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

-------