment programs in four
additional jurisdictions. Five presentations regarding
stream management were made to various organiza-
tions. Quarterly EPD surveys of Flat Creek (with the
City of Gainesville) continued. The Atlanta Regional
Commission (in cooperation with the City of
Chamblee, DeKalb County, and EPD) conducted an
intensive assessment of potential sources of contam-
ination in the Arrow Creek drainage basin and coor-
dinated corrective actions. This study was the fifth in
a series of demonstration studies to illustrate how ur-
ban governments can deal with urban stream prob-
lems.
Sanitary Surveys: Nineteen sanitary surveys of
streams and river segments that were not fully sup-
porting their beneficial use because of nonpoint
sources were conducted during the Summer of 1987
to document fecal coliform levels, determine sources
52 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
that caused elevated levels, and, if possible, eliminate
problem sources.
Agriculture: The Georgia Forestry Commission, in
cooperation with the SCS and the Georgia Associ-
ation Conservation District Supervisors, prepared a
statewide assessment of potential water quality prob-
lems resulting from agriculture. This document pro-
vided a county by county assessment of pollution
potential by agricultural activity, an overall county
ranking, and suggested streams for demonstration
projects.
EPD developed a cooperative agreement with SCS for
permitting large confined animal feeding operations.
Pursuant to this agreement, large operations that are
required by federal regulations to use "no-discharge "
treatment systems, must obtain a Land Application
System (LAS) permit from Georgia EPD. SCS will
initially review wastewater systems for large new or
expanded operations to assure compliance with SCS
design criteria and forward a certification letter and
engineering drawings along with a LAS permit appli-
cation to EPD for review and, if appropriate, issuance
of a permit. Smaller systems must have "no-
discharge" treatment systems that are acceptable to
SCS. EPD will take corrective actions where such
operations have an adverse impact on water quality.
KENTUCKY
The Little River watershed in Trigg and Christian
counties, western Kentucky, has been targeted as a
priority watershed. TVA conducted Low Altitude
Photography (LAP) of the watershed in April, 1987,
and in October 1987 provided maps detailing land use
in the watershed. An intensive survey was performed
on the Little River watershed this past April. Infor-
mation provided by LAP and the intensive survey will
help target sites for BMP application when the Little
River watershed becomes a site for demonstration
projects. In addition, the two NPS on-site planning
teams, each consisting of one member from the Divi-
sion of Conservation, and one from the Division of
Water (DOW) will use the dual expertise of water
quality and agriculture/soils backgrounds to help tar-
get BMP sites and monitor the progress of the
project. Kentucky considers the on-site planning
teams to be an innovative aspect of the NPS program.
The DOW issues construction and operation permits
for no-discharge liquid waste handling systems that
store or treat waste from concentrated animal feeding
opertions prior to land application. According to an
MOU between the DOW and SCS, the respective
permits are issued after SCS certifies that the facility
will be designed in accordance with SCS criteria and
after SCS submits final as-built plans. The DOW
takes corrective action whenever these facilities ad-
versely affect water quality.
MISSISSIPPI
Various sources of state monies are currently available
to fund implementation activities. Sources of state
monies include the State Revolving Loan Fund and
the State Agricultural Cost Share Program.
Aerial photography and interpretation for NPS pol-
lution control purposes have been completed in the
James and Mattubby watershed area of northeast
Mississippi. The results of this TVA effort will be
used to develop cooperative programs with local,
state, and federal agencies to correct the soil erosion
and water quality problems in the watershed.
The Mississippi Forestry Commission, in cooperation
with the Mississippi Forestry Association, developed
silvicultural BMPs. Educating and training the state's
foresters to implement these BMPs will be a high
priority in Mississippi's NPS program.
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina has had numerous successes in NPS
control in the past. Recent successes in NPS control
are summarized below. The Agriculture Cost Share
Program (ACSP) presently cost-shares with farmers
in the installation of BMPs in 56 Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD). Present state fund-
ing for this program is $7.0 million per year. The
program hopes to expand to all 100 SWCDs by 1990
with an annual budget of $12 million. The Forestry
Cost Share Program cost-shares with individuals in
the installation of BMPs in Nutrient Sensitive Waters
(NSW). Annual state expenditure for this program is
$130,000.
The Water Supply Protection Program employs an
innovative, cooperative approach to assist local gov-
ernments in achieving a higher level of protection for
their surface water supplies. By classifying a water
supply as a more highly protected watershed (WS-I
,or WS-II), a local community and adjacent jurisdic-
tions within the watershed must have taken steps to
control nonpoint sources of pollution In turn, the
state agrees to limit the type and amount of point
source discharges in the watershed based on the water
supply classification. Even those communities with
a lower protective water supply classification (WS-III)
are encouraged to take steps to reduce nonpoint
sources of pollution by implementing the land use
component of the Water Supply Protection Program.
In addition to controlling NPSs in water supply
watersheds, the state has adopted Stormwater Regu-
lations in its 20 coastal counties. These regulations
require either limits on built-upon area or the instal-
lation of Stormwater treatment systems such as infil-
tration or wet detention basins.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 53
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
The Broadway Lake Sediment Reduction Program
illustrates that with proper funding, information/ ed-
ucation and leadership, there is tremendous public
readiness to deal with NFS problems. In-kind ser-
vices and/or funding were provided in this effort by
the landowners in the watershed, the SC Land Re-
sources Commission, the Anderson County Council,
the Anderson Soil and Water Conservation District,
EPA, USDA and others.
The Charleston Harbor Estuary Citizens Committee
was formed in 1988 for the purpose of developing and
implementing a comprehensive management plan for
Charleston Harbor. The Committee, which meets
monthly, is comprised of citizens, agency represen-
tatives, city administrators, and many harbor user
groups. The NPS Working Group, one of several
such groups on the Committee, has goals to: (1) as-
sess the current NPS situation in Charleston Harbor
and address local issues, (2) develop measurable BMP
implementation goals, and (3) develop educational
information targeted to various groups.
South Carolina received a $488,000 grant from the
U.S. Department of Energy Petroleum Violation
Escrow Funds. The South Carolina Land Resources
Conservation Commission will use the grant to pur-
chase 38 conservation tillage planters and drills, and
19 units of drip irrigation installation equipment.
Land users will be able to lease the equipment from
their local Soil and Water Conservation District.
TENNESSEE
Officers Branch Project - Putnam County: A stock-
pile of refuse (shale, fire clay, pyrite, etc.) from an
abandoned deep mine was contaminating an adjacent
stream. The 14 acre project involved removal of the
toxic material, and burial in a specially designed
trench. The trench was lined with limestone, pro-
tected with french drains, covered and revegetated.
The stockpile area was also revegetated, and waterfalls
for aeration and circulation were constructed. Plow
controls were set up through the system for monitor-
ing and operational purposes.
Innovative Funding/Cooperation and/or NPS
Controls in State: The Tennessee Department of
Health and Environment (TDHE) and Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) through 106
workplan activities have cooperated in developing and
funding various NPS related activities. Private envi-
ronmental interest groups have gotten involved in the
effort, such as the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Associ-
ation and their "Adopt-A-River" Program. Other
private "watchdog" efforts have resulted in NPS pol-
lution being found and addressed.
Through the issuance of State Water Quality Permit
for Aquatic Resource Alteration (T.C.A. 69-3-108b),
the impacts of activities or work in waters of the state
are minimized. This type of permit is required for
most stream channel modifications such as channel
improvements for flood control projects, channel re-
locations, stream impoundments, stream diversion,
utility line crossings, and water withdrawals. The
permit normally imposes proper erosion control
measures and conditions under which a proposed
project must be accomplished. If the permit condi-
tions are violated, an enforcement action can be
taken, beginning with a Notice of Noncompliance
(NONC), and possibly resulting in a Civil Penalty
Assessment. In FY87 approximately 30 to 40
NONCs were issued throughout the state.
Region V - Chicago, IL
Regional Summary
Assessments
One state had submitted a final Assessment Report
by the end of November, 1988, while the other five
states had submitted draft Assessment Reports by the
end of May (see Table 3 on page 16). These Reports
indicate that agriculture and hydromodification activ-
ities accounted for over 70 percent of the documented
NPS problems in streams, while for lakes agriculture
54 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
and contaminated sediments were the largest prob-
lems. The assessment reports are presently being re-
viewed by the Water Division (four programs), Great
Lakes National Program Office, and the Environ-
mental Science Division (two programs).
Management Programs
One state had submitted a final Management Program
by the end of November, 1988, in accordance with
section 319, while the other five states had all submit-
ted draft programs by December 14, 1988 (see
Table 4 on page 18). These submittals are presently
being reviewed. The same review process is used for
Management Programs that was developed for the
Assessment Reports.
Regional Activities
The Region made intensive effort to promote the
CRP's Filter Strip component. Region V states on
average had a 45 percent higher acreage sign-up than
the national average. The Region expanded its
Technology Exchange program to include Indian
Tribes and the International Joint Commission. The
Region distributed 32 documents through the Tech-
nology Exchange program. Based upon a survey of
state needs, the Region is actively looking for material
to include in this program.
The Region has continued its effort to implement the
Regional Administrator's Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Award. The number of states participating in
the program doubled in the last year to four.
The Region has initiated development of a Regional
nutrient and pesticide workgroup. The purpose of
this workgroup is to coordinate and facilitate the de-
velopment and implementation of EPA initiatives on
agrichemicals. This workgroup will coordinate with
other federal agencies.
The Region assisted SCS in the development of two
new P.L. 83-566 projects within the Region and is
presently assisting SCS on the development of an-
other. The Region worked with the state of Indiana
and SCS to accelerate the training of state and federal
agency personnel in ground-water nonpoint issues.
The Region continued working with USDA-ARS on
the development of the Agricultural Nonpoint Source
(AgNPS) model. Region V funded the development
of the ground-water component of AgNPS and served
on the Technical Steering Committee.
The Region continued to support the Conservation
Technology Information Center's NPS information
and education efforts by supplying articles for its
newsletters and assisting in the development of its
long-range plan. Region V worked with the North
American Lake Management Society to develop the
Off-site Assessment Workshop as part of its "8th
International Symposium on Lake and Watershed
Management" in St. Louis. The workshop, held in
November 1988, was designed to help participants
recognize and quantify NPS problems and connect
them with contributing sources. One of the major
themes of the 8th International Symposium was NPS
management. The Region is also a co-sponsor of two
other national NPS conference in FY89.
Regional personnel made over
section 319 at various state
meetings. These presentations
319 requirements and future
meetings included the National
Waste Symposium, National
Erosion Control Administrators
34 presentations on
and organizational
covered the section
directions. These
Poultry Management
Association of Soil
and others.
The Region also supported four National Network
for Environmental Policy Studies projects in the area
of NPS and clean lakes. Listed below is a brief de-
scription of these four projects:
Extent of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Region
V. The purpose of this project was to summarize
the information presented in the state NPS As-
sessment and Management Programs in order to
gain a Regional perspective of the problems.
This Report will be finalized in the first quarter
of 1989.
Effectiveness of lake restoration, protection and
management techniques being implemented
through the Region V Clean Lakes Program.
This project provides a survey of the techniques
being implemented as part of the Clean Lakes
program, which includes NPS controls. An
analysis of frequency of techniques implemented
in relation to identified problems is included.
The Report will be finalized in the first quarter
of 1989.
Benefits of Nonpoint Source Models in
Watershed Planning. This project was to discuss
the qualitative and quantitative benefits of the
use of models in watershed planning. The report
will also include the results of the results of a case
study on the application of NPS modelling at the
University of Colorado Research Park. The Re-
port is expected the first quarter of 1989.
Evaluation of the use of wetlands under EPA's
Region V Clean Lakes program. This project
examines the effectiveness of both institutional
arrangements and physical mechanisms associ-
ated with wetland use. Wetlands have been used
as NPS pollution abatement devices in a number
of Clean Lakes projects. The final report will
detail how wetlands have been used and future
programs recommendations. The final report is
expected during the first quarter of 1989.
Water Division continued to provide technical sup-
port to Great Lakes National Program Office. Water
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
55
-------
Division completed the NFS components of the Up-
per Great Lakes Connecting Channel Study and the
1987 Progress Report on the Implementation of the
United States Phosphorus Reduction Plan. In addi-
tion to these activities, the Water Division reviewed
the NPS components of all 27 Remedial Action
Plans. The Regional Nonpoint Source Program
provides technical support to the Office of Ground
Water, Superfund, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, Environmental Review Branch, Wetlands
program, and Monitoring programs.
The Nonpoint Source Program worked closely with
the Permits Program to develop a prototype
stormwater permit with NPS controls. The Region
is funding a project on the application of stormwater
runoff models with a geographic information system.
The Nonpoint Source Program is working with the
Regional In-place Pollutant Task Force on the de-
velopment of the Regional Strategy. The NPS Pro-
gram is also providing technical assistance to the
Environmental Sciences Division on the Madison
PCB Sludge Application Project.
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO):
GLNPO is responsible for ensuring that the U.S.
carries out its responsibilities under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement. On November 18, 1988,
the Administrator of EPA, signed a new Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement together with the Canadian
Minister of the Environment. In the new agreement
is an Annex for control of NPS pollution. The pur-
pose of Annex 13 is to further delineate programs and
measures for the abatement and reduction of non-
point sources of pollution from land-use activities.
The Annex includes provisions for wetlands and their
preservation, as well as a biennial reporting require-
ment. The provisions of this Annex will be imple-
mented through the section 319 program.
GLNPO also continued its cooperation in the Envi-
ronmental Protection Program between USA-USSR
entitled Protection of river basins, lakes and estuaries.
The program has a NPS component that will be pre-
sented at the International NPS Management Work-
shop in Austin, Texas during November, 1989.
GLNPO has submitted the U.S. portion of the Upper
Great Lakes Connecting Channel study that has a
significant NPS component. The 1987 Progress Re-
port on the Implementation of the U.S. Phosphorus
Plan was completed and a draft of the 1988 Progress
Report was completed on December 15,1988.
GLNPO has funded a significant number of demon-
stration projects during 1988, and continued providing
assistance to states for the development of 30 Reme-
dial Action Plans (RAPs) to correct acute localized
problem areas, of which 26 have NPS components.
These RAPs provide a foundation for federal, state
and local actions for the protection, management and
restoration of the impacted water body. The NPS
components of these RAPs will be implemented
through the section 319 program.
Four major NPS projects were completed through the
GLNPO in FY88:
Political, Institutional and Fiscal Alternatives for
Nonpoint Pollution Abatement Programs con-
ference. GLNPO partially funded this interna-
tional conference, while the Region's Water
Division provided technical support. The con-
ference was held in Milwaukee, WI on December
7-9, 1987. A conference proceedings was trans-
mitted to each Great Lakes state.
Great Lakes Demonstration Program Technol-
ogy Transfer Document. GLNPO funded the
development of this document, and the Water
Division provided technical assistance. The
document summarizes the lessons learned from
section 108(A) demonstration projects. Final
publication and distribution will be accomplished
in FY89.
Pesticide Survey. GLNPO funded Ohio State
University Extension Service to survey landown-
ers and operators regarding pesticide use in
Ohio's Lake Erie drainage basin. The final report
has been published and distributed to the states
in Region V, the SCS, and various EPA program
offices.
Transect Survey. In order to obtain better in-
formation on the adoption of conservation tillage
in the Lake Erie drainage basin, GLNPO funded
the SCS in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio to
complete special transect surveys. The results
from these surveys are utilized in reporting im-
plementation progress under Annex 3
(phosphorus reduction plan).
For FY89, GLNPO has funded thirteen NPS
projects.
State Highlights
ILLINOIS
Illinois EPA (IEPA) Standards and Specifications for
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control were incor-
porated into the construction permitting process of
the Division of Water Pollution Control. IEPA staff
are participating on an Agrichemical Containment
Committee with the Illinois Department of Agricul-
ture. The intent of this committee is to strengthen
the regulations on contaminent and to clarify stand-
ards and specifications for the containment of
Agrichemicals.
56 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
INDIANA
Indiana has surpassed its phosphorus load reduction
goal. The state continued "T by 2000", which is a
comprehensive state-funded program aimed at signif-
icantly reducing soil erosion and resulting
sedimentation throughout Indiana. The program has
a Lake Enhancement component. Indiana continued
its nitrates in ground-water effort and the ground-
water pesticide monitoring projects.
MICHIGAN
Michigan awarded funds to local units of government
to implement NPS pollution abatement plans they
developed under the Michigan Clean Water incentives
program. Michigan made a special effort to define
"acceptable management practices" for livestock and
poultry facilities. Michigan continued implementa-
tion of its Phosphorus Reduction Plan, and had sig-
nificant achievement (over 90 percent of'the goal) in
Saginaw Bay.
MINNESOTA
Minnesota emphasized the State Clean Water Strat-
egy Approach at the local level with its "Local Water
Planning: A Minnesota Success Story". The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has
administrative rules in place for the Clean Water
Partenship program. MPCA is developing BMP
handbooks for agriculture, urban areas, forestry and
mining. The state supported continued development
of AgNPS model.
OHIO
Ohio EPA (OEPA) has been funded to develop a re-
port describing Ohio's experience with low cost edu-
cation and demonstration projects aimed at reducing
nonpoint sources of pollution. OEPA has also de-
veloped a data management system for the state NPS
assessment process and report, and has initiated a
comprehensive program to update their existing NPS
assessment.
WISCONSIN
During early 1988, the Wisconsin legislature enacted
Act 297 which created regulatory authority for the
abatement of NPS pollution associated with severe
water quality problems. The state continued its NPS
Pollution Abatement Program, and BMP standards
and specifications to protect fish and wildlife habitat
were completed. The Wisconsin Department of Na-
tural Resources (WDNR) has been able to partially
decentralize the NPS program to the District Offices.
Region VI - Dallas, TX
Regional Summary
Assessments
All five states had submitted final Assessment Reports
by the end of October, 1988 (see "Summary of Re-
port Submittals" on page 16). These reports show
that agriculture causes NPS problems in five states;
mining/resource extraction is a problem in four states;
and construction, hydromodification, land disposal,
and urban runoff are sources of concern in three
states. The Regional review process involves several
divisions within EPA, as well as a NPS Task Force.
Management Programs
Three states had submitted final Management Pro-
grams by the end of October, 1988, and the other two
states had submitted draft programs by the end of
January, 1989 (see "Summary of Report Submittals"
on page 17). None of the states had a comprehensive
NPS program prior to section 319. Thus the WQA
has provided these states with an opportunity to move
forward in the management of NPSs. All five states
plan to develop and implement an agricultural NPS
management program, and most plan to add man-
agement programs for other NPSs in the future.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 57
-------
Regional Activities
On August 11, 1988, the Regional Administrator is-
sued a Regional Policy for use of section 205(j)(5)
funds for FY88, FY89, and FY90. Basically, the
policy directs grants to be used for implementation
of NPS controls and conditions the award of these
grants upon EPA approval of the NPS Assessment
Reports and at least portions of the NPS Manage-
ment Programs.
The Region developed generic NPS Assessments and
NPS Management Programs for states to use as
guides. The NPS Coordinator met with each state
water quality agency almost quarterly in FY88 to
discuss progress and to provide assistance as needed.
The Region hosted two state workshops and two
federal agency workshops to help states prepare their
Assessment Reports and Management Programs.
Twelve information packages containing more than
30 technical and programmatic publications were
transmitted to states in FY88. The Region delivered
10 NPS presentations to various groups and agencies.
In additions, the SCS detail has spoken at more than
30 meetings of agencies, groups, and industry.
State Highlights
ARKANSAS
No implementation funds, federal or state, are pro-
posed for FY88, FY89, or FY90.
LOUISIANA
The new cooperation between SCS, Louisiana Ex-
tension Service, and Louisian Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality (LDEQ) is one of the biggest
measures of success in Louisiana. LDEQ will rely
upon SCS and Extension as the implementing agents
for the agricultural NPS Management Program.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is helping the state to
identify fifty priority wetlands. Two areas of primary
concern are the Gulf Coast and the Chenier Plain in
the Delta.
NEW MEXICO
The state was successful, working through the desig-
nated management agency (U.S. Forest Service), in
having disturbed areas at the Santa Fe Ski Basin re-
vegetated to decrease sediment loading to the Rio en
Medio. The state was also successful in obtaining
better on-site construction practices by the Sangre de
Cristo Water Company for work at McClure Reser-
voir, preventing pollution of the Santa Fe River.
The Environmental Improvement Division (EID), in
cooperation with the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish and the F&WS, worked with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to stabi-
lize spoil material that had resulted in massive
sedimentation of the Rio Chama below Abiquiu
Dam. The EID also cooperated with the County of
Los Alamos to prevent sediment inputs from con-
struction sites and to develop a plan to prevent dis-
charge of anoxic waters to the river during
construction of a hydroelectric power facility at
Abuiqui Dam.
OKLAHOMA
Since the Management Program is still under devel-
opment, the primary "success" at the present time is
the high degree of interagency coordination that has
emerged on the part of the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission (OCC) and the Oklahoma State De-
partment of Agriculture (ODA). This spirit of coop-
eration will allow the development of a solid
agricultural component for the Management Pro-
gram, which will also involve the cooperation of the
state's 89 Conservation Districts, SCS, and the Co-
operative Extension Service.
The SCS has worked closely with the OCC in the
development of their NPS Assessment Report and
Management Program. In addition, SCS has helped
develop standards for animal waste lagoons, dead bird
pits, and animal feedlot restrictions.
TEXAS
The NPS Assessment process led to the discovery that
many suspected NPS problems were actually point
source problems. These problems have been referred
to the responsible municipalities for correction under
terms of their permits.
The NURP study in Austin has led to the most
comprehensive local watershed protection/control
program in Texas. The Office of Public Information
at the Texas Water Commission has initiated an in-
formation campaign with NPS as the focus beginning
in September, 1988, and continuing through at least
March, 1989.
In the Texarkana and Longview areas two major in-
dustries have spent about $7 million over the past
four years to remedy NPS toxics problems.
58 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Region VII - Kansas City, KS
Regional Summary
Assessments
Three of the four states in Region VII had submitted
final Assessment Reports by the middle of November,
1988, while the other state submitted a draft report in
April (see Table 3 on page 16). Nebraska's Assess-
ment Report was approved on January 5, 1989. In
general, the states found that a lack of available data
on a watershed basis and the short amount of time
combined to produce a very difficult environment in
which to qualify and identify surface and groundwater
impacts due to NFS for the Assessment Report.
The resultant lack of specific waterbody and accom-
panying watershed area identification reduced the
ability of the Management Programs to contain spe-
cific implementation priorities. It is clear that reliance
on existing available information could not produce
the definitive assessment of where and what the water
quality impacts due to NFS were. Also contributing
to some lack of specificity is the absence of national
criteria to judge NFS control progress and the nature
of current state water quality standards which are, for
the most part, inadequate to deal with sediment and,
in some cases, agricultural chemicals. Therefore, a
key future activity in most states will be the refine-
ment and completion of a reassessment of state waters
in order to better determine implementation priorities.
This will occur at the same time limited implementa-
tion goes forward in those existing watersheds that
have had NFS problems identified and match priori-
ties of available funding.
Categories of NFS examined in Region VII state As-
sessment Reports were as follows: agricultural-
cropland and irrigation land; animal waste; mining;
urban stormwater; construction erosion; landfill
leachate; silviculture; hydrologic/habitat modification;
and septic tank leachate. Of these, only the agricul-
tural NFS related sources were widespread in all
states, and these will be the primary focus of
watershed implementation programs.
Management Programs
The large workload in other areas related to the WQA
of 1987 slowed development and completion of final
section 319 Management Programs. Nebraska sub-
mitted its final Management Program in October,
1988, while the other three states submitted draft
Management Programs in August (see Table 4 on
page 18). EPA approved Nebraska's Management
Program on January 5, 1989.
The need for better education and information trans-
fer on a statewide basis was identified by most states
as a priority implementation activity irrespective of
individual watershed priorities. Region VII is im-
pressed by the attitude and willingness of some federal
and state agencies to undertake cooperative efforts
aimed at implementation, especially in the agricultural
NFS area. This level of implementation will not be
high nor quickly reached however.
Regional Activities
Federal Agency Cooperation
Region VII hosted a two-day workshop in May
for USDA-SCS Headquarters and Technical
Center staff to provide information and input
into the development of technical water quality
training information by SCS.
In December, Region VII hosted the four states'
SCS office directors along with the Midwest Na-
tional Technical Center (MNTC) Director to
explore state 319 program directions and oppor-
tunities for cooperation.
Region VII attended the USDA's Conservation
Review Group meetings, in all four states, to
provide water quality input into US DA pro-
grams.
Region VII staff conducted various visits with
state offices of SCS and USGS, and with the
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 59
-------
MNTC to discuss general NFS concerns and the
progress of state 319 efforts.
Region VII staff serve as members of the USGS
Lower Kansas River Basin Study liaison com-
mittee, which is focused primarily on character-
izing water quality effects from NFS.
General Coordination
Region VII staff participated in an joint
EPA-National Association of Conservation Dis-
tricts (NACD) conference in Denver that was
aimed at educating and informing state and local
agencies on section 319 issues and requirements.
Regional staff also participated in the NACD
North Central regional meeting in Peoria,
Illinois, in July and discussed 319 activities.
Regional staff prepared a slide program to ex-
plain the 319 program to federal, state, and local
agencies and groups.
Region VII staff participated in meetings of the
iMid-America Chlordane Group, an ad hoc group
of states bordering the Mississippi River, who are
attempting to find common approaches to deal-
ing with chlordane contamination of sport
fisheries on the Mississippi River. The chlordane
contamination is believed partially due to urban
run-off.
Region VII maintained its SCS detail position in
the region and utilized the resulting liaison with
SCS and technical expertise to improve oversight
and coordination of state NPS programs. Infor-
mation on CRP, ES programs, technical map-
ping capabilities, etc., were provided to regional
and state staff.
Region VII participated extensively in the NPS
Agenda Task Force (see "Convened NPS
Agenda Task Force" on page 29) and its Steering
Committee. The regional Water Management
Division Director served on the Steering Com-
mittee and the Water Quality Branch Chief and
NPS Coordinator, attended several task force
meetings and/or provided extensive written com-
ments and input.
Assistance to States for Preparation of Assessment
Reports and Management Programs
Region VII established specific state/EPA agree-
ment commitments with additional regional out-
put and milestone requirements for all states in
order to insure timely preparation of the
reports/programs.
Region VII conducted quarterly meetings in all
states to discuss progress of plan preparation with
state environmental agencies.
Region VII provided planning grant funds
(205(j)(5)) in FY88 to all states for preparation
of Management Programs and Assessment Re-
ports.
Region VII provided funds to the Big Spring
Basin Demonstration Project in northeast Iowa.
The Big Spring Project is a study of groundwater
NPS interactions and it has contributed much to
the understanding of how agricultural chemical
impacts groundwater. An interdisciplinary team
of federal, state, and university researchers are
working on the Project which is also demon-
strating the effectiveness of BMPs in controlling
groundwater pollution.
Region VII developed a regional Geographic In-
formation System (GIS) project that will link the
AgNPS watershed model to a GIS for a small
watershed in Kansas to develop and assist testing
of BMP and implementation effectiveness.
Region VII is participating in a pilot test of
linking the AGNPS watershed model to an in-
lake model in Missouri using an existing Clean
Lakes Phase I project. The state will utilize the
output to refine BMP implementation in that
and other target watersheds.
Region VII hosted a three-day workshop aimed
at improving the states' technical abilities to uti-
lize NPS computer models in targeting critical
areas. National experts in AGNPS, CREAMS,
GLEAMS, and PRZM provided hands-on
training to 66 individuals representing 19 agen-
cies.
Regional Overview of 319 Program: Region VII ini-
tiated, developed, and participated in a wide range of
activities during FY-88 that were aimed at assisting
state agency development of section 319 plans, in-
creasing federal interagency coordination on NPS is-
sues, and strengthening the research data base on NPS
surface and groundwater problems and solutions.
State Highlights
IOWA
A number of nonpoint control projects have been
initiated in Iowa, and progress continues to be made
in implementing these projects. In recent years, NPS
control projects were initiated for nineteen Iowa lakes
with five of these projects now completed. These
projects are being funded by a variety of federal and
state programs, and considerable BMP implementa-
tion has occurred during the reporting period. One
new project, North Cedar Creek (a trout stream in
Clayton County) was awarded partial project funding
during FY88, and implementation of this project will
60 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
begin in FY89. In addition, NFS planning was initi-
ated for Lake Iowa, Iowa County, in FY88, as part
of a Phase I Clean Lakes diagnostic and feasibility
study.
In several Iowa lake protection projects, EPA Clean
Lakes Program funds have been combined with funds
from the Publicly Owned Lakes Program (POLP)
component of the state cost-share program, in order
to provide a 75 percent cost share rate for installing
permanent soil conservation practices in these lake
watersheds. To accomplish this, the Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship (DALS) rules for
the state cost-share program have been written to give
highest priority to projects where state funds are being
combined with federal funds (such as Clean Lakes
Program funds).
During its 1988 session, the Iowa Legislature estab-
lished and funded a new program to enable county
soil and water conservation districts to carry out local
water quality projects (enabling legislation was HF
2381, funding for FY89 established at $500,000).
Details of this program are not currently known, as
DALS has only recently begun development of pro-
posed program rules. It is anticipated, however, that
this program will provide support to and be carried
out in conjunction with the state NPS Management
Program.
An accounting of the installation of BMPs in the
watersheds of priority Iowa lakes shows that more
more than $470,000 was spent in FY87 and about
$160,000 was spent in the first quarter of FY88.
Funding sources for the fifteen priority lakes include
Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) special
project funds, the Resource Conservation and Devel-
opment Program (RC&D), the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP), the Clean Lakes Program, the
Iowa POLP, local entities, and private landowners.
In FY87 the state used about $350,000 of
federal/state/local funds to leverage an additional
$120,000 from private landowners. Through the first
quarter of FY88 private landowners contributed
about $40,000 for BMP implementation. The lion's
share of federal/state/local funds in both FY87
($213,000) and in the first quarter of FY88 ($103,000)
came from POLP. These numbers do not include
additional POLP funds that were spent in Clean
Lakes watersheds. The BMPs installed in these fif-
teen watersheds during FY87 and FY88 consisted
mostly of terraces, waterways, and water and sediment
basins.
The Iowa Groundwater Protection Act, passed in
1987, is a comprehensive piece of legislation address-
ing a wide range of ground-water issues. The Act in-
cludes several specific projects related to NPS
pollution: (1) the Big Spring Demonstration Project
(BSDP), (2) closure of abandoned wells, (3) registra-
tion of agricultural drainage wells, and (4) the Inte-
grated Farm Management Demonstration Project
(IFMDP).
The BSDP includes approximately 128 on-farm
demonstration projects of various scales, involving
more than 1,000 plots. The IFMDP comprises more
than 300 demonstration sites in nearly every county
in Iowa. Some of the farm demonstrations are co-
sponsored by the BSDP and the IFMDP. The dem-
onstrations illustrate alternative, reduced tillage
methods (e.g., ridge tilling); nutrient, particularly ni-
trogen, management; rotation benefits; pest control;
weed management; and abandoned well plugging.
Many educational efforts are underway, including
tours, presentations at various meetings, press re-
leases, a newsletter, and television and radio inter-
views. The IFMDP involved similar activities, but
on a statewide scale. The more than 300 demon-
stration sites in 1988 included nearly every county in
the state.
KANSAS
Assessment: In order to determine water quality
problems caused by nonpoint sources, narrative cri-
teria of the Kansas water quality standards were "in-
terpreted" through a set of quantitative screening
criteria.
SCS Interagency Team: The SCS in Kansas has es-
tablished an interdisciplinary, interagency water qual-
ity planning team to develop the details of the SCS
Water Quality Strategy. The Bureau of Water Pro-
tection within the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) has two representatives on the
team. The objectives of the strategy include develop-
ing a watershed planning methodology for addressing
water quality problems in SCS sponsored projects and
revision of the SCS technical guides to address non-
point source pollution control.
Upper Delaware Water Quality Assessment: The SCS
and KDHE have executed and agreement for KDIIE
- Bureau of Water Protection to conduct a water
quality assessment of the Upper Delaware Watershed.
The monitoring effort was to include 15 surface water
quality monitoring sites, 10 ground-water quality
sites, and up to eight biological monitoring sites. The
assessment was to be completed by May 31, 1988.
Nonpoint Source Biotic Index: KDHE - Bureau of
Water Protection has contracted with the Kansas Bi-
ological Survey to develop a Biotic Index for Assess-
ment of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. The index is
intended to enable the use of biological measures and
observations to assess the impacts of nonpoint pol-
lution sources and estimate the likely improvements
resulting from implementation of NPS pollution
control measures.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
61
-------
Cedar Creek Water Quality Assessment: KDHE, the
Kansas Water Office and EPA have entered into a
joint project to demonstrate the use of GIS technol-
ogy and the AgNPS model in the Cedar Creek
Watershed in Bourbon County. KDHE will be re-
sponsible for making water quality interpretations and
recommendations.
Farmstead Wells: The majority of pollution sources
that can affect the quality of farmstead well water are
NPSs. KDHE in cooperation with Kansas State
University has completed a survey of farmstead well
water quality, is developing a predictive modeling
technique to estimate well water quality using infor-
mation about farmstead activities, and is developing
a series of educational materials to enable farmers and
others to use the techniques to estimate well water
quality, make informed decisions on locating
pollutant sources and protecting well water quality.
Bourbon County Monitoring Network: The Bourbon
County Conservation District has initiated a surface
water quality monitoring network. The Bureau of
Water Protection has provide technical assistance on
the network design. Fort Scott Community College
will be providing the majority of the sample analysis.
The Bureau of Water Protection will provide analyt-
ical support for heavy metals and pesticides. The
Bureau will also provide data analysis and interpreta-
tive assistance. The network consists of 12 sites to be
sampled six times a year.
MISSOURI
The Division of Environmental Quality of the De-
partment of Natural Resources (DNR) led Missouri's
efforts to prepare an Assessment Report and develop
a Management Program for NPS.
The projected activities of the Management Program
are summarized below:
Assessment and prioritization enhancement
Project development
Program commitment
Public awareness
In addition to the above activities the state conducted
the following activities related to NPS programs:
Continued monitoring of stream/lake quality in
four watersheds receiving state cost-share erosion
control funding.
Continued groundwater monitoring in suspected
vulnerable areas in northeast Missouri and in the
Bootheel area.
DNR initiated the Woods Fork Demonstration
Project that will address animal waste manage-
ment and soil erosion practices. Implementation
funding is provided by state soil erosion program
and special ACP project funds.
NEBRASKA
In FY88 six NPS programs or activities were con-
ducted by the Nebraska Department of Environ-
mental Control (NDEC). These programs or
activities include the section 319 NPS Assessment
Report, section 319 NPS Management Program,
Special Protection Area (SPA) Program, Long Pine
Creek RCWP project, application of the AgNPS
watershed model to the Sand Draw watershed of the
Long Pine Creek RCWP, and the Elm Creek
(Webster County, Nebraska) project.
Three monitoring efforts are currently being con-
ducted by NDEC in conjunction with the SPA pro-
gram. Sampling is being done in the Beatrice,
Fremont, and Superior, Nebraska vicinities to define
pollutant sources and to assist with SPA designation
decisions. Locally, the Central Platte Natural Re-
sources District has implemented a groundwater
quality management area to deal with nitrate con-
tamination in their district.
To date, approximate expenditures by NDEC to de-
velop NPS programs includes $50,000 in surface water
activities and $300,000 in groundwater activities. An
estimate of funds spent at the local level for NPS
planning or activities is not immediately available.
62 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Region VIII - Denver, CO
Regional Summary
Assessments
The Region had received final Assessment Reports
from five states by the end of December, 1988, while
the other state submitted a draft report in July (see
Table 3 on page 16). The South Dakota Assessment
Report was approved in September, 1988. Colorado's
Assessment Report was also approved by EPA, on
November 25, 1988. All states exerted extra effort to
incorporate best professional judgment information
on stream and lake conditions into the assessments
along with conclusions based on available monitoring
data. The conservation districts in all states have been
very cooperative in providing information and thus
these assessments will provide good water quality
baselines for targeting the upcoming US DA Water
Quality Initiative (see "Soil Conservation Service Im-
plemented New Water Quality Action Plan" on page
31). Special attention has been given by the Region
to incorporating water quality data from other federal
agencies into the assessments. Region VIII also ini-
tiated evaluation of biological and aquatic habitat and
riparian zone habitat impacts on fishery beneficial
uses, since in many cases they are more indicative of
the health of the stream than chemical data and may
be more available. The Region strongly supports the
proposed future direction of NFS monitoring pro-
grams into the use of biological/habitat survey meth-
ods and has hired a staff person to provide expertise
in this area.
In FY89 the Regional emphasis in NFS assessments
will be:
To continue to integrate other federal agencies
and their data into the NFS assessments and as-
sessment processes.
To become more knowledgeable about
biological/habitat monitoring of NFS impacts.
To integrate additional groundwater, Clean
l^akes, and wetland information into the assess-
ments.
To support the integration of the assessment re-
ports into the SCS Water Quality Inititiative.
Based on the large land area of Region VIII and the
remoteness of many headwater streams (both pristine
waters and those impacted by mine drainage), signif-
icant additional resources will be required to make the
assessments comprehensive and inclusive. Evolving
technology, such as rapid biosurvey methods, will also
be helpful. There is also a need to collect and incor-
porate data on pesticides in surface or groundwaters.
Management Programs: Three states had submitted
final Management Programs by the end of December,
1988, while two states had submitted draft programs
by early October (see Table 4 on page 18). Wyoming
had not submitted a Management Program as of
January 30, 1989. South Dakota received partial ap-
proval of its Management Program in September,
1988.
Assembling the BMPs for the agricultural component
of state NFS Management Programs has been
straightforward, with all states adopting portions of
the SCS Field Office Tech Guide practices as the
baseline. The recently completed water
quality/quantity footnotes for SCS practices will be
integrated into the section 319 practices by state water
quality staff.
Grazing practices have been a concern due to the di-
rect impact of improper grazing on key western
fisheries, the controversial nature of the grazing issue,
and the fact that three federal agencies (Bureau of
Land Management, Forest Service, and SCS) are all
involved in grazing and are utilizing three different sets
of grazing BMPs. It has also become evident from
existing demonstration projects that grazing can be
done on watersheds on a win-win basis, (both im-
proved grazing and improved or restored fisheries) if
the grazing systems are properly selected for the
unique watershed ecosystem conditions. EPA is
sponsoring a contract to document this process such
that additional demonstration projects can be selected
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 63
-------
and initiated as part of the section 319 program im-
plementation. It will also provide a basis for updating
existing grazing BMPs in the three federal agencies as
well as providing grazing BMPs for the NFS Man-
agement Programs in western states.
All states are considering funding statewide educa-
tional programs on proper pesticide and fertilizer
management to control NPS and also will be coop-
erating with US DA in the joint training of US DA and
state water quality personnel on pesticide and fertilizer
concerns in FY89. Region VIII will also be active in
supporting these initiatives as well as cooperating in
the South Dakota RCWP project, whose major focus
is on developing techniques for monitoring pesticide
and fertilization impacts on surface and ground wa-
ters.
Colorado has developed a program for control of
NPS from the abandoned hard rock mines that im-
pact many high country trout streams. This program
is already being implemented by the Mined Land
Reclamation Division. Montana is developing a
similar program. Mining is a major NPS in both
states. BMPs for abandoned gold mines are still in
the development/experimental state.
Several states are developing control programs for
silviculture and urban runoff. Controversy is antic-
ipated in selecting and approving silvicultural BMPs
due to the disparity in logging practices on state, pri-
vate, and federal lands.
The review and approval/disapproval of all six state
NPS Management Programs in Region VIII is antic-
ipated to be controversial for programs dealing with
grazing and/or silviculture due to the controversial
nature of the source categories, the extensive federal
land holdings, and the national environmental atten-
tion. Many trout streams, including threatened and
endangered cutthroat streams, are being impacted by
grazing and silviculture.
Regional Activities
South Dakota transferred section 201(g)(l)(B) funds
into the NPS program during FY88, and several other
states are considering doing the same in FY89. Major
Regional initiatives in FY89 will be to integrate the
Federal Consistency Guidance for NPS on federal
lands into each state Management Program, to con-
tinue to work with other federal agencies on their own
NPS control initiatives, and to support the SCS State
Offices on USDA water quality initiatives. Technol-
ogy transfer of biological/habitat monitoring methods
to state and federal agencies will also be continued.
The Region will continue its lead role for western
Regional issues on the National NPS Interagency
Task Force, the NPS Agenda Task Force, and as lead
Region on grazing issues. The Region will also con-
tinue its lead responsibilities on the Colorado Salinity
Forum.
State Highlights
COLORADO
The Water Quality Control Commission adopted a
regulation allowing NPS passive treatment of
abandoned/inactive mine drainage sites. This au-
thority will allow individuals, corporations, agencies,
and interest groups, to pursue low technology, low
cost remediation of these mining sites. This is a sig-
nificant step since these sources have often been re-
ferred to as Colorado's most serious water quality
problem, and have received little attention in the past.
Silver Creek, a tributary of the Fall River and Clear
Creek in Clear Creek County, is the object of a
project of the Mined Land Reclamation Division.
This project, recognized in the Colorado NPS As-
sessment Report as a severe impact due to
abandoned/inactive mining is reclaiming Silver Creek
through removal of old mill tailings and treatment of
a mine adit discharge. Aquatic life may again return
to Silver Creek due to these improvements.
MONTANA
Specific milestones were planned for agricultural,
silvicultural, and resource extraction NPS pollution
categories. Montana adopted the SCS standard con-
servation practices for agricultural BMPs. The state
also adopted the BMPs developed by the Cumulative
Watershed Effects Committee as its silvicultural
BMPs.
Montana's NPS control program will be coordinated
by a task force comprised of representatives of 31 or-
ganizations and agencies. This group will provide the
essential guidance for the program. Cooperative ef-
forts at the state level for NPS control include:
The formation of the Riparian Education Com-
mittee to promote improved management of pri-
vate lands.
The Forest Practices Study Committees of the
Environmental Quality Council.
The Cumulative Effects Watershed Cooperative.
The coordination and cooperation of private
landowners and state and federal agencies on the
development of demonstration projects.
NORTH DAKOTA
Spiritwood Lake, a 16-meter deep, natural lake, is
situated on a 14,900-acre watershed. Best manage-
64 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
ment practices were implemented in 1983, with the
Stutsman County Soil Conservation District having
primary responsibility. Nearly all costs were provided
by funding from the SCS, ASCS, North Dakota
Game and Fish Department, and North Dakota State
Department of Health (EPA and state funds). BMPs
implemented included 58 miles of trees planted, 1296
acres of no-till, 3300 acres of protected fallow land,
and 100 percent treatment for crop residue manage-
ment in the watershed.
I lypolimnetic withdrawal of nutrient-rich water is ac-
complished by pumping via 4500 feet of perforated
16-inch polyethylene pipe on the lake bottom. Up to
1986, 44,139 pounds of total organic nitrogen and
3,482 pounds of total phosphate had been removed.
A gradual reduction in nutrients has occurred, with
increased water clarity, a favorable shift in the algae
species present, and increased dissolved oxygen to
lower depths. This is an ongoing project with con-
tinuing management and monitoring.
The Sheyenne River Improvement Project started in
August, 1986, as a cooperative effort sponsored by the
Ransom County Soil Conservation District and Wa-
ter Management Board. The goals of the project were
to reduce NPS impacts on the Sheyenne River, pro-
vide education and information to individuals within
the project area, and clean up aesthetically unpleasing
areas to promote use of the river by the local popu-
lation.
A ground-water protection map was completed in
cooperation with the SCS and County Weed Board
to identify ground-water areas that may be susceptible
to contamination from noxious weed spraying. A
public information campaign involving lectures at
area schools, a booth at local fairs, and distribution
of NPS information to area producers has been quite
successful, and is on-going.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Although the section 319 NPS program will provide
a welcome shot in the arm for NPS pollution control,
South Dakota has long been involved in efforts to
control NPS pollution. The South Dakota Clean
Lakes Program includes consideration of NPSs
through the use of the AgNPS model in
diagnostic/feasibility studies. The model is used to
delineate critical cells within a watershed so that con-
trol methods are implemented more efficiently and
effectively. Other success stories related to NPS pol-
lution control efforts include the Big Stone Lake
Clean Lakes project, the Oakwood/Poinsett RCWP
project, and the Lake Herman MIP project.
UTAH
Nonpoint source water quality planning activities are
completed in three priority watersheds and in progress
in another 10 priority watersheds. These watersheds
involve six different lead agencies at various levels of
government; impairments caused by sediment,
hydrologic modification, nutrients, sediment, and
total dissolved solids; and at least five different fund-
ing sources. Two of the priority watersheds, the
Heber Valley and Pineview Reservoir, are funded
through the Clean Lakes Program.
The Utah Department of Agriculture believes that
demonstration projects will be effective in gaining
implementation of NPS control measures. The
Newton Reservoir filter strip demonstration is con-
sidered very important because of its potential of a
CRP filter strip educational program. A training, ed-
ucation, and demonstration program is planned for
animal waste control in Cache Valley. Others will be
scheduled as appropriate.
WYOMING
Ocean Lake has been severely impacted by sediment
loads entering from irrigation return flows. The area
drained by Drain 6 is a major source, and implemen-
tation of BMPs has the potential to significantly im-
prove water quality in the lake. In FY88 a contract
was initiated with the Riverton Conservation District
(utilizing 205(j)(l) funds) to test the effectiveness of
BMPs in controlling the channel erosion on Drain 6.
Region IX - San Francisco, CA
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 65
-------
Regional Summary
Assessments
By the end of August, 1988, three states and all three
territories had submitted draft Assessment Reports
(see Table 3 on page 16). Nevada had not submitted
a report as of January 30, 1989.
Management Programs
Three states and all three territories had submitted
draft Management Programs by the end of August,
1988 (see Table 4 on page 18). Nevada had not made
a submittal as of January 30, 1989.
Regional Activities
Region IX has focused its nonpoint source program
efforts on the promotion of the section 319 Program
to the states in the Region. In the first quarter of
FY89, the Region intends to shift emphasis into that
of reviewing the submittals and working with the state
lead agencies to ensure that the documents meet the
section 319 requirements. We already see certain
areas where there are deficiencies in the drafts partic-
ularly in the areas of federal consistency, denominat-
ing funding alternatives and in setting milestones. In
addition, we expect additional information on prob-
lems and programs to come in as the public becomes
more aware of the program.
Part of the Region's promotional efforts have taken
the form of public outreach. This outreach includes
speeches to statewide conservations groups such as
the California Association of Conservation Districts,
the Hawaii Association of Conservation Districts, and
the Western Region of the National Association of
Conservation Districts (NACD). In addition, EPA
representatives have given talks to local groups in an
effort to encourage public participation in the state
program development process.
Public outreach was emphasized as an integral com-
ponent of the Region IX Nonpoint Source Strategy.
Based on Headquarters guidance and discussion with
representatives inside and external to EPA, this strat-
egy recognized the need for state water quality plan-
ning agencies to move the program into
implementation as quickly as feasible. Under the
model of the Citizens Participation Handbook (pre-
pared by the Institute for Participatory Management)
the Region recognized that the key factor to ensure
successful program implementation was to encourage
early public involvement in the planning process and
to work with the state lead agency. This was partic-
ularly important in those states where the lead agency
had not made any special efforts to seek public input
into the program. Despite the progress the Region
has made, in some states such as California, the public
and interested groups are just becoming aware of the
program development process and this will necessitate
incorporation of these concerns into the Assessment
Reports and Management Programs at a later date,
perhaps as updates.
In addition to outreach to the public the Regional
Strategy calls for internal coordination within the*
EPA Regional Office. Other programs participate in
reviews of important elements of the program, in-
cluding workplans, assessment reports and manage-
ment programs. The Office of Ground Water, and
the Wetlands and Estuary Programs are involved in
these reviews. All of these offices and the Office of
Pesticide Programs were involved in developing the
Regional Strategy. Monthly coordination meetings
have been held to keep other programs informed of
program status and direction. Regional staff have
devoted a great deal of time and energy assisting
Headquarters in guidance development. The area of
particular interest has been the guidance on the federal
consistency requirement, section 319(b)(2)(F) and
319(k). This is an issue that is important to our states
since Arizona, California and Nevada have large areas
of land under federal jurisdiction, and the states have
documented many water quality problems associated
with activities on federal lands. The Region, however,
anticipates problems with this section in the submit-
tals because the states have not received detailed
guidance on federal consistency requirements. Such
guidance has only recently been put into a final draft
form and most states will not see it until after the
program submittals have been transmitted to EPA.
With the exception of Nevada, all of our states have
used a portion of 205(j)(l) funds to initiate develop-
ment of the assessment report and management pro-
gram. This has been helpful because the Region has
experienced difficulty in awarding the 205(j)(5) grants
due to combination of problems including late avail-
ability of the funds, problems with the delegation au-
thority and questions concerning specific legal
regulatory requirements in grants provisions. In ad-
dition, because states had used other funding they did
not submit workplans until quite late in the award
cycle. The Region anticipates that most states will
use the FY-88 and possibly the FY-89 205(j)(5) funds
for continued development of their programs. Hawaii
and California, however, may devote at least a portion
of FY-88 and 89 to implementation. This is not sur-
prising. In the absence of section 319(h) funding the
incentive for states to complete the Assessment Re-
ports and Management Programs is gone. The state
lead agencies have a tendency to continue to use the
205(j)(5) funds in development as there is no match
requirement associated with this activity. In addition,
implementation is more involved and often requires
giving funding to other agencies. In turn, the state
lead agency must monitor closely funding to outside
agencies, which is an added burden. From the Re-
66 1988 NFS Report to Congress
-------
gional perspective, it seems clear that at this time,
because only 205(j)(5) funds are available, the state
lead agencies are being rather cautious about making
commitments to other agencies with regard to imple-
mentation funding. In Region IX, California is the
only state that receives a large annual allotment of
205(j)(5) monies. The remaining states receive well
under $200,000. For this reason the focus has been
on negotiating a policy that will result in the use of
some of California's 1.6 million dollars in FY-88
funds for implementation projects. Finally, the Re-
gion has devoted its greatest effort towards providing
program development assistance to the state lead
agency. This job will continue to be the most im-
portant aspect of the Regional program as staff begin
to review the program submittals. In order to prepare
for this, the Region has recently reorganized and
added staff to work on the program. The Region also
anticipates having the assistance of a Soil Conserva-
tion Service person on temporary assignment to San
Francisco. This person will provide expertise in irri-
gated and other agricultural problems.
In summary, the Region understands that the Non-
point Management Program is an important aspect
of the states' water quality management programs.
It is also a complex and intractable problem that has
gone unchecked for a long period of time. It will re-
quire much more than four years to begin to demon-
strate significant water quality improvements as a
result of the 319 program. Region IX, however, is
committed to providing the states with the tools that
are needed to tackle the problem. To this end the
Region will continue to build its program.
State Highlights
ARIZONA
The Arizona State Environmental Quality Act (EQA)
of 1986 directed the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) to regulate nonpoint source discharges
to surface water and ground water. The state regu-
lations require that the Director, adopt, by rule, a
program to control nonpoint source discharges of any
pollutant or combination of pollutants into navigable
waters. This is important to note because this regu-
latory approach is quite different from the require-
ments contained in the section 319 provisions of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. This difference impinges
upon the development of Arizona's NFS program.
Although Arizona is committed to the intent of sec-
tion 319, the differences in the legal requirements be-
tween the state and federal requirements lead directly
to differences in schedules for program development
and implementation. Arizona's EQA contains re-
quirements that schedule specific sources for program
development and implementation within the first
three years of the passage of its Act. DEQ expects its
final regulatory program to be completed in Septem-
ber 1989.
Arizona has committed more than $1.8 million to
develop and implement a program to manage NPSs,
The largest problem with federal funds is that the
federal support has been limited at best, and arguably
nonexistent. The federal resources that have been
made available to Arizona have been taken from ex-
isting entitlements but would have to be diverted from
other programs. The net result has been to exacerbate
competition for funding within different parts of the
state's water quality management program.
Since Arizona is an arid state and ground water is the
primary source of drinking water for the majority of
the population, ground-water protection is of prime
importance. Arizona is implementing the Pesticide
Contamination Prevention Program, a provision of
the EQA, which is instrumental in controlling pesti-
cide application and registration in order to protect
ground-water resources.
General permits for agriculture are aimed at protecting
ground-water and surface water resources. Agricul-
tural general permits are allowed by rule under the
Aquifer Protection Permit provision of the EQA.
Under this program a facility must operate in com-
pliance with BMPs. At this time, regulated activities
include nitrate application and concentrated animal
feedlots. A draft handbook of Agricultural BMPs and
Alternative Technologies has been developed based
on the recommendations of two BMP committees.
I learings on these practices have been held and com-
ments will be incorporated into the final document.
This handbook will form part of the rules to imple-
ment this program. Under the EQA, the program
must be implemented by July 1, 1989.
CALIFORNIA
The state plans to spend $75 million in bond money
for the Agricultural Drainage Program to deal with
water quality problems caused by irrigated agriculture.
The Agricultural Drainage Program is a revolving
fund loan program set up to allow irrigation districts
to invest in irrigation management facilities that will
prevent pollution of water. The State Board approves
potential loans and administers loan contracts that are
submitted by the districts.
California has long maintained a program to deal with
nonpoint problems through the authorities of Porter-
Cologne granted to the nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards. For instance, the Central Valley
Regional Board was instrumental last year in abating
pollution that had been discharged to the Sacramento
River from rice growing areas upstream from the City
of Sacramento. Sacramento takes much of its drink-
ing water from the Sacramento River and presence of
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
67
-------
these chemicals was creating unacceptable odor and
taste.
The success in handling this water quality problem
should be attributed to the cooperation of multiple
agencies at the state and federal agencies, as well as
private entities. The Department of Food and Agri-
culture regulatory authorities were of major impor-
tance. These authorities allowed restrictions on
herbicide use to be negotiated with the Rice Growers
Association.
On the federal side, SCS provided technical assistance
in devising and demonstrating BMPs for managing
the use of the Bolero, Ordram and Basagram
herbicides. In addition, ASCS was involved in the
funding and contracts used to implement the demon-
stration projects. The result of their effort was an
accepted BMP that calls for the treated rice pond
water to be retained on the fields for a few additional
days after application. This additional retention time
allows the herbicide to decompose in the presence of
ultra-violet into nontoxic constituents.
The result of these efforts was a demonstrated water
quality improvement in the Sacramento River as
shown in Table 7.
HERBICIDE
Ordram
Bolero
Basagram
PEAK CONCEN-
TRATION (ppb)
1982
204
55
-
1986
-
-
42
1988
67
4.5
5.5
Note: Water quality goals to meet are 0.6 ppb in
the San Francisco Bay Delta. Basagram moni-
toring began in 1986.
Table 7. Monitoring Results of Colusa Basin Agri-
cultural Drain, location near Knights Land-
ing, Near Sacramento River, California
HAWAII
Hawaii DOII recognizes that the interested public are
the key to successful implementation. Currently, the
Department of Health (DOII) is focusing on dissem-
inating information to the public regarding NPS pol-
lution prevention. This is very important for the
islands which have a finite amount of land area to
support a growing number of inhabitants.
In many cases more information is needed concerning
effective BMPs for use in island agriculture. Many
of the generalized BMP Handbooks for mainland ag-
riculture are not applicable to Hawaiian agriculture.
In one instance, the macadamia nut growers have
joined with university faculty, the local Conservation
District, and others to study the cultural patterns,
plant needs and soil loss characteristics to devise
BMPs for this type of orchard tree. The outcome of
this study will be instrumental in implementation ef-
forts associated with this crop.
NEVADA
Despite setbacks in the current development program,
Nevada has had an ongoing program and several
successful NPS projects that provide valuable insights
for future program needs. For example, the Lake
Tahoe Clean Lakes Project in Douglas County dem-
onstrated that local control of NPS implementation
is effective for Nevada. In that instance, Douglas
County prepared the application for funds, developed
the plans and provided the match. The project re-
duced sediment loadings to the lake from road main-
tenance and road and building construction.
In addition, the state has an ongoing program that
requires BMP implementation for all activities on
federal lands through an MOU with the FS and U.S.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This program
extends to private lands as well through the Diffuse
Sources Regulation Program. The Councils of Gov-
ernments require BMP implementation for activities
in their jurisdictions and the Nevada Department of
Environmental Protection (NDEP) is closely involved
reviewing subdivision permits for developments in
sensitive areas such as the Truckee Meadows and the
Reno-Sparks areas. These reviews ensure that miti-
gation measures are implemented and that valuable
wetland areas are protected during construction ac-
tivities.
There are, however, recognized problems that Nevada
is prepared to treat. These include programs to regu-
late the Department of Transportation (DOT)
through permits for stream crossings, wetlands
through dredge and fill permits, and mining through
state permits. The permits for mining are critical since
most of the new mining operations involve a cyanide
heap leach process used to recover chemical gold from
low grade ores.
Despite the lack of financial resources in the state,
Nevada has attempted to solve its documented prob-
lems using innovative approaches. Because the state
has scarce water resources, these approaches strive to
make the best use of treated effluent to mitigate water
quality problems caused by water diversions. At the
same time enhancement of wetlands is another state
goal. Unfortunately, EPA has not always concurred
with this innovative approach. For example, on the
Carson River, in Douglas County, Nevada proposed
the use of land application of secondary treated
effluent for the Douglas County Sewer Improvement
District facility. Use of this effluent would have re-
duced water diversions from the Carson River and
curtailed irrigation return flows in the area around
Gardnerville. EPA, however, would not issue a sec-
68 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
tion 404 permit for the project despite the fact that
USFWS had approved the proposal. The District and
NDEP felt frustrated in its attempts to employ this
innovative approach. Nevada has had successes in
other areas, however, including the Incline Village
Project in Carson Valley which uses secondary
effluent to create and enhance wetlands in that Valley.
Finally, NDEP is currently working with EPA, the
Cities of Reno and Sparks, Washoe County, and the
Paiute Tribe to develop a strategy to maintain water
quality in the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake. An
area of great promise is use of point source effluent
to achieve some nonpoint source tradeoffs for water
quality problems involving nutrients and temperature
by using effluent for irrigation instead of diverting
additional water from the Truckee River.
Region X - Seattle, WA
Regional Summary
Assessments
One state had submitted a final Assessment Report
by the end of September, 1988, and the other three
states had all submitted draft reports by the middle
of January, 1989 (see Table 3 on page 16).
Washington's final Assessment Report is currently
being reviewed by EPA. The delays in submittals to
EPA were due to the: (1) limited time available to
prepare the reports, and (2) need to involve a number
of interested and affected groups in their development
and review.
Riparian area degradation is the common denomina-
tor in many of the Region's most serious water qual-
ity problems from NPS. This is particularly true for
those problems involving loss of aquatic resources,
such as sedimentation of salmon spawning gravels and
bacterial contamination of shellfish beds. This de-
gradation results primarily from cattle grazing, agri-
culture, timber harvesting, and urban development.
EPA has provided extensive comments to each state
on their draft Assessment. In general, states have
done a good job of identifying: (1) navigable waters
impacted by NPS, and (2) categories of NPS impact-
ing state waters. Draft Assessments were generally
inadequate in identifying: (1) processes for describing
BMPs, and (2) state and local programs for control-
ling NPS pollution. These deficiencies will be cor-
rected in final Assessments before their approval by
EPA.
The major strengths of NPS Assessments reviewed in
Region X are:
Much of the available information and many
sources were used.
Impaired, threatened, and high quality waters
were included.
Ground-water information was included.d
NPS categories and sub-categories impacting
water quality were identified.
The major weaknesses are:
Lack of clear focus in identifying priority NPS
problems.
No strategy and timetable provided for complet-
ing Assessments.
BMP identification process not adequately
summarized, d
Limited public involvement in preparing Assess-
ments.
The criteria for Approval of state Assessment Reports
in EPA's NPS Guidance (see "Issued Guidance" on
page 20) have been used as the basis for reviewing the
adequacy of draft Assessments. This guidance was
provided to all states and to a number of interested
and affected groups. It has been discussed and inter-
preted extensively with state water quality agencies.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS
69
-------
Management Programs
Washington submitted its final Management Program
to EPA on September 21, 1988 (see Table 4 on page
18). Oregon and Alaska had both submitted draft
Management Programs by -January 30, 1989, but
Idaho had made no submittal as of that same date.
The reasons for the delays in the submittals to EPA
are the same as those listed for the NPS Assessment
Reports.
The section 319 requirement to develop NPS Man-
agement Programs, the magnitude of NPS problems,
and the potential availability of federal funding to
support program development and implementation
have all contributed to the increased priority given to
NPS by states. Oregon's and Washington's Manage-
ment Programs will place increased emphasis on
public education and involvement, and working with
local, state, and federal agencies to implement NPS
controls.
Regional Activities
Assessments and Management Programs: Regional
funding guidance was issued to the states, and the
Region assisted Headquarters in developing the
Agency's "Federal Consistency Guidance." Several
drafts and finals of Headquarters guidance were also
provided states for their reviews, comments and use.
Two regional meetings of state NPS program manag-
ers were held to provide guidance and exchange in-
formation among states. A number of individual
meetings were also held with states to provide assist-
ance and guidance in their preparation of 319 reports.
A number of federal agencies, especially from USDA,
have participated with states in developing their As-
sessments and Management Programs. These agen-
cies have also implemented a number of NPS
controls.
The Region has strongly encouraged states to develop
good Assessments and effective Management Pro-
grams. Extensive comments were provided each state
on draft section 319 reports. Several areas of im-
provement were requested as a prerequisite to EPA's
approval. Required revisions related to the needs for:
(1) improved interagency leveraging of resources, (2)
stronger accountability of implementing agencies, and
(3) better definition of in-stream environmental results
anticipated.
The Region's FY89 actions to implement section 319
will be in the following areas: (1) review and approval
of section 319 reports; (2) providing technical and fi-
nancial assistance to states for implementing NPS
Management Programs; and (3) assisting states and
federal agencies in complying with the federal con-
sistency requirements in state Management Programs.
Partnership in Education: The Region is working
with state water quality agencies and universities to
strengthen technology transfer and accountability for
NPS controls. Water quality agencies are being en-
couraged to specifically work with universities with
water quality expertise in: (1) sponsoring updated
technical training for field professionals; (2) coordi-
nating and supplementing interagency research; and
(3) providing forums for public dialogue, consensus
building, and evaluating the effectiveness of NPS
controls in protecting water quality.
This need for a strong university role in water quality
management has been validated in practice by a few
universities in the Region. Universities are uniquely
qualified to bring diverse groups together to address
issues of concern. They are generally recognized as
non-biased and technically competent. Universities
have also expressed a high level of interest in working
with states in resolving environmental management
issues and concerns.
Region X Risk Management Strategy for NPS
Discharges: The Region used a risk-based approach
to assist in setting priorities for the use of resources
and solving priority problems. A broad range of EPA
issues and programs were assessed and ranked ac-
cording to their ecological and human health risks.
Risk management strategies were developed to ad-
dress high-risk problems.
Nonpoint source discharges was ranked in the highest
ecological risk category' (with a ranking of number 4
out of 15 problem areas). The Region's Risk Man-
agement Strategy proposes to focus EPA and state
resources into two priority areas: (1) protecting vul-
nerable ground-water aquifers from contamination by
agricultural chemicals; and (2) reducing destruction
of critical salmon spawning habitat and other water
uses from timber harvesting.
The Region's strategy includes: (1) public education;
(2) development of agricultural BMPs to protect
ground water; (3) development of guidelines for
monitoring impacts from silvicultural activities; (4)
two demonstration project pilot basins; and (5) en-
couraging states to implement solutions to agricul-
tural and silvicultural problems in their NPS
Management Programs. The Region is currently
pursuing funding options to implement the Risk
Management Strategy. Both Regional and Head-
quarters funding options are being evaluated.
Other Regional Activities: The Regional staffing for
NPS controls was increased. Three U.S. Forest Ser-
vice employees (one each in Idaho, Washington, and
the Regional Office) were detailed for two assign-
ments to work on NPS programs. An SCS employee
was detailed to the Regional Office to work on agri-
cultural NPS controls.
70 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
Two graduate students were funded as part of EPA's
National Network for Water Policy Studies to con-
duct NPS projects. Both projects evaluated the ef-
fectiveness of silvicultural NPS controls on selected
national forests. In addition, a technical document
on evaluating the Effectiveness of Agricultural and
Silvicultural NPS Controls was developed using con-
tract dollars.
State Highlights
ALASKA
Alaska hired new staff to prepare its section 319 As-
sessment Report and Management Program. Delays
in hiring, the need for orientation and understanding
the program, and the very limited amount of available
NPS information have all contributed to substantial
delays in Alaska's development of its reports. The
Region has had little success in encouraging the state
to meet the date commitments made for completing
these reports.
IDAHO
Idaho assessed 47% of its total stream miles, finding
that NPSs are the cause of use impairment in 64%
of those waters assessed. The major sources of
NPS-caused impairments in Idaho are agriculture,
hydromodification, forest practices, and construction.
Idaho used monitoring data and other information
(e.g., observational) to compile its Assessment. Sur-
vey questionnaires were used extensively to gather
water quality information based on best professional
judgment of field practitioners. Technical and intera-
gency review groups were used to assist in the design,
development, and review of the state's Assessment.
Idaho used an extensive mailing to solicit additional
comments on its Assessment.
The Rock Creek RCWP project has been successful
in generating information on the effectiveness of
BMPs in irrigated cropping systems.34 Implementa-
tion of sediment retention structures, irrigation man-
agement systems, and conservation tillage has resulted
in statistically significant reductions in suspended
sediment levels in five of six monitored subbasins.
OREGON
Oregon used monitoring and other (e.g., surveys) data
to compile its Assessment. The state used technical
and interagency review groups to assist in the design,
development, and review of its Assessment. Only
about one-third (31%) of the river miles in Oregon
was assessed, with over half (54%) of the assessed
miles suffering from use impairments caused by NPSs.
The principal NPSs causing the use impairments in-
clude riparian disturbance, vegetation removal, surface
erosion, stream channelization, and animal waste
management.
Thirteen public meetings were held throughout
Oregon to summarize the results of the state's As-
sessment and receive comments and additional infor-
mation. Approximately 275 interested persons
participated in these meetings.
Oregon's Draft NPS Management Program is cur-
rently being reviewed by interested and affected
groups and EPA. The draft program focuses on im-
plementation needs for NPS categories and
watersheds of concern. There is a strong reliance on
updating and developing memoranda of understand-
ing with federal, state, and local implementing agen-
cies to achieve the program's goals. Oregon, like
Washington, had developed a NPS program prior to
section 319 as a part of its section 208 planning and
implementation.
The Tillamook Bay RCWP project has made impor-
tant contributions concerning the effectiveness of ani-
mal waste management for improving water quality
at the watershed level.35 Water quality monitoring
data show a 40-50 percent reduction in mean fecal
coliform (bacteria) concentration that is attributed to
improved management of about 60 percent of the
animal waste produced in the watershed. Bacterial
contamination levels have decreased both in the
tributaries and in Tillamook Bay where commercial
shellfishing is a $1.5 million industry.
WASHINGTON
Statewide Activities: Washington used EPA's com-
puterized Waterbody System (see "Reporting
Software" on page 21) and relied primarily on moni-
toring data in developing its Assessment. The heavy
reliance on monitoring data in Washington resulted
in a relatively small percentage (12%) of the total river
miles being assessed. Of those river miles assessed,
one-half had use impairments caused by NPSs. Ma-
jor sources affecting water quality are pastureland, re-
moval of riparian vegetation, urban runoff, irrigated
crop production, animal holding areas, forest prac-
tices, on-site sewage systems, surface mining, and
boats and marinas.
34 Smolen, M.D., et al. 1988. NWQEP 1987 Annual Report - Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Dept., North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, p. 2.13 - 2.20.
* Ibid, p. 2.83 - 2.87.
EPA REGIONAL OVERVIEWS 71
-------
Washington's water quality agency staff developed
their initial review draft. This draft was widely dis-
tributed for public review. Washington held six pub-
lic meetings to explain their Assessment approach and
to receive public comments.
Washington's final Management Program in also be-
ing reviewed. EPA's action on the Management
Program will be completed by February 4, 1989. The
plan emphasizes using state and local education and
technical assistance initiatives to implement the four-
year Management Program. The program is pre-
sented in four levels with increasing complexity and
costs.
Washington had a NPS program prior to section 319.
This program was developed as a part of section 208
planning and implementation. Implementation of.the
existing program has been severely limited by the lack
of funding and the low priority assigned to NPS con-
trols by the state water quality agency.
Pugct Sound: The Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan has a strong emphasis on NPS
controls. The Plan was developed by the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority and adopted by the
state legislature. The three themes of the NPS ele-
ment of the plan are: (1) identification of priority
watersheds; (2) local implementation; and (3) volun-
tary controls. A state law was passed requiring local
governments to establish priorities for watersheds and
develop action plans to address priority problems.
Local planning committees have been established in
each Puget Sound County. These committees include
government representatives, tribes, interested citizens,
and interest groups. The committees must complete
their plans by April 1, 1990. Plans must be approved
by the Department of Ecology to be eligible to receive
state implementation funding.
Funding to assist locals in implementing their NPS
plans will be provided from the state's Centennial
Clean Water Fund. The account created by this fund
anticipates: 40 million dollars for fiscal year 1989; and
45 million dollars annually for each fiscal year there-
after through 1995. Ten percent (10%) of these funds
shall be used for activities that control NPSs of water
pollution.
Public involvement and education are the cornerstone
of the Puget Sound Plan. The Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority has developed and implemented a
number of model programs for public involvement
and education. The state legislature appropriated one
million dollars of Centennial Clean Water Act funding
to the Authority for public involvement and educa-
tion. The Authority has funded over 40 projects since
1987. Many of the NPS projects are directed toward
"peer to peer education" by contractors associations,
dairy farmers, commercial fishermen, and others.
72 1988 NPS Report to Congress
-------
GLOSSARY
ACP: Agricultural Conservation Program
AgNPS: Agricultural NPS .Model
ARS: Agricultural Research Service of USDA
ASCS: Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service of USDA
ASIWPCA: Association of State and Interstate Wa-
ter Pollution Control Administrators
BLM: U.S. Bureau of Land Management
BMP: Best Management Practice
CC: Conservation Compliance Program
CES: Comprehensive Water Quality Evaluation
System
CM&E: Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
COE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRP: Conservation Reserve Program
CWA: Clean Water Act
DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior
DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ES: Extension Service of USDA
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA: U.S. Federal Highway Administration
FMS: EPA's Financial Management System
FS: Forest Service of USDA
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service of the DOI
FY88, FY89, etc.: Fiscal Year 1988, 1989, etc.
GICS: EPA's Grants Information Control System
L&W 201: Land & Water 201 Project in the
Tennessee Valley
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MIP: Model Implementation Program
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
NCP: USDA's National Program for Soil and Water
Conservation
NCW: Near Coastal Waters
NEP: National Estuary Program
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration of the Department of Commerce
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
NPS: Nonpoint Source
NLRP: Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
PC: Personal Computer
POTVV: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RCWP: Rural Clean Water Program
SCS: Soil Conservation Service of USDA
SPMS: EPA's Strategic Planning and Management
System
SRF: State Water Pollution Control Revolving
Fund
TCG: SCS's Technical Guidance under the WQAP
TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture
UST: Underground Storage Tank
WQA: 1987 Water Quality Act which amended the
CWA
WQAP: SCS's Water Quality Action Plan
GLOSSARY
73
------- |