00563
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Washington, DC 20460
July 1987
Water
Setting Priorities: 841B87100
The Key to
Nonpoint Source Control
-------
SETTING PRIORITIES: The Key
to Nonpoint Source Control
Authors:
R.P. Maas—N.C. State University
M.D. Smolen—N.C. State University
C.A. Jamieson—N.C. State University
A.C. Weinberg—EPA Nonpoint Sources Branch
Final Report for the Project:
"Guidance Document on Targeting of NPS Implementation Programs
to Achieve Water Quality Goals"
Cooperative Agreement CR813100-01-0
NCSU PROJECT DIRECTOR
Dr. Frank J. Humenik
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service
Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department
Raleigh, NC
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
Kenneth Adler
Economic and Regulatory Analysis Division
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Washington, DC
July 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
The contents and views expressed in this document are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the policies or positions of the North Carolina
State Agricultural Extension Service or the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document is based, in part, on an earlier document entitled, "Designing A
Watershed-Based Nonpoint Source Implementation Program," developed under the
direction of Karen Shafer.
The authors would like to thank EPA personnel Richard Kashmanian, Tom
Davenport, Bob Thronson, and John Mancini for their review and comments.
The authors would like to express appreciation to Len Stanley and Sarah
Brichford for extensive editing and Terri Hocutt for word processing. The
cover design is by Diane Probst.
-------
PREFACE
In 1983, 6 of the 10 EPA regions identified nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
as their primary obstacle to realizing the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
They attributed this, in part, to progress in point source control during the
previous 10 years, but also to a lack of progress in NPS pollution control.
While point source control has matured, NPS control has been neglected, with
very limited funding, relatively little research attention, and no federal
regulatory authority. Although the 1972 Clean Water Act provided states with
money to develop plans for both point and NPS pollution control (under
section 208), until passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 there was no
provision to implement the NPS components of these plans.
The targeted approach, recommended here, focuses NPS implementation efforts
to limited areas with the objective of obtaining visible achievements. This
recommendation differs drastically from the more traditional approach in which
program resources are made available to qualifying participants on an equal
basis throughout the state. Although the latter" approach is politically
expedient and may achieve a great deal of NPS pollution control, its potential
for producing any detectable change in a water resource within a 25-year period
is quite low. The targeted approach, on the other hand, by concentrating
pollution control efforts and applying all project resources to clearly
specified goals and objectives can produce results in a reasonably short
period, such as 5 to 10 years.
As of 1987, most states have recognized the need to treat NPS pollution to
protect their high priority water resources, and many states are initiating
programs to treat NPS pollution from agricultural, urban, and suburban areas.
This document attempts to aid these developing NPS control programs by drawing
from about 15 years experience in water quality projects including the Rural
Clean Water Program, the Model Implementation Program, and water quality
demonstration projects funded in the Great Lakes Basin. While the concept of
targeting applies to all types of nonpoint sources, the emphasis in this
document is primarily on agricultural nonpoint source control.
This document was written prior to passage of the Water Quality Act of
1987, and therefore, does not specifically address the NPS provisions of this
Act. The Water Quality Act of 1987, in section 319, requires states to
develop programs to manage nonpoint sources of pollution. Section 319 specifi-
cally requires states to prepare, within 18 months of enactment, an assessment
report of their NPS problems and a management program for addressing NPS
problems in the next 4 fiscal years. The Act authorizes $400 million over 4
years for grants to states for implementation of approved management programs.
Thus, given this new mandate in the Water Quality Act of 1987, states have a
new impetus to assess and prioritize their NPS problems and to develop new NPS
programs and/or refine existing programs. This document should be helpful to
states in developing their NPS assessment and management programs required by
section 319. In addition, states should refer to EPA's guidance on
implementation of section 319 for specific guidance on the requirements of this
section.
-------
EPA's Office of Water is encouraging states to develop comprehensive State
Clean Water Strategies (SCWS) to help coordinate implementation of the NFS
provisions and other provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Central to
the SCWS is the concept of targeting geographical areas for control action. The
NFS targeting strategy, as presented in this document, is intended to
complement the SCWS targeting concept, more specifically it is intended to
present successful state approaches to targeting NFS water pollution problems.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... i
CHAPTER ONE: SETTING PRIORITIES ................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION [[[ 1
Why Prioritize? [[[ 1
National and State Water Resource Priorities .......................... 2
State and Watershed Level Targeting ................................... 2
OVERVIEW OF A NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM ....................... 2
CHAPTER TWO; SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL ............................. 4
ESTABLISH AGENCY AUTHORITIES ............................................... 4
Interagency Commitments ............................................... 5
Coordination Among Agencies ........................................... 5
SET REALISTIC PROGRAM GOALS ............. . .................................. 5
Quantitative and Measurable ............. ............. ................. 5
Time frame [[[ 6
ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES ............................ 6
Focus Resources [[[ 6
Additional Resources .................................................. 7
RANK NONPOINT SOURCE PRIORITY AREAS ........................................ 1
Criteria for Statewide Prioritization ................................. 7
Degree and Type of Water Resource Problem. .... ......... . ......... 8
Economics ..... . .................................................. 8
PoliticsT [[[ 8
Willingness and Capability of Participants ....................... 9
Regulatory Authority ........... . ................................. 9
Institutional Constraints ........................................ 9
Examples of Statewide Water Resource Prioritization ................... 9
Maryland [[[ 9
Pennsylvania [[[ 10
Illinois [[[ 10
Ohio [[[ 11
Wisconsin [[[ 11
Groundwater in Statewide Prioritization .............................. 12
CHAPTER THREE: SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE WATERSHED LEVEL ...................... 14
DEFINE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMUNICATION
CHANNELS [[[ 14
The Lead Agency .......... ". ........................................... 14
The Project Coordinator .............................................. 14
Establish Agency Roles ............................................... 16
DEFINE NATURE OF WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT ................................ 18
Pollutant Loads Versus Concentrations ................................ 18
Dynamics of the Impairment ........................................... 19
Attainability of Use ................................................. 19
-------
DETERMINE POLLUTANT REDUCTION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY GOALS 24
General Considerations 24
Reliability of Estimation Techniques 25
Point Sources 25
Nonpoint Sources. 25
Point Versus Nonpoint Sources 25
DETERMINE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS 26
NPS Control Effectiveness 26
Construction 26
Urban 26
Agricultural 26
Landowner Acceptance 28
Financial Incentives 28
Ordinances for Sediment Control 29
METHODS FOR OBTAINING PARTICIPATION 29
Cost Sharing 29
Information and Education Programs 29
Regulatory Options 29
Examples of Other Incentives/Inducements 30
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES .30
Type and Severity of Water Resource Impairment 31
Type of Pollutant 31
Sediment 31
Nitrogen 31
Phosphorus 32
Microbial Pathogens 32
Pesticides'. 32
Source Magnitude 33
Erosion Rate 33
Manure Sources 34
Fertilization Rate and Timing 34
Microbial Pathogen Sources 34
Pesticide Usage Patterns 35
Transport Considerations 35
Distance to Nearest Watercourse 35
Distance To The Impaired Mater Resource 37
Other Selection Criteria 37
Present Conservation Status 37
Planning Time frame 38
Designated High or Low Priority Subbasin. 38
On-site Evaluation 38
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES 38
Develop Farm Level Ranking Procedure. 38
Modify Implementation Plan on The Basis of Water Quality Monitoring 41
CARRY OUT BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM. 41
Develop Contracts 41
Monitor Land Treatment ... 41
V&ter Quality Monitoring 42
Socio-economic Impacts 42
REPORTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES 42
Analysis of Water Quality Trends 42
Format and Content of Project Reports 43
APPENDIX 45
REFERENCES ^9
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1,
FIGURE 2.
FARMLANDS CRITICAL AREA RATING FORM FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTROL 39
FARM LEVEL RATING FORM FOR SELECTING CRITICAL FARMS IN
WATERSHEDS WITH PESTICIDE-RELATED WATER RESOURCE
IMPAIRMENT 40
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 4.
STEPS IN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT 15
INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT, CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL
RATES OR COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS 17
POLLUTANTS AND MOST LIKELY SOURCES TO CONSIDER IN A
WATERSHED INVENTORY 22
AN EXAMPLE OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL ASSOCIATED WITH
ESTIMATING RELATIVE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS OF
POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 26
-------
CONCLUSION
Targeting is a straightforward concept—identify priority water resources
and treat the major sources of pollutants that impair those resources first.
However, variability in hydrological systems can complicate the targeting
procedure. This document is a working outline of the procedure and can provide
insight for state and local decision-makers involved in developing,
administering and implementing NFS control programs.
Many specific recommendations are listed but the need for states and
localities to be flexible in their NFS control efforts is recognized, too. No
two water resource problems, state agency infrastructures or watershed
landowners will be exactly alike. Thus, program flexibility to address a wide
range of environmental and socio-economic factors must be anticipated. Specific
goals and objectives, however, remain the focal point of NFS control programs
to achieve water quality improvements.
The nation is at a critical juncture in NFS control. WLth several years
of project experience and research now complete, the ongoing process of
expanding NFS control efforts nationwide lies ahead. Under the 1987 Clean Water
Act, states must now begin the formal process to bring state water resource
quality closer to the goals stated in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
This is an immense task which requires a sound perspective on how to proceed.
Targeting provides this perspective.
SUMMAKY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Setting Priorities At The State Level
1. Establish water quality authorities of different agencies. Define
roles and responsibilities of each participating agency. Appoint one
agency to coordinate the NFS control program.
*
2. Set realistic program goals that will result in visible improvements
in water quality for priority water resources. Goals should be at-
tainable with the available financial and staff resources and within
a reasonable timeframe.
3. Assess the institutional resources and capabilities of all agencies
that will be involved in the program. Focus agency resources and
expertise on NFS control efforts that will be most effective in
achieving the stated program goals.
4. Establish a statewide water resource prioritization procedure to rank
resources in priority for NFS control projects. Prioritization of
water resources should be based on these criteria: identifiable water
-------
resource problem that is controllable with treatment practices; high
probability of successful treatment with the available funding and
staff resources; and a high public use value.
Setting Priorities At The Watershed Level
1. Define the institutional responsibilities and roles of all
participating agencies and establish one agency as the lead agency
responsible for administering the project. Identify communication
channels through which the project will operate. Appoint one project
coordinator to manage the project.
2. Refine the nature of the water resource impairment identified during
the statewide water resource prioritization process. Determine how
much and what type of NFS reduction will be necessary to restore
designated uses of the resource.
3. Develop a watershed profile that will serve as a project data base,
including an inventory of nonpoint sources and point sources.
4. Establish water quality goals and objectives for each phase of the
project. Establish goals that are quantitative and measurable with
flexibility to accommodate appropriate modifications. Determine pol-
lutant reduction needed to achieve water quality goals. Determine
control options including land treatment, incentives for landowner
participation and regulatory ordinances.
5. Assess methods for obtaining landowner participation and implement
those which are appropriate for the project area.
6. The selection process should be based on the following five criteria:
1) type and severity of water resource impairment;
2) type of pollutant;
3) source magnitude considerations;
4) transport considerations; and
5) project specific ariteria.
The procedure for selecting critical areas should follow farm level
ranking of nonpoint sources. Two figures are provided on pages 39
and 40 as examples of farm level ranking for phosphorus and pesticide
use to identify sources of priority resource impairment.
7. Carry out the BMP implementation and water quality monitoring program
in such a way that impacts of treatment on water quality are docu-
mented from the start.
8. Maintain clear and accurate records of reporting, accounting and
evaluation procedures throughout the project's life. A sample pro-
ject report outline is listed in Appendix A.
-------
Chapter One
SETTING PRIORITIES
This document presents guidelines and suggestions for designing and imple-
menting a targeted nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control program to achieve
improvements in water quality. Our theme is that a state's NPS control effort
should be coordinated and directed to focus resources on clearly specified,
realistic goals and objectives. Focusing program resources, or "targeting," is
recommended as a means of optimizing the visible water quality improvement,
thereby generating public support and participation for water quality pro-
tection programs.
Targeting should occur at all levels of a state program. The state program
should select and target priority areas in coordination with national and
regional goals. Within priority areas, the program should target water bodies
that are likely to improve in quality as a result of NPS control treatment.
Finally, within the targeted watershed, individual farms and fields should be
targeted to optimize pollution reduction.
INTRODUCTION
thy Prioritize
Although high quality water resources are important to the economic welfare
of a state and are valued by the public, there are not enough public funds to
address all the significant water pollution sources that presently exist. Nor
is this situation likely to change. Analysis of one of the earliest water
quality demonstration projects, the Black Creek project in Indiana (35), showed
that nearly $1 million in cost share funding was not sufficient to address all
the pollution problems in a 10,000 acre agricultural watershed. The answer,
suggested by the Black Creek project and reaffirmed in the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP), is targeting.
The concept of targeting assumes that focusing state resources to a limited
geographic region improves the chance of achieving visible water quality
improvement. Further, it assumes that as a result of demonstrating water
quality benefits the public will become more supportive of NPS control programs
and more closely attuned to overall water quality goals. Such a change of
attitudes with a corresponding increase in pollution control knowledge and
skill is the primary ingredient of lasting water resource protection.
-------
national and State Vfater Resource Priorities
Before a state begins to target its nonpoint source problems, it should
consider any recognized national, regional, or interstate priorities. For
instance, restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, international treaties concerning
the Great Lakes, and the quality of the Ohio River are clearly stated high
priority water resource concerns shared by several government entities. Co-
ordination among these entities is essential to achieve water quality improve-
ments in shared water resources. Thus, for example, states in the drainage of
the Chesapeake Bay are working under a cooperative agreement to reduce NFS
loading to the Bay.
A state should consider the impact of treating one resource and affecting
another. For example, there should be an initial decision between targeting
surface water versus groundwater, streams versus downstream lakes or reser-
voirs, or upstream lakes or reservoirs versus estuaries.
State and Watershed Level Targeting
State level targeting refers to prioritization of water resources for
treatment. This process is a ranking of resources according to specific
criteria which are indicators of a high probability of NFS project success.
Success is important for building public support and individual responsibility
for pollution control.
Once the priority water bodies have been identified, the project can
determine whether or not available resources are sufficient to implement enough
pollution control to achieve the water quality objectives. If resources are not
sufficient, the prioritizing procedure can be repeated to target subwatersheds
with definable water quality problems that can be solved.
Targeting at the watershed level involves identifying the predominant
pollutant sources, prioritizing these sources and treating first those critical
areas that contribute the most to the designated water resource impairment. A
targeting program designed to treat the major sources first can substantially
expedite the achievement of water quality goals.
OVERVIEW OF A NONPOINT SOURCE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Three major steps are involved in determining how to control nonpoint
sources of pollution. First, a careful analysis of institutional resources and
capabilities should ensure that program goals are achievable. Next, priority
areas must be chosen where implementation efforts will be focused. Finally, an
implementation strategy which considers site-specific factors should be
designed for each priority area.
Nonpoint source pollution control requires the expertise and cooperation of
diverse agencies and organizations. National agencies can bring external
-------
funding, related experience from similar projects, and other benefits to state
NPS projects. -Where possible, appropriate regional agencies should be involved
because the water resources of a state are seldom independent of those in
neighboring states, and interstate cooperation can benefit all participants.
Local agencies and organizations are essential because they provide the com-
mitment and implementation effort that determines ultimate success or failure.
Water quality agencies, primarily at the state level are recommended as the
most appropriate coordinators because their mission generally overlaps most
environmental interests and is usually closest to the water quality objectives
of the project. Assistance and input from other environmental agencies 'or
organizations, too, is valuable. Agencies or organizations representing
agriculture, forestry, mining, urban and suburban sediment control, stormwater
management, and water resource planning should participate. Agencies or
organizations involved in planning or management of recreation can play an
important part in planning, justifying, and evaluating the success of a
pollution control project.
Once institutional capabilities have been determined, a select number of
areas should be targeted and site-specific NPS implementation strategies devel-
oped. The selection of NPS priority watersheds should be part of a Continuous
Planning Process as mandated in section 303 of the Clean Water Act. This is
described in detail in 40 CFR 130 - the Water Quality Planning and Management
Regulations.
States may also choose to select areas with groundwater problems for
development of site-specific NPS implementation strategies. EPA is currently
developing guidance for classifying groundwater. This guidance will assist
states in determining which groundwater areas should be targeted for further
NPS control.
-------
Chapter Two
SETTING PRIORITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL
Priority areas designated for treatment to improve water quality may be
selected for different geographic scales: regional (e.g., Chesapeake Bay and
the Great Lakes area), watershed (e.g., James River), subwatershed (e.g.,
Appomattox River), and farm levels. The area covered in each of these levels
may vary considerably from a small section of a watershed to basins of several
mil lion acres.
At the state level, water resources should be prioritized to achieve an
optimal distribution of efforts and funds. The development of a procedure to
prioritize state water resources should consider several factors, including:
1) concerns and interests of participating agencies, 2) establishment of
realistic goals, 3) resources and capabilities of institutions; and 4)
criteria such as water quality problems, economic factors, political con-
siderations, and cooperation. This chapter describes methods for establishing
a statewide water resource prioritization (WRP) program based on these
factors.
ESTABLISH AGEHCY AUTHORITIES
It is critical when establishing a state WRP program to determine clearly
which agencies have the authority to perform certain tasks. Without defi-
nition of authority, replication of efforts, conflicts between agencies
and/or omission of tasks could occur, thereby reducing the effectiveness of
the program.
All appropriate agencies should be encouraged to contribute to a WRP
program. The state should draw on federal, regional, state, county, and local
agencies to the extent possible. Because the causes and impacts of water
quality problems are diverse, a wide selection of agencies should be involved.
Appropriate state agencies may include those with interests in 1) water
resource planning, 2) natural resource protection, 3) land use planning, 4)
point source regulation, 5) agriculture, mining, construction, 6) economic
evaluation, and 7) health and welfare.
-------
Interagency Commitments
Multiple levels of commitment from some agencies may be necessary. Parti-
cipating state and federal agencies should pass authority to complete project
tasks to their local counterparts once a watershed is selected. For example,
the state office of the Soil Conservation Service may be involved in selecting
priority areas, and county personnel should be given authority to conduct the
implementation of treatment within the selected priority areas. Multiple
levels of commitment by different agencies allow efficient collection of data,
formulation of plans and utilization of limited staff resources. Involving
different agencies will generate broad support in the selected priority areas.
Coordination Among Agencies
Because several agencies will be involved, coordination among the agencies
is essential. Together, agencies should determine the role each will fulfill
such as data collection, technical assistance, financial management, edu-
cational assistance, enforcement of regulations, program development and im-
plementation. It is recommended that one state agency be accountable for all
aspects of the WRP program. This does not mean that only one agency partici-
pates in the program activities; rather, one agency is responsible for coordi-
nating the activities of the many agencies that have WRP program re-
sponsibilities. Appropriate and clearly stated authorities should give a firm
foundation to a WRP program.
SET REALISTIC PROGRAM GOALS
Once a network of agencies has been established and agency commitments
have been specified, program goals should be developed. Goals should be
clearly stated to the extent possible in quantitative, measurable terms so
that progress and accomplishments can be assessed. Flexibility should be
allowed so that individual projects within the program can modify their goals
as knowledge of the dynamics of their water resource problem is obtained.
Quantitative and Measurable
Quantitative goals may be based on water pollution standards, pollutant
concentrations and/or loadings, restoring biological resources, or the amount
of land or sources treated. For example, a quantitative goal would be to meet
state standards for a designated use, such as the maximum fecal coliform
concentrations and frequency of exceedance allowed for shellfishing waters.
On the other hand, a goal for a specific project could be to achieve a stated
average condition, such as concentration of nitrate nitrogen (N), or to
achieve a loading reduction, such as for sediment or phosphorus. Many
nutrient and sediment control projects focus on achieving a certain percent
reduction in concentrations and/or loadings. Such goals should be based on
the estimated magnitude of reduction necessary to achieve a perceptible change
in water quality. Progress toward these quantifiable goals can be measured
through achievement of operational goals expressed in conventional land treat-
ment terms. For example, operational goals may be to treat a specified per-
centage of targeted cropland with conservation tillage or number of identified
-------
animal operations with barnyard runoff controls. Operational goals provide a
framework for accounting on-the-ground project implementation. These goals
should be very specific, distinguishing treatment of critical areas from
general conservation needs.
Interim goals can be developed for phases of the project. These project
goals should correspond with the time required to complete various activities
and should anticipate the response time of the water resource.
Timeframe
In establishing program or project goals, the timeframe for implementation
and water resource response should be considered. Some water resource prob-
lems respond quickly to intensive treatment, whereas others require extensive
treatment and involve long response times. Likewise, certain types of water
resources respond rapidly to treatment. For example, a first order stream
would respond more quickly than a lake (2).
There are two timeframes to consider in establishing realistic goals: 1)
the time in which water resources can actually improve to the desired level in
a physical, chemical, biological, or aesthetic sense, and 2) the time re-
quired to document the water resource improvement through monitoring. The
latter consideration achieves accountability but places more constraints on
the project, because it requires a monitoring timeframe that includes a pre-
treatment period, an implementation period, and a post-treatment period. As
illustrated by the Model Implementation Program, too often in NFS projects the
time allowed for observing water resource benefits does not realistically
consider start-up periods, pre-implementation water quality data needs, Best
Management Practice (BMP) implementation stages, and the responsiveness of the
water resource (3).
ASSESS INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES
Focus Resources
A key to developing a successful NFS implementation program is to focus
efforts on only as many water resources as can be adequately treated with the
financial and technical support available. Spreading implementation funds too
thinly reduces the chance of obtaining any observable impact on water resource
quality. First, the treated water resources will not respond sufficiently to
restore impaired uses, and, second, public and legislative enthusiasm for NFS
implementation will decline before the goals are achieved. Demonstration of
successful NFS control in a few intensive projects can be more effective than
treating a large area where water quality effects may take much longer to
observe.
It is important that water resource problems be assessed and prioritized
before state level funding requests for implementation are made. Ideally,
funding decisions should be based on information from assessment of economic
use impairments and the anticipated cost to alleviate the problems. In many
cases, doing nothing about an NFS impairment incurs tremendous cost to the
-------
economy of a state. For example, closure of Oregon's Til lamook Bay to com-
mercial and recreational shellfishing by the Federal Food and Drug Adminis-
tration would have cost the public more than $30 million in benefits over a
ten year period. ' The cost of the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project to
clean up dairy wastes was $6 million, considerably less than the benefits (4).
Additional Resources
Intensified NFS control efforts within a particular watershed require
appropriate fiscal authorizations and experienced technical assistance
staffing. Funds are needed for information and education programs such as
field days, meetings, and one-to-one contact and service programs, such as BMP
demonstrations, pest scouting and soil sampling services. Such programs have
been helpful in obtaining participation in NPS programs and have aided in
reinforcing the proper use of implemented practices (5,6). To conduct these
information and education or technical assistance programs, projects require
funds and personnel in proportion to the size of watershed and the intensity
of the programs.
Expansion of NPS control efforts to include additional watersheds, too,
requires additional fiscal authorizations to cover the expanded work load.
Without additional funds and staff, newly designated projects will drain these
resources from established projects and diminish the potential for all pro-
jects to achieve their goals.
RANK NONPOINT SOURCE PRIORITY AREAS
Criteria for Statewide Prioritization
Prioritization of state water resources affected by NPSs should be based
on the following three criteria:
1) the water resource problem should be identifiable and controllable
with treatment practices;
2) treatment should have a high probability of producing visible water
quality improvements with the level of funding available; and
3) the water resource should have a high public use value.
Priority for treatment should be given to those water resources which meet the
above criteria.
Probability of success is vital to the state's ongoing NPS control
efforts. In order to achieve water quality goals, NPS control must become a
public concern with heightened individual awareness of responsibility for
resource stewardship. Such concern and awareness will develop more easily
when a state program can demonstrate the value of NPS control with examples of
successful projects which yield public benefits.
-------
Development of operational guidelines for identifying and selecting
priority areas is the next step in the prioritization process. .There are five
general categories of factors which need to be considered when developing
these guidelines.
1) degree and type of water resource problem
2) economics
3) politics
4) willingness and capability of participants
5) institutional constraints
Degree and Type of Water Resource Problem. Several factors should be
considered when evaluating a water resource problem, including the degree and
sources of impairment, the type of water resource, and the type of pollutant.
The severity of existing problems, potential for resource degradation, and the
estimated magnitude and distribution of pollutant sources should also be
examined. Water quality degradation could have many causes, and it is often
not only a result of NPSs but other pollution sources as well. Water quality
problems attributable to specific point sources often have an NFS component
that must be treated. Therefore, some water resources require treatment of
both point and nonpoint sources to meet the desired level of water quality
improvements.
Once the severity and sources of the problem have been assessed, treatment
feasibility should be evaluated. The biological and physical complexity of
water resources may complicate treatment selection. For example, areas with
surface and groundwater problems may require specifically tailored approaches.
The type of pollutant may also dictate the type of treatment needed to al-
leviate a particular water quality problem.
Economics. The two main economic factors are costs incurred due to use
impairment and restoration of the impaired uses. Benefits from agricultural
NFS treatment may be designated as on- or off-site as well as short- or long-
term. Recipients of these benefits may be landowners (e.g., farmers or
property owners near water bodies), communities (e.g., consumers of public
drinking water supplies and recreational opportunities), or commercial enter-
prises (e.g., fisheries or recreation-based enterprises). Part of the priori-
tizing process should include an assessment of the water resource use by the
public and the economic value of this use. The estimated amount of funds
required to implement a project should be compared to the estimated benefits.
Attention should also be given to the distribution of these benefits among all
participants, including private citizens, local entrepreneurs, and the local,
state or regional community.
Politics. Political factors always influence the selection of priority
water resources, and these factors must be incorporated in the process in a
way that strengthens the program. Politically favored projects are projects
which have outstanding interest group support. These projects may be used to
showcase the entire program. Care must be taken, however, to assure that such
projects meet the program's technical selection criteria. These projects
should not utilize funds and personnel in excess of the shares committed to
their level of priority within the entire program.
-------
Wi 11 ingness and Capabi lity of Participants. Landowner participation is
essential for a successful agricultural NFS control program. Most NFS control
projects have relied on a voluntary approach, usually through cost sharing
incentives. Voluntary participation implies landowner acceptance of water
quality goals and a commitment to project objectives. The voluntary approach,
however, has not always been successful. Economic stress, in particular, has
been an obstacle. An important step in program development is to examine the
willingness and capability, and economic condition of landowners and local
agencies within project areas.
Regulatory Authority. The use of regulation could change the perspec-
tive of landowner participation. Two project areas within the RCWP have regu-
latory authorities and have had extremely high landowner participation (FL-
RCWP, OR-RCWP). For example, the existence of regulatory authority, although
not used at the present, has greatly encouraged the voluntary participation in
the Florida RCWP project. Thus, regulatory authority, if available, is likely
to increase the voluntary cooperation of landowners.
Institutional Constraints. Some final considerations are the constraints
on agencies which may be involved in the NFS control program. Though water
quality related, the mandate of some agencies may be quite rigid, restricting
the ways in which these agencies can participate in the state program. Con-
straints on time commitments and staff availability will also affect the roles
of different agencies participating in the project.
Examples of Statewide Water Resource Prioritization
Various strategies have been utilized by states in the prioritization of
water resources. Several states use screening models to prioritize their
water resources, whereas at least one state, Illinois, has more of a local
grassroots approach. Five such selection processes are discussed here to
represent different approaches used by Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio,
and Wisconsin.
Mary 1 and. A rating system where watersheds are ranked and selected by
state agencies was developed for prioritizing Maryland's watersheds based on
agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution (7). This procedure was developed
by a technical team established by the Maryland State Soil Conservation Com-
mittee. This committee, in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Natu-
ral Resources and Office of Environmental Programs of the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, used this procedure to prioritize the state's watersheds.
Separate rankings for potential, not measured, loadings of P and N were
developed for two levels: 1) the potential loadings that occur at the base
of each of the 124 watersheds; and 2) the potential loadings of each water-
shed into Chesapeake Bay.
A relatively straightforward set of criteria was used in the ranking
process, including the amount of agricultural land, percentage of such land
on steep or permeable soils, use of conventional versus conservation tillage,
and potential P delivery estimated on the basis of fertilizer and manure
application rates and calculated delivery rates. The use of other soil con-
servation BMPs in addition to conservation tillage is not considered by this
classification scheme.
-------
One advantage of this ranking system is that it does not require extensive
data collection. In fact, most of the necessary information could probably be
obtained from existing resource surveys. Second, the system allows screening
of all watersheds within the state with respect to their potential effects on
a regional water resource, Chesapeake Bay. The disadvantages are that it does
not include a factor for the sensitivity to impairment or quality condition of
the water resources within each watershed.
Pennsy 1 vania. Pennsylvania's system for prioritizing water resources is
similar to Maryland's in that the system is initiated at the state level by
the Department of Environmental Resources. A departmental task group of
experts in soils, water quality, and agriculture has developed and implemented
a priority ranking procedure using uniform criteria to assess each watershed
within the state. In contrast to the Maryland system, Pennsylvania's criteria
consider the use of cropping practices, site-specific factors (e.g., soil
erodibility and rainfall intensity), and an index representing the sensitivity
of lakes and impoundments within the watersheds (8). Pennsylvania's system
also includes a factor representing the effects of acid mine drainage as well
as agricultural nonpoint sources. These factors were placed into a formula to
rank all 104 watersheds in the state.
Pennsylvania's prioritization scheme was taken from their section 208
plan. The use of section 208 plans by other states in the development of water
resource prioritization programs may be beneficial. However, since the in-
itial section 208 plans were developed some time ago, these plans should be
reevaluated and updated. Some section 208 plans may not be adequate due to
the lack of knowledge or emphasis placed on nonpoint sources when the plans
were developed. Pennsylvania has a mechanism to update previously ranked
watersheds using new information on stream P-levels." Such watersheds may
advance in treatment priority.
*•
Advantages of Pennsylvania's approach are that it considers more specific
information about the cropping practices and also allows for consideration of
the quality conditions of the lakes and impoundments. For this very reason,
however, it requires more data and effort to compile information and calculate
the ratings.
IIlinois. Unlike the two approaches described above, Illinois uses a
grassroots approach initiated at the local level for prioritizing watersheds
in need of agricultural NFS treatment. Watershed projects are identified at
the county level, and reviewed, screened, and prioritized at county, regional,
and two state levels (9). Emphasis is placed on soil erosion because it has
been identified as the most severe NPS related problem.
The primary level of authority for NPS control involves county personnel,
including the soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs). Potential pro-
jects based on an inventory of critical areas are being developed by the SWCDs
along with other local agencies. If a county submits more than one potential
project, then it must prioritize them. The first review of submitted pro-
posals must be done by a committee representing a region of the state. The
regional committee reviews potential projects submitted from the counties in
its area, then prioritizes the proposed projects and passes them with rankings
and comments to the State Watershed Priority Committee. The state committee
may seek additional information from individual potential projects by direct
request to the counties. It submits complete plans to the State Soil Erosion
-------
and Water Quality Advisory Committee, the fourth level of governmental review,
for final approval of the resource prioritization and recommendations.
This grassroots approach gives strength to the program by utilizing the
people who are most familiar with local water resources. On the other hand,
only those projects submitted by the counties are considered. If a particular
county did not have personnel who were ambitious enough to submit plans,
critical areas in that county would be overlooked. In addition, counties that
can make themselves heard might be given preference, even if these counties
did not actually have water resources that merited priority program funds.
Ohio. Ohio utilizes a much more data intensive approach to water resource
prioritization. In addition to agricultural NPSs, the strategy considers
other sources of pollution (e.g., wastewater treatment, waste disposal, and
other NPSs) and different uses of water resources (e.g., public water sup-
plies, groundwater supplies, and recreational resources). The strategy uses a
computerized information system with nine maps or layers of information.
Information from these nine maps is used by individuals or small groups of
individuals within various state agencies to select independently watersheds
for treatment. Emphasis is placed on restoration of water bodies with the
most severe degradation and the need for protecting the most valuable
resources. Watersheds that are selected by more than one group are reviewed
by a policy team which formulates the final prioritization.
This method employs a sophisticated data analysis system interpreted
through professional judgment. It emphasizes multiple sources of water pol-
lution and considers the uses of these water resources. The disadvantage of
such a system is that it is expensive to develop the data base. However, once
the data base has been developed, it can easi-ly be updated and maintained and
has numerous other uses for resource assessment and planning.
«»
Wisconsin. The State of Wisconsin has designated its Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) as its lead NFS agency, and the DNR has developed a process
for ranking state priority areas. The DNR has ranked each of the state's 330
watersheds according to severity of land management and water quality prob-
lems. Watersheds generally overlap two to three counties, including about
100,000 acres. Priority watersheds are those where NPS problems occur over
extended areas and where major portions of the watersheds require intensive
NPS controls. Watershed projects address agricultural as well as urban prob-
lems.
The selection process for priority watershed projects is designed to
involve local and regional interests while meeting statewide water quality
goals and objectives. Accordingly, it is designed to incorporate quantifiable
and nonquantifiable criteria.
The primary selection criteria are: 1) the severity of water quality use
impairments; 2) the practicability of alleviating the impairments; and 3) the
threat to high quality, recreationally valuable waters. Secondary criteria
include: 1) the potential to achieve a significant reduction in the amount of
pollutants from the nonpoint sources in the watershed; 2) willingness and
capability of counties, cities, and villages in the watershed to initiate the
project within a 2 or 3 year period; 3) likelihood of owners or operators of
critical nonpoint sources to participate in the project; and 4) public use of
the lakes, streams, and groundwater (10).
-------
The Wisconsin DNR uses a four step process to select priority watershed
projects. The first step is a technical screening to identify the top 25% of
the watersheds with the most severe land management and water quality prob-
lems. The screening is based on weighted land management and water quality
characteristics. Land management characteristics include the extent of severe
soil erosion, the extent of urban land in the watershed, and the concentration
of animals in the watershed. Water quality characteristics include the extent
of acreage in lakes and streams.
The second step involves regional review of the top priority watersheds.
Regional committees review the watersheds in their areas and each nominates
three watersheds for further consideration. This process narrows the list to
about 30 eligible watersheds. Regional committees may nominate one or more
"wild card" watersheds not on DNR's initial screening. The "wild card" con-
cept assures that watersheds which have significant local merit (e.g., high
public use) or unique problems (e.g., groundwater protection needs) are con-
sidered. The review is based on the criteria listed above.
The third step is review by a state level committee consisting of various
agency and interest groups. This state committee narrows the list to 15 to 20
watersheds for inclusion in a selection pool.
The final step is DNR's selection of priority watershed projects from the
selection pool. Projects are selected annually by DNR in accordance with
available funds. The first three steps in the process are repeated every 2 or
3 years.
Groundwater in Stalrewide Prioritization
Another factor affecting statewide prioritization of NFS problems is the
identification of groundwater recharge areas needing a high level of pro-
tection from nonpoint and other pollutant sources. According to a recent EPA
report, nearly half of the states have developed or proposed groundwater
classification systems (11). These systems are being used by states to set
priorities for groundwater protection since such systems typically identify a
range of groundwater uses and the value attached to each use. Different uses
merit different levels of protection. Certain decisions regarding facility
siting, acceptable land management practices, and contamination cleanups will
be based on these state classification systems. State NPS programs should
integrate groundwater protection needs in any scheme for prioritizing state
NPS problems. A state's highest NPS control priority may be to protect one of
its sole source aquifers for public drinking water supplies.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established two
new programs which will affect state efforts to protect groundwater from
nonpoint and other sources of pollutants. Specifically, the Amendments created
the Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program to protect critical portions of
designated aquifers and the Wellhead Protection Program to protect areas
around wells supplying public drinking water systems. These two new programs
will provide resources for planning and implementation, and therefore, will
affect state NPS control activities. Presumably, some NPS implementation
activities will be conducted in states in conjunction with these two new
programs.
-------
• The Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program, SDWA section 1427, re-
quires EPA to establish demonstration programs to protect critical
aquifer areas, that is, to protect all or part of a designated sole
source aquifer from degradation. EPA is to establish, by June 1987,
criteria for selecting critical aquifer areas. States and local authori-
ties then are to map these areas and provide a comprehensive protection
plan to EPA for such areas. Once a plan is approved, EPA may enter a
cooperative agreement to implement a project on a 50/50 funding basis.
The maximum grant to a state for any one aquifer is $4 million per year.
• The Wellhead Protection Program, SDWA section 1428, requires states
to develop programs for protecting areas around wells supplying public
drinking water systems from contamination that could harm public health.
EPA is to provide criteria to states for defining wellhead protection
areas by June 1987 and states have three years to submit plans to EPA.
State wellhead protection programs must identify the responsibilities of
state and local governments among other requirements. Upon EPA approval,
states are eligible for EPA grants for 50 percent of costs of plan
development and implementation.
-------
Chapter Three
SETTING PRIORITIES
AT THE WATERSHED LEVEL
Once statewide NPS-affected water resources have been prioritized and
decisions have been made concerning how far down the priority list the state
program can spread its efforts, problem definition and implemeneat ion strate-
gies within selected watersheds must be further refined.
DEFINE INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND COMMUNICATION CHANNELS
The Lead Agency
Table 1 (page 15) provides an outline of the primary steps for
assebsing institutional arrangements. Once the lead agency has been
designated, it has the responsibility to identify other potential cooperating
agencies such as: USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
(ASCS), USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), state Cooperative Extension
Service, US Geological Survey (USGS), state agricultural agencies, regional
agencies and planning commissions, and conservation districts and
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation committees. Public land managers
such as Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service personnel should be
included. Experience has shown that including all affected or related
parties at the planning stage is critical in getting a NPS control project off
on the right foot.
The Project Coordinator
Some important lessons learned in program management have come from the
Model Implementation Program (MIP) (3). Perhaps foremost among these is the
strong MIP recommendation that individual NPS control projects designate a
coordinator. Ideally, the coordinator should be a person with both water
quality and project management experience. Those MIP projects which had no
project coordinator experienced problems such as lack of interagency communi-
cation and confusion over responsibilities. The coordinator should be in-
volved from the outset of project planning on a full-time basis.
The MIP experience also indicates that a lead agency should be designated
to coordinate project activities. Preferably, the lead agency should be local-
ly based and have water quality concerns as a primary mandate. Although MIPs
focused only on agricultural NPS control, these recommendations should apply
to other types of NPS control projects as well.
-------
TABLE 1. STEPS IN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT
1. Identify Cooperating Agencies:
--Federal, state, and local government
--Planning districts
—Private groups/organizations
2. Assign Lead Agency With:
—water quality as a primary mandate
--state accountability
3. Evaluate Cooperating Agency Roles:
--data gathering
--delivery service
--technical assistance
--monitoring and evaluation
—financial services
4. Delegate Authority According To:
—agency mandates
—financial resources
—agency management commitments
—legal authority
—ability to obtain project funding independent
of the other cooperators
--the agency's local commitment to the project
5. Produce Summary Document Outlining:
—rolesandresponsibilities
—coordinating mechanisms
-------
Establish Agency Roles
The cooperating agencies should meet and determine the role each will
fulfill in carrying out the project: data collection, service delivery,
technical assistance, program development and implementation, public re-
lations, etc. An evaluation should also be made of each agency's potentially
available NPS resources: money, grant funding, loans, cost sharing programs,
legal authority, and personnel.
We recommend that a written summary be developed to define the roles and
responsibilities of each agency and the mechanisms to ensure effective coordi-
nation. This explanation of designated responsibilities of each agency, signed
by all participants, will serve to clarify each agency's role and prevent
future misunderstandings. Although in many states this was done in a general
way as part of the section 208 planning process, NPS implementation plans at
the project watershed level need to be much more specific in terms of tasks
and responsibilities.
Institutional capabilities must be evaluated before, during, and after
specific implementation sites are chosen to ensure that adequate resources are
available and responsibilities are clearly delegated. A basic recommendation
from the MIP experience is that agency responsibilities and tasks be defined
clearly, agreed upon, and recorded in written contracts and memoranda of
understanding (3). Table 2 provides an overview of agency capabilities and
possible roles in NPS projects.
-------
TABLE 2. INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT, CAPABILITIES AND POTENTIAL
COOPERATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.
ROLES FOR
Agency/Organization
USDA
Soil Conservation
Service
Cooperative State
Extension Service
Capability/Expertise
Technical guidance on soil
conservation, animal waste,
and water quality management
systems
Education of farm and nonfarm
audiences; technical advice;
fertilizer and pesticide
management programs; manure
and soil testing
Possible Role
Assessment of soil and
water resources; incorpo-
rate water quality goals
in farm plans; assure
proper BMP implementation;
data source for project
planning
Informational and
educational support;
identifying agri-
cultural community
leaders; motivational
support; 4H youth projects
USDA
Agricul tural
Stabilization
Conservation
Service
and
US Environmental
Protection
Agency
US Forest Service
US Geological
Survey
US Fish and
Wildlife
Service
Cost sharing for approved soil
conservation or water quality
management practices;
agricultural data and
crop statistics
Water quality monitoring;
evaluation of resource impair-
ment; control of point sources
Technical assistance in forest
management; assistance for tree
planting and harvesting
Watershed monitoring; hydro-
logic information
Information on impairment,
value, and recreational use of
water resource
Financial incentives for
participation; provide
records of present
conservation status
Water quality technical
assistance; clarifying
regulatory options;
guidance for project manage-
ment and reporting; data
source for project planning
Technical assistance to
landowner; assessment of
forest-related NPSs
Data source for project
planning; assistance in
developing a monitoring
plan
Planning and justifying
NPS control project
State Department of
Agriculture
Crop statistics, cost sharing
programs; liaison to farm
community
Project planning
(Continued)
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
State Water Quality
or Environmental
agency
Water quality monitoring; water
quality assessments;
establishing quality standards;
regulatory authority
Regional/local plan- Planning capabilities; resource
ning agencies assessments; coordination of
local efforts; identification of
funding options
Soil and Water
Conservation
Districts
Administration of local
agencies reporting on progress
Coordination of NFS
project; monitoring-water
resource impairment
Coordination of local
agencies; reporting on
progress and objectives
Leadership in local
initiatives; technical
assistance with soil
conservation or water
quality management;
targeting farms;
education
Landowner associ-
ations, environ-
mental groups,
commodity groups,
farm groups
Contacts with individuals
affected by project; support for
project objectives; education
and information
Information and aware-
ness efforts; promote
local support and
participation
DEFINE NATURE OF WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT
Once project areas have been chosen from the prioritized list and the
institutional/organizational framework and responsibilities have been mapped
out generally, the next step is to refine further the nature of the water
resource problem. This will facilitate more accurate critical area identifica-
tion and BMP selection.
Pollutant Loads Versus Concentrations
Many previous agricultural NPS control projects (e.g. , LA-RCWP, IL-RCWP)
have stated water quality goals in terms of pollutant loading reduction with-
out due consideration of the actual use impairment. For example, if a river is
impaired by pesticide inputs (e.g., fish kills, loss of submerged macrophytes,
high residue levels in fish tissue, violations of drinking water standards),
reducing pollutant loads is often not an appropriate goal. These impairments
are usually caused by high ambient or peak pesticide concentrations as opposed
to loads. Thus, in this case, pesticide BMP options should be selected for
their effect on concentrations rather than loads. It is possible that peak
concentrations exist when loads are low if the amount of pesticide in runoff
is high and volume of runoff is low.
This concept has important implications for groundwater protection. For
instance, practices which increase infiltration of water through the soil
profile, such as no-till or terraces on cropland, may significantly reduce
-------
pesticide loads to surface waters. However, research shows that when runoff
volume decreases by a greater amount than pesticide loads decrease, pesticide
concentration in runoff actually increases (23). Conversely, although more
pesticide might be leached to the groundwater, the resulting concentration of
pesticide in the aquifer might, in fact, be reduced through dilution by the
increased infiltration.
With such considerations in mind, a project might opt to cost share
management practices which reduce pesticide use rather than ones which affect
runoff and infiltration. For NPS control projects addressing lake eutrophi-
cation, setting project water quality goals in terms of nutrient load re-
ductions will often be very appropriate. It should be noted, however, that
changes in pollutant concentrations in response to NFS control measures are
often much easier to document through monitoring.
If the impairment is related to the sediment filling of a water supply
reservoir, then it would not be appropriate to state the project's water
quality goal as a reduction in mean annual sediment concentrations. Since the
majority of sediment is usually transported by a very few major runoff events,
mean annual sediment concentrations could decrease while total sediment loads
actually increase. This again has important implications for BMP and criti-
cal area selection. Some BMPs "(e.g. , contouring) control erosion very well and
are most cost-effective for small to moderate rainfall events but have almost
no effect in major storms. In terms of critical area selection, if the
impairment is related to turbidity, then areas of the watershed with fine ero-
sive soils might be much more critical than those with the highest gross
erosion rates (e.g., IL-RCWP).
Dynamics of the Impairment
Determining other dynamics of the impairment such as whether it is
continuous, periodic, or seasonal can provide insights for critical area and
BMP selection. A closer examination of the hydrology of the impaired water
resource also helps to delineate critical areas. For example, the impairment
(e.g., fish kills, algal blooms) may occur only in the upper portion of the
reservoir, in which case tributaries which drain only into the lower part of
the reservoir probably would not need to receive treatment to alleviate the
impairment.
Examination of historical water quality data is an obvious but often
overlooked means of obtaining additional insight into the dynamics and causes
of the water quality problem. For example, in the PA-RCWP, determination of
the correlation between groundwater nitrate levels and major recharge events
enabled the project to estimate the timeframe within which land treatment and
nutrient management might affect changes in the aquifer nitrate concen-
trations.
Attainability of Use
A central activity of a targeted NPS project is to determine how much and
what type of NPS reduction will be necessary to restore designated uses of the
water resources. A reduction estimate should be made for each water resource
as part of the state-level targeting process. However, further refinement at
-------
the individual project level is necessary to make good decisions concerning
which NPS treatment options to use and how much of the watershed area is
critical. Another important factor in the use attainability analysis is public
perception of the use impairment. We have found, particularly in projects
with fishing and other recreational impairments, that as the public becomes
aware of the NPS control project activities, perceptions that the water
resource is becoming acceptable for previously impaired uses increases overall
public use. In such situations (e.g., IA-RCWP, SD-RCWP, AL-RCWP, OR-RCWP),
money and effort spent on information/education and public relations might be
at least as effective in attaining designated uses as expenditures for land
treatment.
DEVELOP WATERSHED PROFILES
A watershed profile document should be developed to support land use
maps. This type of document can serve both as a data base and a baseline of
resource information. The profile should include an inventory of potential
pollutant sources which is more thorough than the general inventory used to
prioritize watersheds at the state level. The inventory should be conducted
early in the project as it is vital in developing a realistic implementation
strategy. A data gathering planning session held before data is collected will
help ensure all the necessary information is obtained as easily as possible
and a data management plan is considered.
Point Sources
Discharge monitoring or NPDES permit data should be used to develop
estimates of the pollutant inputs of each point source. Such estimates need
only be determined for the pollutants known or suspected to cause the identi-
fied water quality problems.
Nonpoint Sources
The watershed inventory should consider all potential nonpoint sources.
Some of the sources that should be considered are listed in Table 3 on page
22. Based on the information contained in the watershed profile, major
sources of loadings can be identified, BMP options developed, and imple-
mentation goals established. Data may be limited, especially on sources of
groundwater contamination. However, an adequate data base is vital if the
program is to set and achieve water quality goals.
Sources of Information.
The watershed inventory should be tailored to address the identified
water resource impairment. Detailed information on use of fertilizers, ma-
nure, pesticides or other toxics may be required depending on the specified
use impairment. Information is available from a variety of sources. One valu-
able source of information is fish and wildlife departments, both state and
federal. Most fish and wildlife departments have an individual who is very
:o
-------
knowledgeable about a particular stream or water body and its problems. SCS
and Extension programs, too, have a large reservoir of information concerning
agricultural areas. The county ASCS office has a list of agricultural
operators with detailed accounting of participation in federal conservation or
commodity programs. The ASCS office also will usually have estimates of crop
types and acreages, other land uses and aerial photos. Local planning depart-
ments and USGS monitoring stations can also provide useful information. Waste-
load allocation calculations and watershed loadings models can be helpful as
well.
An inventory of permitted point source discharges can be obtained from
the state water quality agency or directly from EPA's STORET program. Other
useful sources include municipal governments, state highway departments, and
chambers of commerce.
-------
TABLE 3. POLLUTANTS AND MOST LIKELY SOURCES TO CONSIDER IN A WATERSHED
INVENTORY
Pollutant
Sediment
Nutrients
Bacteria
Pesticides
Possible Sources
cropland
forestry activities
pasture
streambanks
construction activities
roads
mining operations
existence of gullies
livestock operations (streambanks)
other land disturbing activities
erosion from fertilized areas
urban runoff
wastewater treatment plants
industrial discharges
septic systems
animal production operations
cropland or pastures where manure is
spread
animal, operations
cropland or pastures where manure is
spread
wastewater treatment plants
septic systems
urban runoff
wildlife
all land where pesticides are used
(cropland, forest, pastui.es, urban/
suburban, golf courses, waste
disposal sites)
sites of historical usage (organo-
chlorines)
urban -runoff
irrigation return flows
-------
ESTABLISH WATER QUALITY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Quantitative, Measurable and Flexible
Quantitative and measurable goals provide reference points toward which
all other project activities can be directed. Individual project goals should
be more specific but still compatible with overall state program goals.
Experiences from the MIP and RCWP programs demonstrate the importance of
quantitative and measurable goals. MIP projects which developed vague goals
such as: "to improve the water quality within the project area" or vague
objectives such as "to obtain an adequate level of land treatment" could not
use these same statements to guide project activities or assess project
performance. Generally, the statements of goals and objectives were more
specific and water quality-oriented in the RCWP programs. Statements of
goals and objectives in terms of changes in water quality, reductions of
pollutant concentrations or loads, changes in water resource use, achievement
of state water quality standards, and number of acres to be treated or con-
tracts to be signed were used in the more successful MIP and RCWP programs.
Although projects benefit from stating quantitative water quality goals
and land treatment objectives, sufficient flexibility should be retained so
that goals and objectives may be modified as new information is gained from
project activities. The goal-setting process should be flexible and inter-
active, with its primary purpose to optimize the efficiency of project
activities; only secondarily should it serve as an accountability mechanism
for agency participants. If accountability is too strongly stressed in this
process, agency participants will be reluctant to state quantitative and/or
measurable goals for fear that if the project falls short, it would reflect
badly on them or their agency. ^
Timeframe. The timeframe in which water quality changes occur is an
important consideration at the project level. Expectations for achieving pro-
ject water quality goals should consider that project implementation takes
varying amounts of time. Experience from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) indicates that when control practices are being placed on public land
using only designated program monies, implementation can be completed re-
latively quickly (1-2 years), and is limited only by the time required to
identify sites and complete construction. Conversely, experience from large-
scale agricultural cost share programs such as RCWP and MIP indicate that up
to ten years may be required to progress from planning to complete imple-
mentation in a voluntary program with private landowners. Generally, time
must be allowed for developing public awareness, identifying critical areas,
arranging contracts with landowners, and installing BMPs. Fanners are often
reluctant to sign a cost share contract unless it provides flexibility on when
their share of the implementation cost must be paid out. This is particularly
true of large structural practices such as animal waste storage facilities
(AL-RCWP, WA-MIP, OR-RCWP).
-------
Examples of Project Level Goals and Objectives
Some examples of appro-priate project level water quality goals and imple-
mentation objectives are provided below.
Water Quality Goals
—Reduce maximum summer fecal coliform concentrations in Lake Tholocco
below 200/100 ml so that beaches can remain open at all times through
the swimming season (AL-RCWP).
—Reduce the fecal coliform concentrations in Tillamook Bay to FDA
standards for commercial shellfishing waters (OR-RCWP).
—Extend the usable life of Broadway Lake by reducing mean annual sediment
loads by 40% (SC-MIP).
—Reduce maximum groundwater nitrate/nitrogen concentrations below lOppm
so that project area groundwater will meet domestic supply standards
(PA-RCWP).
Implementation Objectives
—Install animal waste management practices on at least 75% of the identi-
fied critical dairies in the project area (VT-RCWP).
—Install runoff control practices which will intercept the first 1/2 inch
of runeff from all areas within 1/4 mile of the lake and its major
tributaries (NC-Nutrient-Sensitive Watershed).
In many situations, water quality goals may be more appropriately stated
in probabilistic terms such as reducing the frequency of exceedance for con-
centration of a pollutant. For example, an urban NPS project could state its
primary water quality goals to reduce the frequency of BOD concentrations
exceeding 400 mg/1 by 50%.
DETERMINE POLLUTANT REDUCTION NEEDED TO ACHIEVE WATER QUALITY GOALS
General Considerations
Determining the amount of pollutant reduction needed to achieve water
quality goals is an essential part of the targeting and implementation effort.
The required pollutant reduction affects both the selection of NPS control
measures and the extent of areas or number of sources that must be treated. In
general, the larger the pollutant reduction needed, the larger the critical
area or greater the number of sources which must be targeted. Within the
critical area, the largest and/or most intense sources should be given first
priority. An important part of this project component involves determining
the relative importance of pollutant contributions from point and nonpoint
sources.
-------
Reliability of Estimation Techniques
It is important to note here that the following discussion of statistical
estimations of point and nonpoint source contributions addresses present
conditions only, not projected estimates.
Point Sources. The accuracy of point source loading and concentration
estimates depends on the frequency of effluent sampling and the variability of
the point source. For domestic wastewater treatment plants which record
outflow continuously and sample nutrients daily, estimates of nutrient loads
and mean annual concentrations are generally accurate to within 10%. For
other point sources whose effluent quality is determined by variable or inter-
mittent industrial processes, errors in calculated loads or mean concentra-
tions can be considerably higher (up to 50%) especially if effluent sampling
is infrequent relative to process variability.
Nonpoint Sources. Statistical confidence in estimation techniques for
determining nonpoint source pollutant contributions varies greatly between NFS
categories. Agricultural NFS areal estimates have proven to be particularly
difficult. The Universal Soil Loss Equation deals only with erosion rates and
has limited usefulness because sediment delivery is not considered. Models
such as CREAMS (12), ANSWERS (13), and AGNPS (14) attempt to combine land
management, meteorologic, topographic and transport factors to predict areal
pollutant loadings and how they may be affected by NFS controls (15). Proper
use of these models should generally improve areal loading estimates. Use of
state-of-the-art estimation techniques such as computer models should control
the error to be within a margin of plus or minus a factor of two.
Areal pollutant loadings from urban areas are somewhat better defined
than those from rural areas. This could be attributed to the more definable
relationship between impervious surface area and runoff rates for urban areas.
A wealth of areal storm loading data is available from the NURP (16) and
several other recent studies (17, 18). While areal loading from urban areas
can be estimated with approximately + 50% accuracy, it should be noted that
instantaneous runoff pollutant concentrations are extremely variable because
they are highly dependent on storm hydrograph position and time interval since
the last runoff event.
Point Versus Nonpoint Sources. Water resource impairments are almost
always caused by a mixture of point and nonpoint source pollution. Estimates
of relative point and nonpoint contributions can help target NFS treatment
more effectively. Such estimates are useful in gaining an idea of the magni-
tude of the NFS problems and the amount of resources it will take to address
these problems. Although the error margin associated with areal loading
estimation models may be large, proper use of models, or other acceptable
procedures, can generate good estimates of NFS contributions. As can be seen
in Table 4, a simple estimate of NFS contribution can be bounded by a re-
latively narrow confidence interval even when NFS loading has as much as a
factor of two error (factor of two error represented as the range from one-
half the estimate to two times the estimate). In the example shown, a maximum
error of 34% occurred when point and nonpoint loadings were approximately
equal. Thus, in most cases, targeting NFS control resources need not be
unduly constrained by limitations in point/nonpoint source definition.
-------
TABLE 4. AN EXAMPLE OF CONFIDENCE INTERVAL ASSOCIATED WITH ESTIMATING
RELATIVE POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
Actual
Pollutant
Load Units*
Point
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nonpoint
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Actual
NFS %
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Minimum
Estimate
of NFS %
82
67
46
43
33
25
18
11
5
Maxi mum
Estimate
of NFS %
95
89
82
75
67
57
46
33
18
*Assumes absolute point source loadings are known within _+ 10%
DETERMINE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL OPTIONS
NPS Control Effectiveness
Construction. Effectiveness of BMPs for sediment control at construction
sites is relatively well known. Sediment fences, retention basins, and traps
are effective for retaining large sediment particles on site. A series of
studies on sediment retention basins shows that they are 56-95% efficient in
removing gross sediment loads depending on retention time, basin geometry, and
incoming sediment size distributions (19). Sediment control practices are
generally only about one-half as efficient for total phosphorus removal than
for sediment removal because a disproportionate amount of the total phosphorus
is attached to the finer, less easily captured sediment particles.
Urban. NPS control measures include sediment basins whose effectiveness
is noted above. Urban catch basins designed to retain the first one-half inch
of runoff have been shown to remove most incoming heavy metals (17) and to be
effective for control of P. Other control measures include street sweeping,
grassy swales and devices to retard storm drain flow. The effectiveness of
these practices was studied intensively under field conditions in the NURP
(16). Street sweeping, in particular, was not found to reduce urban NPS loads
significantly.
Agricultural. A large amount of plot and field studies have been con-
ducted on the effects of BMPs on edge of site pollutant losses. Most agri-
cultural BMPs are summarized in the Best Management Practice reviews prepared
by the NWQEP (20, 21, 22, 23). Common BMPs are discussed below.
-------
• Conservation tillage has been found to reduce edge of field soil
loss between 60 and 98% depending on tillage method, soil type, slope and
crop. No-till studies have generally been found to reduce soil loss by
80-98%. Conservation tillage systems yield smaller surface losses of P
and N than surface loss of sediment, and these systems often increase the
amount of N loss to subsurface waters. The effect of conservation til-
lage on pesticide losses is not clear. For herbicides such as atrazine
and alachlor, total annual losses to surface waters are reduced 80-90%
(no-till versus conventional tillage) when the first rainfall after
application is of low or moderate intensity. However, if the first post-
application rainfall is of high intensity more herbicide may be lost from
no-till than conventional till. There are very few studies on the effect
of tillage systems on groundwater pesticide losses.
• Terraces used with conventional tillage have been shown to reduce soil
loss by 50-98% compared with conventional tillage without terracing.
Again, reduction of the loss of nutrients in surface runoff is not as
great and subsurface N losses may increase.
• Improvements to furrow irrigation systems, such as furrow and drain
modifications, subsurface drainage and sediment catch basins, reduce
sediment export by about 80%. Surface P export is reduced by only about
40%, however, and these systems have had no observed effect on N export
(5).
• Nutrient management systems, which include soil testing for available
N, split N applications, elimination of fall applications, winter storage
of animal waste, and designated animal waste application rates based on
plant requirements for N, appear to be the most effective and cost-
effective means of reducing N export to both surface and groundwater.
• Pesticide management systems. A linear relationship between pesticide
application rates and surface runoff losses is suggested by numerous
studies (23). The implication is that improved spraying and integrated
pest management techniques will reduce pesticide inputs to aquatic sys-
tems to the extent that these techniques reduce che quantities applied.
• Animal waste management systems in humid regions include diverting
runoff to by-pass barnyard areas, restricting the access of animals to
streams, manure storage, elimination of winter manure spreading, applying
manure at plant P requirement rates, and not applying manure to poorly
drained areas. These practices can reduce P and bacteria losses to
surface waters by 80% and 90%, respectively, compared to fanning systems
that are not managed for pollution control.
• Contour fanning alone has produced 15-55% reductions in sediment export
in several different studies using different crops, slopes and soils
(22). The practice rapidly loses effectiveness on slopes greater than
about 8%, however, and nutrient reductions are always less than sediment
reductions.
• Cover crops reduce erosion on agricultural land depending on when the
cover crop is planted and the growth stage of the cover crop during the
nongrowing season. Erosion rates on land in continuous conventional till
corn have been reduced by as much as 95% when a dense rye cover is
-------
present until the time of planting. Cover crops are often not good
options if they are planted late, however, because there is little estab-
lishment in the fall, and the cover delays soil warming in the spring.
There is recent evidence that non-legume cover crops may reduce N leach-
ing to groundwater as a result of plant uptake.
• Diversions and grassed waterways are widely recognized as effective
sediment control measures for agricultural, urban, and construction non-
point sources, although there is very little quantitative data on their
effects. Grassed waterways, in particular, are rendered ineffective by
excessive sediment loading and are generally used in conjunction with
other erosion control practices such as strip cropping or conservation
tillage.
• Filter strips have become recognized as effective BMPs for control of
silvicultural, urban, construction and agricultural nonpoint sources of
sediment, P, bacteria and some pesticides. Parameters which determine
their effectiveness include: filter width, slope, type of vegetation,
sediment size distribution, degree of filter submergence, runoff applica-
tion rate, initial pollutant concentration, uniformity of runoff along
the length of the filter, and proper maintenance.
Landowner Acceptance
In the case of voluntary agricultural programs, the practices chosen for
emphasis in the project must integrate with the farmer's production considera-
tions. Otherwise, landowners will choose not to participate, or they may not
maintain implemented practices properly. A number of projects (IA-RCWP, WA-
MIP, LA-RCWP, ID-RCWP, DE-RCWP) have obtained high participation rates by
cost-sharing a mix of practices that are highly acceptable to the farmer.
For addressing urban and construction nonpoint sources, where often a key
control measure is limiting the percentage of impervious surface area, local
ordinance provisions which include such limitations can circumvent the diffi-
cult issue of individual landowner acceptance.
Financial Incentives
The basic issue which has emerged related to the control of nonpoint
sources from private land is that much of the benefit from control (e.g.,
improved water quality) does not accrue to the landowner but rather to water
users downstream or groundwater users. This has been the rationale for as-
sisting private landowners with NFS control using public funds. In some cases
BMPs have sufficient on-site benefits that landowners will choose to adopt
them without financial incentives if technical assistance is provided. An
example is conservation tillage systems which have been widely adopted without
cost sharing.
Other practices such as animal waste storage and manure spreading may have
on-site cost-effectiveness over the long-term but require large up-front
capital investment. Practices such as improved fertilizer management have
been shown to be the most effective NPS nutrient control practice and theore-
tically have agronomic benefits (fertilizer savings) which would encourage
their adoption (21). However, there is a perceived yield risk factor which is
difficult to quantify in dollars. Projects which have provided extensive soil
-------
testing services to the farmer have been the most successful in obtaining
adoption of this BMP.
Ordinances for Sediment Control
The existence of regulatory authority over nonpoint sources such as sedi-
ment from construction activities creates a different type of incentive.
Localities and states which have successfully addressed construction nonpoint
sources have ordinances with inspection provisions and financial penalties
(e.g., VA, NC).
METHODS FOR OBTAINING PARTICIPATION
Cost Sharing
The importance of cost sharing for agricultural BMPs has been discussed
above. Experience indicates that . cost share rates should be set for each
specific BMP based on the relative on-site/off-site benefits and the capital
investment involved. Assistance with long-term maintenance costs should also
be considered. Some projects have had success' offering a high cost share rate
initially to gain project momentum and reducing the rate when the BMP gains
widespread acceptance. While cost sharing has been used most extensively for
agricultural nonpoint sources, the cost of runoff control practices can be
cost shared with municipalities by the state (e.g., Wisconsin).
Information and Education Programs
While financial incentives are generally needed to obtain private land-
owner participation in voluntary NPS control projects, such assistance is
usually not sufficient. In both MIP and RCWP, a vigorous information and
education program has proven essential to obtaining adequate farmer partici-
pation. Successful program efforts have emphasized radio, newspaper and TV
media, landowner meetings, field days, demonstration farms and youth activi-
ties. One-on-one contact with landowners, although time-consuming, appears to
be the most effective method for gaining participation. Several projects have
provided services such as soil testing or pest scouting as inducements for
participation.
The watershed inventory should be used as a starting point for identifying
critical area landowners who should be contacted first. Targeting recruitment
efforts to key landowners who are community leaders is also often an effective
strategy. Local Extension or Soil Conservation Service agents can identify
these individuals.
Regulatory Options
As of July 1, 1985, approximately 26 states had sediment or erosion con-
trol regulations which apply primarily to construction activities. The number
of states considering or developing such regulations is increasing, and there
is a trend towards stronger enforcement provisions.
^ 9
-------
At this time, there are only a few states with regulations that apply to
urban or agricultural NPSs. Oregon and Minnesota have state regulations which
can force small dairy operations to clean up observed manure management prob-
lems, and regulations of dairies is expected in the Lake Okeechobee basin of
Florida. Regulation is generally enforced on a complaint basis, and, there-
fore, is seldom invoked.
The North Carolina "nutrient sensitive watershed" designation regulates
the percentage of impervious surface area in suburban areas near certain lakes
and requires that new developments include measures to capture the first one-
half inch of surface runoff.
Examples of Other Incentives/Inducements
• The creamery which buys essentially all the milk produced in the Tilla-
mook Bay, Oregon RCWP project area is very concerned about the image of
Tillamook cheese. The creamery managers score each dairy on various
sanitary factors. Dairies which fall below the minimum acceptable score
are penalized in the price paid for their milk. This appears to have
greatly enhanced participation in the RCWP project.
• The State of Oregon allows a 50% tax credit for pollution control ex-
penditures spread over 10 years. North Carolina allows a 25% tax credit
for purchase of conservation tillage equipment. The Wisconsin state
program also provides tax incentives for installing agricultural BMPs.
CRITERIA FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES
Once the previous steps of designating responsibilities, such as selecting
BMPs and setting water quality goals, are well underway, a watershed project
should begin the process of prioritizing source areas and sources within the
watershed. The first step is to identify and weigh critical area selection
criteria which are relevant to the water quality problem and watershed charac-
teristics.
Water quality critical area selection criteria can be grouped into the
following five broad categories:
1) type and severity of water resource impairment;
2) type of pollutant;
3) source magnitude considerations;
4) transport considerations; and
5) other project specific criteria.
These criteria vary somewhat by pollutants as discussed below.
-------
Type and Severity of Water Resource Impairment
The type of impairment is the primary consideration for selecting water
quality- critical areas. The impairment may be caused by excessive pollutant
loading, high average or maximum concentrations, or perhaps high frequency of
violating a given standard. Impairments such as loss of reservoir or stream
storage capacity, destruction of benthic habitat, and eutrophication ate
generally related to excess pollutant loading. In contrast, drinking water
and swimming impairments are often caused by peak pollutant concentrations.
Frequency of standard violation is generally the concern for impairment of
shellfish harvesting.
The spatial orientation of BMPs and the hydrology of the watershed can
interact to affect the dynamics of the water use impairment. For instance, in
the case of impairments related to peak concentrations, it may be found that
pollutants from the upper watershed are not delivered to the site until well
after the peak concentrations have occurred. Thus, from the water use impair-
ment standpoint, a strong case could be made for eliminating the upper water-
shed from the critical area even though the overall pollutant loading from
this area may be high. Another example related to peak concentration impair-
ments is the case where a wastewater treatment plant is a major contributor to
pollutant concentrations .during low flows, but is a minor contributor after
storm events when the peak concentrations occur.
The severity of the impairment, too, is a major factor in critical area
selection, because the greater the pollution reduction goal, the greater the
extent of treatment needed. The extent of treatment can refer to more
thorough treatment of intense sources such as dairies and feedlots or wider-
treatment of general sources such as cropland.
Type of_ Pollutant
Sediment. The designation of critical sediment contributing areas varies
depending on whether the impairment is due to sedimentation or turbidity.
Sedimentation may cause loss of reservoir storage capacity or degradation of
fish habitat, whereas turbidity may impair recreational uses or provide a
vector for transport of pesticides or other toxics. In the first case, criti-
cal areas would be selected primarily on the basis of sediment delivery,
selecting the largest per-acre sources. The turbidity problem, on the other
hand, might be addressed best by controlling runoff from areas where fine soil
particles originate.
Nitrogen. Possible surface water resource impairments from N include
eutrophication and toxicity from nitrites, nitrates, and ammonia. Groundwater
impairments generally include toxicity from nitrites or nitrates. The defi-
nition of critical areas varies depending on whether the problem involves
surface or groundwater. Nitrate problems frequently occur in areas with
excessive use of N fertilizer or manure disposal. Groundwater problems are
most pronounced in areas where soil characteristics facilitate transport to
groundwater (e.g., sandy soils, fractured limestone). In addition, there is
evidence that some soil conservation practices promote downward transport of
nitrates. Practices such as conservation tillage or tile outlet terracing, in
particular, may be associated with groundwater contamination if fertilizer or
manure application rates are high.
-------
Phosphorus. Phosphorus (P) is almost always associated with surface water
rather than groundwater use impairments. Most P-related water resource prob-
lems result from excessive annual loading. However, if the water resource
flushes seasonally, only the P loading immediately preceding algal bloom
periods may be of concern. For instance, runoff from row cropland or suburban
developments may be the major P loading source on an annual basis, but these
may be less important than wastewater treatment plant contributions to algal
bloom conditions during summer and early fall. From a water quality per-
spective, only available P (P forms which enter the food web) is of concern;
however, there is wide disagreement over which chemical forms are available
and how large a fraction they constitute.
Microbial Pathogens. In general, the magnitude of the water resource im-
pairment and the degree of control required determine the extent of the criti-
cal area for microbial contamination. Reversing the impairment of a shellfish
harvesting area with a fecal coliform standard of 14 mpn/100 ml generally
calls for a more inclusive critical area than that required to treat an
impaired contact recreational area keeping coliform densities below 200
mpn/100 ml.
Pesticides. Nearly all documented water resource impairments from pesti-
cides involve either damage to aquatic fauna (fishery impairment) or concerns
for human health (contamination of domestic water supply or fishery). Other
impairments caused by more subtle ecological effects have been suspected but
are largely unverified. All of these impairments are the direct result of
pesticide concentrations rather than total loadings. Thus, critical areas for
pesticide contamination should be chosen to reduce concentration. This may
mean that some upper portion of the watershed, from which runoff reaches the
impaired areas only-after peak concentrations have occurred, may not be criti-
cal. The critical area, therefore, depends on the hydraulic retention time of
the water resource such that an impaired stream segment would have a. smaller
critical area than a lake.
If the impairment is in a lake or impoundment with sufficient retention
time, all runoff within the watershed may affect the concentration in the
lake. Note, however, that local toxicity problems may result from BMPs which
reduce surface runoff volume but cause an increase in the runoff concentration
of pesticides.
Special considerations may be necessary for certain pesticide problems.
• Qrganochlorine insecticides concentrate with trophic level (biomagni-
fication), resulting in sport and commercial fish species which contain
concentrations that may pose human health problems. Concentrations in
the water column, however, are seldom measurable.
• Most organophosphorus insecticides are highly toxic to both aquatic
fauna and humans, but have low persistence in surface water and are not
biomagnified. Most documented impairments have been associated with
accidental spills or over-applications. Impairments result from intermit-
tent high water concentrations. Only surface water impairments have been
documented.
-------
• Most carbamate insecticides are moderately toxic to fauna and humans,
have low persistence and are not biomagnified. An important exception is
aldicarb, which is highly toxic and has shown persistence of several
years in groundwater. Incidents of both ground and surface water contami-
nation are well documented.
• Triazine herbicides exhibit chronic effects on aquatic ecosystems at
low ppb concentrations. Algal communities are most sensitive, exhibiting
changes in community structure which, in turn, affect trophic status and
parameters such as dissolved oxygen. Aquatic macrophytic communities
also are affected adversely at these concentrations. Triazines may be a
problem in drinking water because they are not removed by conventional
treatment processes.
• The anil ides, like the triazines, are highly toxic to algae and aqua-
tic macrophytes, and only moderately toxic to fish and humans. Effects
of.long-term, low-level exposures are largely unknown, although recent
studies implicate alachlor as a moderately strong animal carcinogen.
Anilides are frequently detected in the 1-40 ug/1 range in surface and
groundwaters, and, as with the triazines, little removal occurs through
water treatment processes.
Source Magnitude
Erosion Rate
Sediment. Erosion rate has served as the primary criterion in traditional
soil conservation programs. As a practical matter erosion rate is generally
not measured directly, but rather is estimated from the Universal Soil Loss
Equation in which erosion rate is a function of slope (length and steepness),
soil eredibility, and the density of vegetative cover. ,.
Phosphorus. Many studies show P losses are closely correlated with erosion
rates. However, erosion reducing practices do not reduce P losses as ef-
ficiently as they do sediment because the finer fraction of sediment is typi-
cally most enriched in P; and the fine sediment fraction is not reduced
effectively by on-field erosion control practices. A major study found that
in a 12,000 acre watershed P reductions were only one-half of sediment re-
ductions from erosion control practices (26).
Other Pollutants. For N and microbial pathogen-related water quality
impairments, erosion rate is generally not an appropriate critical area selec-
tion criterion. Conversely, nearly all presently and historically used organo-
chlorines have been shown to adsorb strongly to soil particles. For this
reason, they are lost in surface runoff almost entirely in the sediment-
adsorbed phase. Hence, erosion rate should be considered an appropriate cri-
terion for selecting critical areas for control of organochlorine aquatic
inputs. As in the case of other sediment-adsorbed agricultural pollutants
such as phosphorus, the reduction in pesticide losses will be less than the
erosion reduction because of enrichment on the fine soil fraction.
There is evidence that the organophosphorus insecticide, fonofos, is lost
in surface runoff primarily in the sediment-adsorbed phase (23), suggesting
that the inclusion of erosion rate as a selection criterion may be appropri-
-------
ate. On the other hand, modeling efforts indicate that methylparathion runoff
losses, are 90% dissolved, implying that erosion rate should not be used as a
selection criterion for this pesticide.
Extensive research has shown that the carbamates, triazines, and anilides
are lost predominantly in the dissolved phase of surface runoff, and thus,
erosion rate has limited applicability to critical area selection. Chemicals
in all three of these classes have been identified as soil leachers, and thus
the presence of sandy soils or Karst areas should be used as a primary cri-
terion for groundwater protection.
Manure Sources
Barnyards, feedlots, milk houses, or fields where high rates of animal
manure are spread should be considered as sources of N, P, and pathogens.
These may represent extremely critical areas if the impairment involves bac-
terial contamination.
On a weight basis the nutrient availability from various livestock manures
is as follows:
Poultry > Horses > Cattle = Dairy > Hogs
A selection process for identifying animal confinement areas which are
critical sources of P has been proposed by Motschall et.al. (28). The method
involves comparison of soil P levels in the confinement area drainageways with
the P levels of adjacent soils. Drainageway soils with relatively high a-
vailable P levels indicate that the barnyard is a critical source of P.
Minnesota and Wisconsin use the Minnesota Feedlot Model (14) to prioritize
barnyards and feedlots. This model is available from USDA's Agricultural
Research Service for use on a programmable hand calculator.
Fertilization Rate and Timing
Fertilization rate and timing is not an appropriate selection criterion
for sediment-related impairments. It has been known for some time that sur-
face and subsurface losses of N are a function of how well application is
matched to crop needs. Critical cropland sources of N include those fields
where excessive N rates are applied or N is applied to the surface in the
fall. Areas where N is applied at recommended rates and timed to meet the
needs of growing crops may be designated noncritical.
Fertilization rate is also an important criterion for selecting critical
areas for P control. Areas with high rates of manure applied to P-rich soils
are a particular problem to be recognized in designation of critical areas for
P. The timing of application is less important than for N because P is much
less mobile either in surface runoff or through the soil.
Microbial Pathogen Sources
High intensity sources of fecal coliform bacteria usually include feed-
lots, manure storage piles, cropland where manure is spread, stream access
areas for livestock, municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent, leaking
sewage connector lines, and failing residential septic tanks. Runoff from
urban areas also may contain high fecal coliform densities, often attributed
-------
to leaky sanitary sewer systems, combined sanitary and storm sewer systems, or
domestic animal wastes washed from impervious surfaces.
Pesticide Usage Patterns
In general, this is the most important criterion for selecting critical
areas for pesticide control. Since pesticides do not occur naturally, only
use or disposal areas are sources. Thus, the selection process of critical
areas for pesticide control should identify the usage patterns by cropland in
the watershed.
With few exceptions (e.g., toxaphene), organochlorines were phased out of
agricultural use in the U.S. from 1972 to 19.76. Heptachlor is still used to
some extent for fire ant control, chlordane for termite control, and lindane
for certain forestry uses. In terms of water use impairments, however, banned
organochlorines are still of concern. They continue to persist in historically
treated agricultural soils and are, thus, available for transport and uptake
into the aquatic food web. Cotton acreage received the most organochlorine
applications during the latter 1960's and 1970's making it the most likely
candidate to have banned organochlorine residue problems.
Usage information by crop can provide an important first cut for identi-
fying initial areas associated with particular pesticides. The usage pattern
within a given region may differ considerably from the aggregate usage sta-
tistics .
Transport Considerations
Distance to Nearest Watercourse
Sediment. For sediment, distance to nearest watercourse is a major factor
in selecting critical areas because extensive research has shown that not all
eroded soil reaches watercourses. The sediment delivery ratio, defined as the
ratio of sediment delivered to the estimated gross soil erosion, is inversely
related to DISWC.
Nitrogen. For nitrogen (N) contamination of groundwater, the distance
downward from the soil surface to the saturated zone is the distance of
interest. A short distance*from the soil surface to groundwater can mean rapid
transport of N. This criterion should be considered in conjunction with the
soil permeability and organic matter content, however, because poorly drained
soils do not transmit N rapidly to groundwater, and denitrification may reduce
the N available. Nitrogen delivery to surface waters, too, decreases with
increasing distance. Unlike sediment, however, there is relatively little
deposition. Stabilization occurs primarily by plant uptake and denitrifi-
cation.
Transport mechanics for N compounds are diverse because N can be trans-
formed among a variety of chemical species (e.g., NO-3, NH-3, NH-4, N-2, NO-2,
organic-N) which have vastly different transport characteristics. Water mo-
bile forms such as NO-3 can move readily in surface and subsurface flow. One
recent study showed that 60% of the NO-3 loading to a stream involved a
-------
subsurface route (29). While the partitioning of N is complex, it appears that
most of the N that leaches through the plant root zone eventually reappears in
either ground or surface waters. This reduces the utility of the distance to'
nearest watercourse as a critical area selection criterion for N.
Phosphorus. Critical area considerations for P are similar to those for
sediment. The delivery efficiency of P is greater than for sediment, however,
because the fine sediment fraction that does not settle readily in the field
is enriched in P. In addition, between 5-30% of P may be lost in the dis-
solved phase depending on soil type and cropping practices employed.
Pathogens. As with previously described pollutants, distance from a
potential pathogen source to a watercourse is an important consideration when
identifying critical areas for pathogens. Wastewater treatment plants that
discharge to streams are considered to have 100% delivery efficiency.
Pesticides. The distance criterion is applicable to all pesticide clas-
ses, although the dominant transport mechanism varies greatly with pesticide
class. Criteria for selection of critical areas for strongly absorbed pesti-
cides are similar to those for sediment and P. Delivery efficiency decreases
with watershed size such that areas with short distance to nearest watercourse
may be critical. The potential for drifting pesticides to reach a watercourse
should be considered in the selection process. Pesticides, such as toxaphene,
which are often applied aerially are highly susceptible drift losses.
• Distance is important for organophosphorus pesticides because of the
large drift losses often associated with their application, and because
their relatively low persistence (1-8 weeks) in the environment means
that longer transport reduces the probability that active chemicals will
reach the water resource. Because organophosphorus pesticides are lost
primarily in the dissolved phase of runoff, delivery efficiency may be
higher than sediment.
• Carbamates, like organophosphorus pesticides, have a short root-zone
half-life and are lost primarily in the dissolved phase of surface acti-
vity. For proven soil leachers such as carbofuran or aldicarb, it may be
the depth to the water table and soil permeability which are the concern.
• The triazines are relatively mobile as a pesticide class. Studies
have shown that 0.2-16% of applied amounts are lost in surface runoff
(30), the majority being in the dissolved phase. The time interval
between application and the first runoff event is a major factor influen-
cing runoff losses. Soil column leaching experiments show that triazines
move fairly readily through soils, particularly if the clay content is
low (31). Numerous field studies have found triazines in groundwater
(32). In summary, it appears that triazine transport efficiency de-
creases only moderately with increasing distance.
• The anilides are lost almost entirely in the dissolved phase. Edge-of-
field studies show that alachlor is lost in surface runoff even more
readily than atrazine (33). A recent watershed study, however, showed
that alachlor had considerably lower delivery efficiency to streams than
atrazine (14). This implies that, although anilides are very mobile
initially, their surface transport susceptibility decreases rapidly with
increasing distance. Because the mobility of alachlor through the soil is
j o
-------
a concern, distance to the water table and soil permeability are key
critical area criteria for groundwater protection.
Distance To The Impaired Water Resource
Distance to the impaired water resource is another potentially important
criterion for selecting water quality critical areas because not all material
that reaches a watercourse is delivered directly downstream. Losses take place
by deposition particularly where stream gradients decline. Nitrogen flux also
may decrease within a watercourse due to biological uptake or denitrification,
and a significant fraction of the biologically available P may be lost from
solution due to adsorption to sediment or biological processing.
Most pathogenic bacteria die off rapidly at ambient temperature, and so
distance is a very important consideration. Because watercourse transport
distance and time are closely related, it is actually the time interval be-
tween excretion and delivery to the site of the water resource impairment
which determines the amount of die-off which occurs. However, die-off is
generally more rapid in the watercourse than in fields, barnyards, or street
surfaces (34).
The importance of distance to the impaired water resource as a critical
area selection criterion for various pesticide classes derives from the trans-
port considerations presented above. Dissipation of sediment-bound pesticides
between the nearest watercourse and the impaired water resource results from
deposition and subsequent stabilization.
Dissipation of triazine and anilide herbicides between an upstream water-
course and the'site of impairment occurs primarily by adsorption to particu-
lates and by plant uptake. Their persistence is on the order of several
months so degradation within the watercourse is generally small. Therefore,
this concept should not be a major selection criterion for these herbicides in
surface water unless the watershed is very large. In the case of groundwater
impairments, on the other hand, distance to groundwater may be important since
concentration decreases with depth in the soil profiles.
Other Selection Criteria
Present Conservation Status. Cropping or animal production operations
which already have effective soil conservation or manure management systems
should not be considered as critical sources or areas. A major problem that
arises from using this as a targeting criterion is that in voluntary NFS
projects, landowners who previously installed some conservation practices at
their own expense fail to qualify for cost sharing funds.
As with other agricultural water pollutants, present conservation status
should be carefully considered in designating critical areas for pesticide
control. The most important parameter is generally the amount of pesticide
being applied. Numerous studies show that for a given set of management
practices, the amount of pesticide lost by each transport route is roughly
proportional to application rate. If information on the method and rate of
application is not available, surrogate measures such as the level of inte-
grated pest management practiced can give an indication of how current appli-
cation rates compare with what can be feasibly achieved.
-------
Another important consideration is the method and timing of pesticide
application. Optimal methods control drop sizes and spraying with ground-
based equipment to reduce drift and use formulations which minimize voliti-
zation, runoff, and drift losses. Timing options include relying on pest
scouting and avoiding application on windy days or when heavy precipitation is
forecast.
Planning Timeframe. There may be areas that are adequately protected from a
1 or 2 year recurrence runoff event but are susceptible to massive pollutant
transport from a 50 year recurrence event. Since most detached soil will
eventually reach waterways, critical areas will generally increase in size
with longer planning timeframes.
Designated High or Low Priority Subbasin. In many cases, monitoring or
hydrological data indicate that certain subbasins have a disproportional
effect on the water quality of the impaired water resource. Hence, a decision
to assign the entire subbasin a higher priority may be appropriate for ad-
dressing the water resource impairment. Conversely, it may also be found that
some subbasins with relatively high unit area loading may not have a signifi-
cant impact on the water resource because of isolating factors. For example,
in an impoundment that is impaired by high pathogen levels, the tributary with
the highest fecal coliform levels may not be a critical subbasin if its point
of entry to the water resource is downstream from the impaired area.
On-site Evaluation. Although the selection criteria described above pro-
vide some useful guidelines, and the information may be available without
visiting the site, on-site evaluation of the individual farm or field often
provides additional information on pollutant input potential. The on-site
evaluation often reveals that areas which were initially designated critical
on the basis of distance or source magnitude, for example, are not con-
tributing to the water quality problem for one reason or another.
PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING CRITICAL AREAS AND SOURCES
Develop Farm Level Ranking Procedure
Once the relevance and the importance of each critical area selection
criterion has been considered, these decisions must be translated into a form
that can be used to prioritize specific sources within the watershed.
We have developed several one page forms for translating the selection
criteria into a practical tool that can be used at an on-site inspection.
Examples for P and pesticide-related water resource impairments are included
below. The point scale is presented as arbitrary values that should be
adapted to meet local conditions. In Figure 1, fertilizer and manure manage-
ment practices are by far the most important rating criteria. With Figure 2,
use and disposal of pesticides are the primary factors that will determine
farm ratings.
-------
FIGURE 1. FARMLANDS CRITICAL AREA RATING FORM FOR PHOSPHORUS CONTROL
Criterion Score
Type of_ Crop
Tobacco, peanuts 20
Corn, soybeans, cotton 15
Wheat 5
Hay and pasture land 0
Distance to Nearest Watercourse
Greater than 1/4 mile -10
1/8 to 1/4 mile 10
Less than 1/8 mile 20
Distance t_o Impaired Water Resource
Greater than 5 miles 0
1 to 5 miles 10
Less than 1 mile 20
Gross Erosion Rate
Less than 5 tons/acre/year 0
5 to 10 tons/acre/year 10
Greater than 10 tons/acre/year 20
Present Fertilizer Practices
Soil test recommendations with banded
or split application (nitrogen) -10
Soil test recommendation 0
Exceedance of soil test recommendations
(Add 1/2 point for each pound of applied P 0-100
in excess.)
Magnitude of Manure Source
(A.U. = animal unit)
Less than 0.2 A.U./acre 0
0.2 to 1.0 A.U./acre 15
Greater than 1.0 A.U./acre 30
Present Manure Management Practices
Manure nutrients measured; applied at
recommended rate from soil test; no
winter spreading -10
Manure applied at soil test
recommendations 0
Excess manure applied (Add 1/2 point for
each excess pound of manure P applied) 0-100
Observed barnyard, feedlot, or milkhouse 0- 30
runoff problem
-------
FIGURE 2. FARM LEVEL RATING FORM FOR SELECTING CRITICAL FARMS IN WATERSHEDS
WITH PESTICIDE-RELATED WATER RESOURCE IMPAIRMENT
Factor
of Factor
Points
Use of Suspected
Pesticide
At Label Recommended Rate
Excess of Recommended Rate
Not Used
100
LOO + Excess %
0
Distance to Nearest
Watercourse
Short Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 15
Long Distance (e.g., i 0.5 km) 0
Distance to
Impaired Water
Short Distance (e.g., i 5 km) 10
Long Distance (e.g., i 5 km) 0
Application Method
Low Drift (e.g., ground-based
with shields, recirculators,
etc. )
Ave. Drift (e.g., ground-based
with no shields)
High Drift (e.g., aerial)
5
15
Level of IPM
Practiced
High
Average
Low
•10
0
10
Pesticide Disposal
Pract ice
Excellent 0
Average 15
Poor (e.g., dumping containers 30
into stream)
Erosion Rate (use only High
for sediment-adsorbed Average
pesticides) Low
20
10
0
Runoff Rate (use only High
for dissolved pesti- Average
cides affecting sur- Low
face water)
20
10
0
Infiltration Capacity High
(use only for dis- Average
solved pesticides Low
affecting ground-
water
20
10
0
-0
-------
Modify Implementation Plan on The Basis of Water Quality Monitoring
As the project proceeds, water quality monitoring or other observations
may indicate that certain subbasins are unlikely to respond to further treat-
ment, while others are larger contributors of pollutants than originally
estimated on the basis of land management selection criteria. Targeting should
be redirected as appropriate. It is important, however, to maintain a clean
record to document the reasons for modifying the plan.
CARRY OUT BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Develop Contracts
Ideally, water quality contracts should address all of the potential
nonpoint sources at a site if this can be done without cost constraints and
with landowner acceptance. However, it should be remembered that a basic
concept of the targeting approach is to treat efficiently the identified water
resource impairment. Thus, in many cases, it may be appropriate to develop
water quality contracts with landowners that address only those on-site
problems directly related to the water resource impairment, targeting the most
important water quality concerns at the farm level.
It is also important that contracts be explicit in terms of the time
allowed for completion and the consequences of nonfulfillment. For agri-
cultural projects where water quality goals involve nutrient control, the
importance of tying fertilizer management (soil testing and N applications) to
all land treated with other BMPs cannot be over-emphasized.
Mouitor Land Treatment
At a minimum, all NFS implementation projects should monitor the location
and areal coverage of each type of control practice applied, particularly
those which are assisted by public funds. A land treatment program with water
quality objectives should include the following:
a. location of practices, including distance to watercourse and distance
to the impaired water resource, and a detailed project map;
b. the area covered, protected, or otherwise benefited by each practice
(or system of practices);
c. aggregate coverage by all implemented practices (area treated);
d. accounting of practice implementation by subbasins associated with
individual water quality monitoring sites;
e. the dates on which individual control measures were contracted and
installed; and
f. records on site visits to evaluate location, assess progress, or
assure maintenance.
-------
Water Quality Monitoring
The project should decide from the outset whether or not to monitor water
quality effects. A strong case can be made that if the water resource is
valuable enough to be targeted for intensive NFS control, then verifying the
project's impact on the water resource is worth tracking. In the overall
state NFS control program, at least a subset of projects should include water
quality monitoring. Because monitoring is expensive, the monitoring program
should be designed carefully to answer clearly defined questions using an
efficient experimental design (27). It may be advantageous to monitor only
certain representative or more intensively treated subbasins rather than the
impaired resource itself, particularly if the project area is large or there
are parts of the watershed influenced predominantly by point sources.
The decision of whether to monitor changes of water resource quality,
physical, chemical, or biological attributes should be based partially on
whether the implementation program can be expected to reduce these parameters
sufficiently for detection through monitoring. Recent work indicates that
about 40% reduction in annual mean pollutant concentrations may be required to
be statistically significant in a five-year monthly grab sample program (1, 2,
5, 6). Even this sensitivity requires that the program include corresponding
hydrologic and meteorologic-related measurements with each sample.
Socio-economic Impacts
Accelerated NFS implementation projects often have major, albeit
localized, social and economic effects. Production practices may change to
increase or decrease their labor requirements, machinery usage, energy con-
sumption, fertilizer and pesticide usage, and equipment needs may change.
Urban or construction NFS control regulations may influence development
patterns. Restoring impaired uses of the water resource may stimulate local
economies, particularly where high-demand recreational uses are possible.
Finally, there may be multiple effects from the increased attention and
dollars. For example, the Tillamook Bay, Oregon, RCWF project revitalized the
local construction industry with numerous spinoff effects. Unless an attempt
to measure such socio-economic impacts is made, many of the benefits of BMP
implementation programs will be unrecognized.
REPORTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
Analysis of Water Quality Trends
A description of appropriate water quality analysis methods is beyond the
scope of this document. However, some general concepts are applicable when
designing NFS water quality monitoring systems and conducting subsequent
analysis.
-------
NFS monitoring systems should have a clearly stated design that specifies
both the sampling protocol and the data analysis. Several approaches have
been presented for such application. These include:
a. before versus after (time trends)
b. above versus below (spatial trends, upstrearn-downstream)
c. paired watershed (treatment versus control)
Information on the data requirements, assumptions, advantages, disad-
vantages and corresponding analysis methods for each experimental design are
available in NWQEP documents (27).
The 'before vs. after' design generally requires the largest time to
document changes. It is for this design that corresponding measurements of
meteorologic variability are essential. Otherwise, data variability is
generally so large that only very dramatic changes can be observed, and it is
impossible to attribute observed water quality changes to the implementation
activities. The 'above vs. below' design is applicable only where NFS
contributing areas are isolated in one segment of the drainage. This design
is frequently used for point source monitoring or to document the existence of
NFS problems.
A paired watershed design builds in adjustment for meteorologic and other
sources of variability. Thus, it can provide the most sensitive and rapid
documentation of water quality improvements. This design should be used
whenever possible. The limitation is in finding appropriate subbasin pairs
and excluding implementation from the control watershed.
Format and Content of Project Reports
Efficient and accurate reporting of NFS implementation activities assist
program managers and decision-makers in evaluation and project coordination.
It provides a useful process by which project agency personnel can see how
their efforts are being coordinated with those of other agencies, and it shows
where progress has occurred or where problems have arisen. A prototype NFS
project outline designed for the RCWP program is shown in Appendix A.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SUGGESTIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF THE
FIRST YEAR GENERAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION GROUNDWATER REPORT
I. Problem Definition
A. Water Quality Problems (Surface and Ground Waters)
B. Major Pollutants
C. Project Goals and Objectives
D. Land Use and Potential Pollutant Sources Descriptions
1. Non-Agricultural
a. Municipal waste
b. Industrial waste
c. Construction
d. Mining
e. Landfills
f. Septic tanks
g. Silvicultural
h. Other
2. Agricultural—Emphasize those elements which contribute to che
primary water quality problems.
a. Cropland
b. Animal production
c. Examples of data are:
1) topography
2) climatic description including amount and seasonality of
precipitation
3) major crops and acreages
4) average yields of major crops
5) animal waste production
6) average soil loss per acre, by land use
7) level of irrigation and general irrigation methods
(For more complete listing see: "Conceptual Framework for
Assessing Agricultural Nonpoint Source Project" prepared by
the National Water Quality Evaluation Project staff.)
E. Most Probable Pollutant Sources
1. Justification for omission of certain land use areas as pol-
lutant sources
2. Justification for inclusion of certain land use areas as pol-
lutant sources
-------
F. Critical Areas
1. Map with critical areas delineated
2. Rationale for selection of critical areas
a. Background data (e.g., relative pollutant loads)
b. Surrogate measures
II. Water Quality Monitoring
A. Objectives
B. Strategy
1. Site locations - map
a. Description
b. Rationale for selection
2. Parameters
a. Listed by site
b. Rationale for selection
3. Data collection schedule
C. Methods
1. Sampling
2. Analytical
D. Quality Control
1. Precision
a. Replicate samples
b. Replicate instrumental analysis
2. Accuracy
a. Intralab verification
b. Interlab verification
III. Land Treatment Strategy
A. Objectives
B. Goals
«
C. Methods
1. BMP list
2. Other practices or activities
IV. Results and Discussion
A. Land Treatment
In this section, the goals and accomplishments for program
implementation should be described.
-------
Program implementation could be defined in several different
ways: contracts approved, BMPs put into place, acreage served,
program expenditures and farmer participation. Activities under
other programs (Agricultural Conservation Program (AGP), Great
Plains Conservation Program (GPCP), PL 566, etc.) and private
individual efforts (your best estimate) should be included and
separately identified from those under RCWP. Further, a separate
accounting should be made for activity within critical areas as
well as outside the critical areas.
Highlight water quality or conservation activities that have
occurred in the project area prior to project approval.
1. Number of SCS farm plans in project area
2. Land adequately protected (SCS definition)
3. Earlier special practice or project emphasis or accomplish-
ments, including private accomplishments within the project
area
B. Summary of First Year Water Quality Data (Baseline)
1. By monitoring site
2. Emphasis on charts, figures and tables
C. Data Analysis
The requirement for this section is to present sufficient
data to determine changes in water quality trends. It is not
necessary to present all the water quality data collected for
every parameter considered (although such data can be included in
an appendix). Present changes or summaries of changes in those
parameters that best represent trends in water quality for your
particular project, emphasizing the major water quality impair-
ments in the project area. It is acceptable to exclude those
parameters which do not relate directly to problems specific to
the project.
It is difficult to select a single or even several measures
in combination which will perfectly characterize changes in water
quality. Because of variations in water impairments and sur-
rounding conditions, no specific set of measures can be required
for every project area. It is, however, important that statisti-
cal analyses (such as correlations, trend analyses, regression
analyses, etc.) be incorporated wherever possible in data sum-
maries and interpretations. Water quality trend reporting should
be presented on an individual sampling station basis. This is
necessary to account for the variation within each project area
in the source and extent of the impairment as well as the type
and extent of program treatment.
-------
D. Water Quality Progress
This section is to explain changes in water quality and
their relationship to changes in: BMP implementation, agri-
cultural factors and nonagricultural factors. Attributing
changes in water quality to these three separate sources will
help isolate program effects from other effects and thereby
assist in the evaluation of RCWP.
Water quality changes related to the type of practice, the
extent of the practice installed and the location of the practice
application should be evaluated. It is here that the station-by-
station information will be most useful. Water quality trends at
each station can be linked to changes in all conservation prac-
tice applications occurring above that location. Practices
applied under RCWP, other programs, and on private initiative
should be considered.
In addition to effects from conservation application,
changes in other factors may also be responsible for water
quality, changes. Use the background information presented in
Section I as a checklist when considering the possible contribu-
tion of other agricultural and nonagricultural factors in-
fluencing water quality trends. After identifying the changes in
water quality related to RCWP, it may be possible to make
inferences concerning the role of practices applied under RCWP.
E. General Assessment
The purpose of this section is to give an assessment of the
project in achieving its water quality objectives. This assess-
ment should be organized as an appraisal of the strengths and
weaknesses of each project in four program areas: funding, parti-
cipation, practice application and water quality monitoring.
Assessment should include the success or failure in achieving
program goals. Examples could include the following:
1. Cost share levels offered
2. Contracts signed in the critical areas
3. Water quality practice implementation
4. Water quality monitoring
5. Informational and educational assistance
F. Recommendations
This section should present recommendations of changes that
you plan to make in the operation of your project as a result of
your evaluation. List and justify any recommendations for changes
which should occur in the RCWP program.
G. References
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smolen, M.D., R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
F.J. Humenik. 1985a Rural Clean Water Program, Status Report on the
CM&E Projects. National Water Quality Evaluation Project.
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department.,North Carolina
State University. 122p.
2. Jamieson, C.A., J. Spooner, S.A. Dressing, R.P. Maas, M.D. Smolen, and
F.J. Humenik. 1985b. Rural Clean Water Program, Status Report on
the CM&E Projects. Supplemental Report: Analysis Methods. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project, Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University. 71p.
3. NWQEP and Harbridge House, Inc. An Evaluation of the Management and
Water Quality Aspects of the Model Implementation Program. Biologi-
cal and Agricultural Engineering Department. North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC; 1983.
4. Maas, R.P., A. Patchak, M.D. Smolen, J. Spooner. Cost-Effectiveness of
Nonpoint Sources Controls in the Tillamook Bay, Oregon, Watershed.
In: Lake and Reservoir Management: Influences of Nonpoint Source
Pollutants and Acid Precipitation. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual
North American Lake Management Society International Symposium.
November 5-8, 1986, Portland, Oregon.
5. Smolen, M.D. , R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C.A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
F.J. Humenik. 1986a. NWQEP 1985 Annual Report, Status of
Agricultural NPS Projects. Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University. 66pp.
6. Smolen, M.D. R.P. Maas, J. Spooner, C .A. Jamieson, S.A. Dressing, and
F.J. Humenik. 1986b. NWQEP 1985 Annual Report, Appendix: Technical
Analysis of Four Agricultural Water Quality Projects. Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State Uni-
versity. 90pp.
7. Spikier, D.L. 1984. Priority Watersheds for the Potential Release of
Agricultural Non-Point Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Maryland State
Soil Conservation Committee, Maryland Department of Agriculture.
8. Pennsylvania Bulletin, 1979. Vol.9, No.38, September 22, 1979.
9. Davenport, T.E., 1984. Illinois' Process to Identify, Screen, and
Prioritize Rural Water Resource and Lake Rehabilitation Projects.
In: Options for Reaching Water Quality Goals, American Water
Resources Association, pp. 121-127.
10. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 120. Nonpoint Source Pollution
Abatement Program, July 1, 1986.
11. U.S. EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection, May, 1985. Selected State
and Territory Groundwater Classification Systems.
-------
12. Knisel, W.G. and G.R. Foster, 1980. CREAMS: A System for Evaluating
Best Management Practices. Soil Conservation Society of America.
13. Beasley, D.B. and L.F. Huggins, 1980. ANSWERS (Areal Nonpoint Source
Watershed Environment Response Simulation) User's Manual.
Agricultural Engineering Department, Purdue University. 55pp.
14. Young, R.A, C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1985.
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model, A Large Watershed
Analysis Tool, A Guide to Model Users. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and the USDA.
15. Reckhow, K.H., J.B. Butcher, and C.M. Martin. 1985. Pollutant Runoff
Models: Selection and Use in Decision Making. Water Resources
Bulletin 21(6):185-195.
16. USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1.
Water Planning Division, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
17. NRCD. 1985. Toxic Substances in Surface Waters of the B. Everett Jordan
Lake Watershed. Report 85-02. NC NRCD, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section. Raleigh, NC.
18. Novotny, V., T.C. Daniel and R.M. Motschall. 1982. Development of a
Methodology for Identifying Critical Areas in Agricultural
Watersheds. Technical Completion Report A-082-WIS. University of
Wisconsin.
19. Raush, D.L. and J.D. Schreiber. 1981. Sediment and Nutrient Trap
Efficiency of Small Flood Detention Reservoir. Transactions of ASAE
17:898-908.
20. NWQEP. 1982a. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Control: I. Animal Waste. Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC.
21. NWQEP. 1982b. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Control: II. Commercial Fertilizer. Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC. 55pp.
22. NWQEP. 1982c. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Control: III. Sediment. Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 49pp.
23. Maas, R.P., S.A. Dressing, J. Spooner, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik.
1984. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Sources:
IV. Pesticides. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University. Raleigh, NC. 83pp.
24. Haith, D.A. and R.C. Loehr, Eds. 1979. Effectiveness of Soil and Water
Conservation Practices for Pollution Control. EPA-600/3-79-106.
474pp.
-------
25. Loehr, R.C., D.A. Haith, M.F. Walter, and C.S. Martin, Eds. Best
Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture. Proceedings
of the 1978 Cornell Agricultural Waste Management Conference; Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 740pp.
-------
fi NPO y K°nme?al Section Agency
77^°,L!br3ry Co"ection (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604-3590 '
------- |