OOOK88002
CD420
.G281
kvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Regulations and Standards
Nonpoint Sources Branch
Washington, DC 20460
August 1988
Creating Successful
Nonpoint Source
Programs:
The Innovative Touch
-iiyi'v-<••%*•.->1
*&..'+*".
fc^^**£^*w_ .*f
-------
Contents
Concepts Behind Creative Programs 1
Unusual Alliances Can Get Creative Results 2
Oystermen and Farmers Unite to Save Tillamook Bay 2
City Aids Farmers in Fighting Pollution 3
Funding Often Must Be Creative, Too 4
Loans Replace Grants for Cost Sharing 4
Community Forms Utility District to Fund Stormwater Control 4
Industry Funds Enforcement Program 5
The Program That Plans for Results Can Show Results 6
Monitoring Provides the Needed Connection 6
Programs Can Pay Multiple Dividends 7
Target Your Most Productive Program 8
Local Interest Leads to Willingness to Assume Problem Ownership .... 8
Pennsylvania Focuses on Nutrient Management 8
Maryland Protects Critical Area 9
Explore Modern Technologies 10
Virginia Locates Key Farmers with Computer System 10
Minnesota Assessed Ground-water Sensitivity 10
Self-regulation May Be Easier to Sell 11
Dairy Farmers Fine Association Member 11
Illinois Farmers Write Farm Plans 11
Idaho's Foresters Believe in Effective Enforcement 11
Recast the Problem Creatively 12
When is a Nonpoint Source a Point Source? 12
Bibliography 12
Cover: an innovative way of controlling erosion on steep
slopes—vegetation can be planted in open blocks.
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The listing of trade names or programs does not
imply any endorsement by the Agency. This document was prepared
by Claire M. Gesalman, Amy L. Marasco, and Maggi Elliott of Roy F.
Weston, Inc. under EPA contract 68-03-3450. Design by JT&A, Inc.
The EPA Task Manager was Jim Meek, Nonpoint Sources Branch.
-------
Concepts Behind Creative Programs
Innovation has always been necessary in the nonpoint source management field.
Resources have been chronically limited; standard methods of monitoring and
problem identification show only part of the picture; results can be hard to
demonstrate. And yet, program managers and staff have found ways to solve the
problems and get the programs moving.
Solving problems often depends on leaving no stone unturned — letting no idea
go unconsidered. Even ideas that seem impossible can work.
By reviewing the circumstances and approaches of several innovative programs,
we can distill certain concepts and characteristics that seem to be key to then- success
and creativity. These concepts are presented in the pages that follow with the goal of
helping managers of newer state and local programs save time, money, and energy in
solving their own problems, as well as giving a boost to programs that may be in need
of a new direction or approach. Following each program description is the telephone
number of the responsible department or agency.
Documenting New Program Approaches
The examples included here are a
starting point for an effort to gather
new examples of creative programs.
EPA and states are moving into a
new phase of the nonpoint source
control effort with the initiatives
created by the 1987 Water Quality
Act, and new approaches will be
needed to solve the current genera-
tion of problems. This information
transfer is vital to our ability to meet
the goals Congress has set.
There is no need to write a 30-
page report. Just list the points that
are key to understanding what you
are doing and how it is succeeding.
Some of the questions that you
should consider are:
•Who's been involved? (lead and
support roles, coordination,
institutional issues, etc.) And
who's been missed? Who
should be involved?
• What problems have you
encountered and how did you
overcome them?
• How did you define the program
scope or identify the specific
problem to be studied or attacked?
• What sources and amounts of
funds were considered, located,
developed, chosen? (Why and
how?)
• What factors do you consider as
key to the success of the program?
• What have been the results to
date?
• How has progress been assessed?
• What would you do differently the
next time?
Send information on your program
or a program you think is innovative or
creative to EPA's Nonpoint Sources
Branch at WH-585, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Or call us at
(202) 382-7085.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region b, Library (FL-12J)
1 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
Unusual Alliances Can Get Creative Results
It's simple and often very productive to go directly to the source of
the problem, using time-honored cooperative mechanisms like
USDA's Soil Conservation Service network. Incentives and enforce-
ment clearly work, but continually using the same network can mean
business as usual and missed opportunities for creativity.
Involvement by outside interests can provide a spark. Perhaps the
best way to obtain such involvement is to appeal to the self-interest of
those who are part of or affected by the problem: Develop a sense of
ownership of the problem. People who feel responsible are easy to
mobilize; they're energetic and tenacious about problem solving.
Who is adversely affected by nonpoint source (NPS) pollution in your
program area? Are they aware of the problem and its economic con-
sequences for them? For example:
Oystermen and Farmers
Unite to Save Tillamook Bay
When oystermen in Oregon's Tillamook
Bay saw their livelihood threatened by
large-scale NPS pollution, they united
to tackle the problem. Fishermen aided
state agencies and local citizens, who
began to track down the source of fecal
contamination in their shellfish beds.
Dairy cattle were identified as the
culprits: 19,000 of them on 118 dairy
farms.
The oystermen approached the Til-
lamook Creamery Association for help.
Together, these two interest groups
sought solutions. By 1980, an EPA grant
had yielded a plan for abatement of
agricultural NPS pollution. In 1981,
USDA funded a Rural Clean Water
Project that cost shared best manage-
ment practices (BMPs). Farmers began
a massive reform of their waste han-
dling practices. By 1985, sampling in
streams feeding Tillamook Bay showed
that fecal bacteria levels were down 15-
50 percent in various areas. Further im-
provements are expected.
"While credit belongs to several
government agencies for getting things
started, it has been the Tillamook
Creamery Association and individual
dairymen who have actually been get-
ting things done," said EPA's Region 10
Administrator.
Local pride in Tillamook oysters and
Tillamook cheese may have had some-
thing to do with it, too. These oystermen
and dairymen have shown an en-
lightened understanding of the inter-
dependence of interests necessary to an
area's economic health.
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality- (503) 229-6035
-------
City Aids Farmers in
Fighting Pollution
Springfield, Illinois is another place
where people concerned about NFS
pollution tackled the problem from out-
side the traditional network of coopera-
tion. Lake Springfield was filling in with
sediment, threatening even the normal
water supply needs of the City in times
of drought. The citizens were worried
about the future of the lake as a water
supply, as well as a fishery.
Representing the City's self-interest,
the water department went right to the
source of the problem: local farming
practices. A $10,000 grant from the City
of Springfield bought the county soil
and water conservation district a no-till
planter. Farmers began to use it and
demonstrate the benefits of preventive
soil conservation measures.
The City went on to cost share other
BMPs for NFS pollution control. The
program was run without federal cost-
share money and was administered by
the county soil and water conservation
district. Projections indicate that these
preventive methods will save about 20
percent of the price tag of dredging
uncon-
Soybeans in no-till wheat straw.
Photo by Soil Conservation Service.
trolled sedimentation over the next
decade.
The cooperative relationship among
City government, the soil and water
conservation district, and local farmers
has proved highly effective both in
Springfield and in other areas of Il-
linois.
City of Springfield- (217) 786-4093
-------
Funding Often Must Be Creative, Too
The traditional funding source for NFS programs has been appropria-
tions for both program administration and incentives or cost sharing.
Clearly, the need has grown far faster than the political will to ap-
propriate general revenues for these programs, so nontraditional
sources of funding are needed. Some of the programs that have
developed a new approach to funding include:
Loans Replace Grants for
Cost Sharing
State revolving loan funds (SRFs) are
now being established to replace the
wastewater construction grant program.
Under SRFs, states may also provide
financial assistance to nonpoint source,
groundwater, and estuary activities. In
addition to SRFs, some states have
other loan programs that may be avail-
able for nonpoint source activities.
Many people are not aware that this
funding method can be used for
leveraging state money in other
programs. In contrast to the cost-shar-
ing approach other states are applying
to NFS pollution control, Utah has in-
itiated the Agricultural Resource
Development Loan Fund. The program
has grown from $250,000 in 1976 to
$14.4 million in 1988. Once interest-
free, the loans are still affordable at only
3 percent. Furthermore, repayment
does not begin until the improved land
is ready for use. These features remove
many of the financial barriers that can
discourage individuals from making
abatement improvements.
The program's success is due in large
part to Utah's soil conservation dis-
tricts, which process applications, ap-
prove plans, and monitor projects. The
conservation districts make sure the
BMPs are practical and reasonable.
Loan payments and interest replenish
the state fund. Administrative fees are
divided among the various state and
local agencies involved in the program.
Utah Department of Agriculture— (801)
533-5918
Community Forms Utility
District to Fund Stormwater
Control
Bellevue, Washington needed to im-
prove its management of stormwater as
the City grew. Residents saw the salmon
dying and pristine areas disappearing
and wanted to preserve local streams as
viable natural environments. Grassroots
support was easy to garner because
many residents had moved to Bellevue
for its natural beauty and accessibility to
recreation. Local involvement was key
to obtaining approval of a comprehen-
sive stormwater management plan to
aid in improving water quality (an ad-
visory vote was held before sale of
revenue bonds).
Funding for the drainage program is
based on the "polluter pays" principle;
all developed property has some imper-
vious surface, so everyone contributes.
Other funding sources include permit
fees, buy-in charges, developer exten-
sions, and late-comer agreements.
These last two items result in system ex-
-------
pansion at no charge to the utility.
Funding is stable because the utility
does not have to compete with other
public services for budget appropria-
tions.
The program centers on source con-
trols, such as oil-water separators where
spills are likely, vegetation clearing
limits, and public education. Public
education is designed to develop a feel-
ing of "ownership" of the problem and
show how individuals can be part of the
solution; common problems and practi-
cal solutions are emphasized.
Bellevue, WA Storm and Surface Water
Utility- (206) 451-4476
Industry Funds Enforcement
Program
In an interesting twist on the "polluter
pays" principle, Idaho's forest products
industry lobbied the state legislature to
have themselves taxed to support five
forestry agency positions to enforce the
State Forest Products Act, which regu-
lates erosion control by forestry opera-
tions. Forestry, like many industries, has
had a negative public image and is often
subject to calls for stricter regulation
and stiffer penalties for violations. Now,
Idaho foresters pay five cents per acre
into a fund for staffing in the Depart-
ment of Lands. The program is ex-
pected to generate about $150,000 per
year. The increased staffing level will
allow the agency to increase its inspec-
tion and enforcement activity, as well as
improve its educational efforts. For ex-
ample, a series of 15 workshops for
forest operators has been held around
the state. Careful homework before the
legislation was introduced ensured its
passage with little opposition.
Idaho Department of Lands— (208)
334-3280
Sides and ditches of logging road seeded
to control erosion. Photo by Soil
Conservation Service.
-------
The Program that Plans for Results
Can Show Results
Successful NFS programs are efficient and cost effective. They use
available resources and expertise and build on the experiences of
others. In addition, they consider the long-term costs and benefits of
the program—it may be necessary to spend a little in the near term to
gain a lot in the long term.
The most effective demonstration projects focus on demonstrating
clear results, rather than just showing how to implement a project.
This is something that requires a talent for detailed foresight and
skillful planning. Simply stated, a program needs reliable feedback:
• What's working, and what isn't?
• Is the strategy cost effective?
• Who's being convinced?
• Is water quality improving?
• How could the next project be improved?
It can be difficult to answer these questions, but it is possible, even
with large, complex projects.
Monitoring Provides the
Needed Connection
Iowa's Big Spring Demonstration
Project was planned carefully to show
results. Nitrates and pesticides are
creeping into ground water in Iowa,
where 80 percent of the citizens depend
on it for drinking water. Big Spring
Basin had experienced ground-water
contamination from these sources, so it
was an excellent choice for a
demonstration project. Almost all of the
basin's ground water discharges at Big
Spring, so chemicals that leach into the
ground water eventually show up there.
Furthermore, the background data
needed to reveal water quality changes
are already available; intensive water
monitoring has been conducted in the
basin since 1981.
Finally, Big Spring Basin is a perfect
test ground for abating NFS pollution
from agriculture. There are no
municipal or industrial wastewater
sources that could confuse monitoring
results.
Big Spring provides a huge, relatively
undisturbed laboratory for making NFS
tests. Project personnel are educating
farmers on ground-water quality
problems and the use of fertilizers and
pesticides and good agricultural prac-
tices. BMPs are being installed and dis-
played on experimental farm plots. And
ground-water results are being
-------
monitored. Early data show a relation-
ship between fertilizer nitrogen applied
in the Big Spring Basin and nitrate
levels in the ground water there. Nitrate
level declined in response to the reduc-
tion in fertilizer use associated with the
Payment-in-Kind (PIK) program, for
example. It will be a few years, however,
before clear relationships can be
defined, since year-to-year variation can
mask long-term trends. The excellent
planning choices made in targeting Big
Spring Basin will assure that these
results will be possible.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources,
Geological Survey Bureau — (319)
335-1575
Programs Can Pay Multiple
Dividends
In Queen Anne's County, Maryland,
state officials constructed an artificial
marsh at a local high school. In develop-
ing this project, they not only built a
control mechanism to solve a problem,
but also provided a teaching tool. Stu-
dents and teachers learned about NFS
pollution and the natural cleansing
power of wetlands while doing part of
the planting. Thus, Maryland cut costs
of creating the wetland while
demonstrating the efficacy of coopera-
tive efforts and effectiveness of natural
systems in reducing NFS pollution.
Maryland Department of the
Environment- (301) 974-2224
-------
Target Your Most Productive Problem
The diffuse nature of NFS pollution makes it particularly difficult to
grapple with: the problem presents few clear "handholds." Many
program managers have responded to this situation by dispersing
abatement funds uniformly across the state or on a first-come, first-
served basis. Others, however, have thrown a spotlight on
troublesome areas through an approach popularly called "targeting."
Targeting can make it much easier to show results, because it focuses
control activities on a problem watershed, a specific industry, or a
particular facet of the problem.
Local Interest Leads to
Willingness to Assume
Problem Ownership
Wisconsin carefully targets areas with
serious NFS problems and provides as-
sistance only where localities want help.
This skillful, two-pronged approach
maximizes the efficacy of limited funds.
Wisconsin uses the following criteria to
select target watersheds before commit-
ting resources:
1. severity of the pollution problems;
2. the potential for pollution reduction;
3. willingness of landowners to
participate in the cleanup effort;
4. potential benefits as a result of the
program;
5. ability of local authorities to carry
out their roles; and
6. the willingness and ability of local
agencies and other governmental
units to control other sources of
pollution.
Federal, state, and local agencies are all
actively involved in targeting water-
sheds. Development of abatement plans
is also a cooperative effort, with respon-
sibilities for action and funding clearly
detailed. The unique feature of this
program is the targeting of watersheds
where communities have convinced the
state that they want to solve their NFS
pollution problems. The local govern-
ment monitors the projects and is ac-
countable to the state for their
implementation.
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources- (608) 266-1956
Pennsylvania Focuses on
Nutrient Management
Pennsylvania targeted its Susquehanna
River basin as a major focus of agricul-
tural pollution control based on EPA's
study on Chesapeake Bay pollution.
The Susquehanna contributes about
half the fresh water flowing into the Bay
and carries with it 21 percent of the
phosphorus and 40 percent of the
nitrogen polluting Bay waters. The
sources: excessive cropland soil erosion
and a dense livestock population. An
earlier study by the state showed that
counties in the lower Susquehanna
basin were responsible for the bulk of
-------
the pollution, so the control program
was targeted to those areas. In addition,
nutrient management was identified as
the most productive approach to pollu-
tion control, leading to design of a cost-
sharing program around this concept. A
nutrient management plan must be in
place before a farm is eligible for BMP
cost-share funds. Assistance to farmers
includes a mobile nutrient laboratory,
which helps farmers limit nutrient ap-
plications (including manure) to the
level needed by crops.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Soil and Water
Conservation-(717) 787-5267
Maryland Protects Critical
Area
Maryland has created a special zone to
protect the Chesapeake Bay from NFS
pollution. The Critical Area Program is
a means of implementing NFS efforts
along shoreline areas adjacent to the
Bay through controls on development in
a 1000-foot strip. A state and local com-
mission developed program criteria,
which are being used in developing
local protection programs. Local
governments assign critical areas under
their jurisdiction into one of three
categories and regulate development
accordingly. In "Limited Development
Areas" the goal is to preserve existing
forest cover and minimize impervious
surfaces. In "Resource Conservation
Areas" development is discouraged in
favor of agriculture and forestry. Pol-
lutant reduction from existing develop-
ment is the goal in "Intensely
Developed Areas." Farmers in the criti-
cal areas must have soil and water
management plans by May 13, 1991.
Buffer strips of vegetation up to 100 feet
wide are being planted along tidal
waters and streams.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas
Commission- (301) 974-2426
Waste management for cattle operation, with settling basin on right.
Photo by Soil Conservation Service.
-------
Explore Modern Technologies
Recent advances in computer technology have made new tools avail-
able to program managers. Geographic information systems are new
tools that can be used to define problems and target solutions. Two
ways they have been used are described below.
Virginia Locates Key
Farmers with Computer
Virginia is now using a computer-based
information system to identify farm-
land with a high erosion potential.
VirGIS— the Virginia Geographic In-
formation System —replaces a manual
approach to the identification and tar-
geting process. VirGIS is used as a
screening tool to identify potential
problem areas. State and local staff then
visit farms to verify conditions and
evaluate abatement techniques. This
approach identifies the potentially most
serious problem areas and allows staff
to take the program to farmers who
might not have requested assistance,
rather than just allocating funds among
farmers who come in voluntarily.
VirGIS combines a variety of data
sources: topographic, soil, and surface
water maps, and soil, watershed, and
elevation information are integrated
with factors for rainfall, vegetative
cover, and land use practices. The one-
hectare cell that is the geographic unit
allows targeting of priority areas on in-
dividual farms. In the long term, staff
expect to be able to use the system to
assist with priority setting and critical
area determination for programs such
as the Conservation Reserve, forestry
management, and assessment of site
suitability for on-site waste manage-
ment.
Virginia Division of Soil and Water
Conservation-(804) 786-8173
Minnesota Assessed
Ground-water Sensitivity
A key receptor for pollution is ground
water. However, the potential for
ground-water contamination varies
from place to place. In southeastern
Minnesota, karst topography (limestone
caves, sinkholes, etc.) leads to high pol-
lution potential, but available monitor-
ing data were not organized so that
trends could be identified easily.
Analysis of local well monitoring data in
conjunction with state well location in-
formation in the Minnesota Land Infor-
mation System has allowed correlation
of test data with aquifer data. Hydro-
geologic sensitivity maps produced by
the state show how susceptible various
areas are to ground-water contamina-
tion. These substantiate the relationship
between land use and ground-water
quality. Results are being used to edu-
cate local officials and residents and
have led to development of ground-
water protection ordinances and the use
of local water planning legislation to
develop aquifer protection plans for
each county.
Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board- (612) 296-0676
10
-------
Self-regulation May Be Easier to Sell
By developing consensus on the need for regulation, the regulated
community may find it easier to comply without complaint. Similarly,
self policing by a regulated group may be more effective than govern-
ment intervention: The penalties may more closely fit the "crime."
Dairy Farmers Fine
Association Member
As part of the effort to clean up Til-
lamook Bay (described earlier), dairy
association members fined one of their
fellow members for violating required
BMPs. That farmer's milk price was
reduced until the violation ceased, and
to help ensure future compliance, the
reduction was continued for an addi-
tional six months.
Illinois Farmers Write Farm
Plans
In Illinois, the Soil Conservation Service
has begun a program to train farmers to
write their own farm plans. These plans
are the basis for conservation and
erosion improvements through im-
plementation of BMPs and are required
for continued eligibility for federal as-
sistance. Accelerating development of
the plans will increase the pace of BMP
installation and thus result in more
water quality benefits. In other areas,
most farm plans are developed by
governmental agencies, which limits the
number that can be developed each
year. Helping farmers write their own
plans will also help ensure their im-
plementation, since the farmers will feel
a greater degree of responsibility for
them and the results, as well as feeling
that they are realistic. Farmers also are
taught key concepts about erosion,
which are then related to recommended
control practices. Farmers have always
recognized their role in land
stewardship, and this understanding of
causes and effects of erosion provides
good reasons for controlling erosion by
reinforcing this feeling.
The Soil Conservation Service and
the Cooperative Extension Service
together have developed an instructor's
manual, five slide shows, and a
videotape to be used in an 18-hour
course. The material was tested and
revised over a one-year period and is
now available for distribution. Several
states have already used the materials,
which are designed to be modified easi-
ly to include locally relevant informa-
tion.
Idaho's Foresters Believe in
Effective Enforcement
As mentioned earlier, Idaho's forest
products industry lobbied for a tax to
support state enforcement of the Forest
Products Act. Clearly, foresters believe
that their interests are served better if
the law is enforced; they are less likely
to receive adverse publicity and com-
plaints if all affected companies know
they must comply. Peer pressure is also
an effective tool to increase compliance;
forestry associations are cosponsoring
workshops and other educational ef-
forts.
11
-------
Recast the Problem Creatively
Some innovative program managers have gone to the heart of the
NFS problem —and transformed it! Such an approach calls for an al-
most forced detachment from usual ways of viewing the situation,
coupled with some very creative brainstorming.
When is a Nonpoint Source
a Point Source?
Florida managers decided that it would
be easier to control some nonpoint
sources if they could be viewed as point
sources, tractable to point source solu-
tions. BMPs provided the inspiration:
stormwater runoff is now being cap-
tured in retention basins or detention
facilities in urban areas across the state.
Developers are required to implement
the concept. To release stormwater to a
surface water body, developers must
apply for a state discharge permit. The
applicant must assure the state that the
proposed discharge will not cause a
violation of water quality standards.
Performance standards are used to
achieve this goal. For example, for a
project occupying less than 100 acres,
the standards require that the runoff
from the first inch of rainfall or the first
half inch of runoff be captured either in
a retention basin or in a filtering deten-
tion facility.
Although some problems have sur-
faced in implementing the program, it
has been widely accepted by the con-
struction industry. In its first four years
of existence, the Florida Stormwater
Rule has stimulated the development of
thousands of detention and retention
systems. Current issues to be addressed
include the potential for ground-water
contamination and the need for a
regional or watershed approach to con-
trols in some areas.
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation -(904) 488-0782
Bibliography
Cooperating for Clean Water (case studies
and three briefing papers related to agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution control,
published by the Farmland Project of the
National Association of State Departments
of Agriculture Research Foundation), 1986.
The Model Implementation Program: Lessons
Learned from Agricultural Water Quality
Projects (prepared by the National Water
Quality Evaluation Project at North Carolina
State University and Harbridge House, Inc.)
February 28, 1983.
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 3, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office,
January 1988.
12
-------
Inv
For additional copies — contact the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint Sources Branch (WH-585)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7085
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency WH 585
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
nonpoint source W pollution
------- |