4966
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Planning Divis>on
Washington DC 20460
810R79101
Water
Water Quality Management
Five Year Strategy
FY 80-Baseline
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
15AUG1979
TO: Participants in the Water Quality Management (WQM) Program
The five-year strategy, attached, is an important part of EPA's
overall policy for the Water Quality Management (WQM) program under
sections 106 and 208 of the Clean Water Act. The strategy is intended
to help States, areawide agencies, and others involved in the WQM
program plan their long-term activities, develop future State/EPA
Agreements, and make other necessary plans. This is the first strategy
the 'later Planning Oivision has issued under its annual policy develop-
ment cycle, which also includes a needs assessment and a work program.
Thus, this year's strategy is the "FY 80 Baseline," next year's is the
"FY 81 Baseline," and so on.
Although this strategy is the most complete statement of overall
Water Quality .Management program policy available, it is a transitional
strategy in two respects. First, it is being published at a tine when
most States and areawide agencies are well into planning for FY 80,
which reduces somewhat its potential impact on FY 80 work programs.
Second, its treatment of priorities for the use of section 106 funds
is extremely brief, due to data limitations regarding historical uses
and needs for 106 funds. Both of these shortcomings will, hopefully,
be corrected in the FY 81 Baseline strategy, scheduled for nublication
early in 1980.
As you will see as you review the strategy, it covers goals,
priorities, funding policies, future funding, strategic directions,
and long-term objectives for the WQM program. We view the strategy
as a dynamic document, one which will improve in usefulness to pro-
gram participants over the next few years. As always, we welcome
your comments and suggestions on the content, format, and approach
of the strategy. Please address your comments to Peter L. Wise,
Chief, Policy and Evaluation Branch, Water Planning Division (WM-554),
401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
neriia M. Hurd, Director
Water Planning Division
-------
WQM FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY
(FY SO-BASELINE)
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
OFFICE OF WATER PLANNING AND STANDARDS
AUGUST 1979
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this WQM FY 80-Baseline Strategy is to provide long-range
direction for the water quality management (WQM) program to assist EPA Regions,
States, and areawide agencies with program planning in FY 80 and beyond. It
will also provide EPA management, the Congress, the Administration, and the
public with descriptions of program needs and directions for a five-ypar
period.
This strategy affects primarily those in the EPA Regions, State?, and
designated areawide agencies who manage the WQM program. It is not a com-
prehensive water quality strategy, since its focus is on WQM activities defined
by sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act. The strategy discusses
some related programs, such as monitoring, water quality standards, and enforce-
ment but does not set policy in these areas.
B. Background
Since FY 73, EPA has awarded approximately $600 million in grants to
States, interstate commissions, and areawide agencies under sections 106 and
208 of the Act. Section 106 provides annual grants to States and interstates
for operation of their water quality programs. Section 208 provides matching
grants to designated State and areawide agencies for solving water quality
problems through the preparation of implementable WQM plans. EPA has promulgated
new consolidated regulations which cover the entire WQM program.
IT. GOALS AND PRIORITIES
A. Goal
The goal of the program is to assist development and administration of State
and local decision-making processes to control point and nonpoint sources of
pollution and meet the clean water goals of the Act.
B. Management Priorities
The two highest management priorities for the WQM program in FY 80-84 are
improved program management and completion of the 208 grant program:
-------
Improved Program Management
In FY 80 and beyond, EPA will initiate a more active management stance for
the WQM program including increased emphasis on priority problems; provision of
technical assistance through technical experts; provision of financial manage-
ment assistance to States, areawides, and local agencies; assessment of WQM
needs; participation in State/EPA Agreements; expanded use of public participation
mechanisms; and emphasis on better EPA Headquarters and Regional Office manage-
ment.
Completion of the 208 Grant Program
Given adequate funding, EPA anticipates completion of the 208 grant program
and expects no 208 grants after FY 83. This will represent the successful com-
pletion of a framework for solving water quality problems allowing EPA, the
States, and others to make the transition from planning to implementation of
controls. After FY 83, EPA will recommend a restructured program focusing on
implementation of nonpoint source controls.
Since FY 74, State and areawide WQM agencies have, with 208 grants, identi-
fied their water quality problems, developed solutions for the less-complex pro-
blems, and identified responsible units of government to implement the solutions.
In FY 80-83, these agencies will fill in the gaps in their WQM plans, largely
through the USG of prototype problem-solving projects for more difficult problems.
EPA will provide funding, expert technical assistance, and information transfer
to ensure the success of their efforts and the transferability of their results.
Thus, by FY 84, EPA and the WQM agencies will have gained much knowledge
on both problem-solving techniques and future program needs. Based on this
information, EPA will decide on future directions for the WQM program, roles
for the various levels of government involved, and necessary changes from the
existing program. As an illustration of this approach, in FY 83 EPA will make
a report to Congress on urban storm runoff, summarizing the progress of the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and making recommendations for action.
C. Problem Priorities
The WQM program will address four priority problem areas in FY 80-84:
urban storm runoff, nonpoint sources, groundwater quality, and waste treatment
facilities. Generally, the highest priorities are urban runoff, agricultural
pollution and groundwater protection. The WQM program also supports Regional,
State, or local priorities which differ from the national priorities if they are
implementation-oriented and will have a major impact on water quality. (The
strategy discusses each priority problem area in detail.)
III. FUNDING
A. Description of Sources
Through the process of work plan development and State/EPA Agreement
negotiations, the States, areawide agencies, and EPA will develop and implement
* problem-solving process which utilizes all available sources of funding. This
-------
approach will bring about significant program integration by matching the com-
plementary aspects of various EPA programs, State and local programs, and programs
of other Federal agencies such as USDA. Integrated programs will solve difficult
environmental problems at a lower overall cost to the public.
Although section 106 and 208 grants are the primary Federal funding sources
for the WQM program, other sources also provide assistance: facility planning
grants (201), construction management grants (205(g)), Clean Lakes grants (314),
Rural Clean Water Program grants (208(j)), State and local governments, and other
Federal agencies.
B. Funding Policies
The strategy presents an overview of WQM funding policy. For additional
details, see also the supplemental WQM program guidance.
C. Projected Funding--FY 80-84
Future funding data is sketchy and subject to change. Nevertheless, an
attempt to project funding levels is necessary. For FY 80, the section 106
appropriation should be approximately $48.7 million and the 208 appropriation
approximately $40 million, based on the President's budget. (Regional 208
targets and State 106 targets are presented.) In FY 81-84, 106 funding should,
at a minimum, remain constant. EPA anticipates no 208 funding after FY 83,
assuming the Congress provides full funding until then.
IV. 'STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
This section of the strategy presents five discussions of new or cross-
cutting issues which relate to the management and problem priorities. For some
of the issues, the strategy is still in the formative stages. The issues are
(1) the WQM role in toxic controls, (2) th^ WQM role in water conservation,
(3) nonpoint source controls on Federal lands, (4) the WQM contribution to the
urban strategy, and (5) water quality/quantity relationships.
V. OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this section of the strategy is to give the major partici-
pants in the WQM process a firm idea of EPA's expectations for FY 80-84 for
solving priority problems. For each problem area, the strategy includes a
statement of an overall objective, a set of related "givens," and an example.
Detailed objectives follow in a matrix format. They show specific concrete
targets or sub-objectives which will contribute to the attainment of the
overall objectives.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary
I. Introduction 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Background 2
II. Goal and Priorities.
A. Goal 3
B. General Priorities 3
--improved management 3
--completion of 208 grant program 4
C. Problem Priorities,
--urban storm runoff 6
--nonpoint sources 7
--groundwater 8
--waste treatment facilities 8
III. Funding 11
A. Description of Sources 11
B. Funding Policies 15
C. Projected Funding 17
1. FY 80 17
2. FY 81-84 20
IV. Strategic Directions 20
A. Toxics 20
B. Water Conservation 21
C. Nonpoint Source Controls on Federal Lands 21
D. Urban Strategy 22
E. Water Quantity/Quality Relationship 22
V. Objectives 23
References
IV
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
The purpose of this WQM five-year strategy is to provide long-range
direction for the water quality management (WQM) program to assist the
EPA Regions, States and areawide agencies with program planning in FY 80
and beyond. The Water Planning Division (WPD) has initiated an annual
policy development process, which includes a problem assessment, strategy,
and work plan. This management process is similar to that required of
the States by the WQM regulations [1].* The strategy's long-term perspective
will contribute to the development of State strategies, work plans and
State/EPA Agreements.
The five-year strategy will also provide EPA management, the Congress,
the Administration, and the public with descriptions of immediate and long-
term needs and program directions. These descriptions will assist in
policy, resource, and funding decisions. Finally, the five-year orientation
of the strategy will pl=»ce the WPD work plan [2] and supplemental WQM guidance
[3] in a long-range policy framework, allowing program participants to
anticipate and deal with changes, thus avoiding crisis planning and
management.
The strategy addresses program goals, priorities, funding, strategic
directions, and objectives for the baseline year and the subsequent four
years. (Thus, this strategy is the "FY 80-Baseline" strategy, next
year's is the "FY 81-Baseline" and so on.) It affects primarily those
in the EPA Regions, States, and designated areawide agencies who manage
the WQM program. It is not a comprehensive water quality strategy,
since its focus is on WQM activities defined by sections 106, 208, and
303(e) of the Clean Water Act. The strategy discusses some related
programs, such as monitoring, water quality standards, and enforcement
but does not set policy for these programs.
This FY 80-Baseline strategy is a transitional strategy for two reasons.
First, its discussion of priorities for State programs funded under section
106 is open-ended, since WPD is now conducting a national assessment of
State problems and needs to assist EPA in analyzing 106 priorities. Although
State and Federal resources for water quality programs are--at bestnot
increasing demands on the States are. The needs assessment will place
State requirements in a realistic perspective, and the FY 81-Baseline
strategy will discuss the findings of the assessment.
*This strategy makes frequent references to legislation, EPA regulations,
guidance documents, and other related documentation. For convenience,
a list of references is attached. Where the text refers to one of these
documents, the number of the reference appears in brackets, e.g., [5].
-------
Second, the FY 80-Baseline strategy is transitional with respect to its
timing. It is out of phase with the optimal timing, as the policy development
time-line, Figure I, shows. The FY 81-Baseline strategy, which EPA will publish
in early 1980, will be better-timed to assist State and areawide program plan-
ning for FY 81.
This strategy is an update of two previous WQM strategies which the
Water Planning Division published in April 1976, [4] and March 1978 [5].
B. Background
The goal of the WQM program, as discussed below, is to assist State,
local agencies, and the public to develop a decision-making process for
solving point and nonpoint source problems and meeting the water quality
goals of the Act. To accomplish this goal EPA has, to date, awarded grants
under sections 106 and 208 of the Act to State, interstate, and areawide
agencies totalling approximately $600 million.
Section 106 of the Act provides for annual grants to the States and
interstate basin commissions for operation and maintenance of their water
quality management (WQM) programs. 106 funds are flexible; they support
a wide range of activities, such as monitoring, enforcement, planning, and
point and nonpoint source management.
Section 208 provides matching grants to designated State and areawide
agencies for solving water quality problems through the preparation of imple-
mentable WQM plans. These plans, when certified by the State and approved
by EPA, serve as the basis for future planning, management, and implementation
activities. As of July 1979, of the 225 agencies which received 208 grants
in FY 74-76 to prepare WQM plans, 129 had obtained State certification and
77 had obtained EPA approval. EPA plans to have 200 plans certified and
approved by October 1979.
EPA has promulgated new regulations [1] which cover the entire WQM program.
The regulations are a consolidation of three former regulations (40 CFR Parts
130 and 131 and portions of Part 35) and they emphasize that activities funded
under 106 and 208 must be integrated. They also demonstrate EPA's policy of
reducing regulations and stressing integration wherever possible.
-------
.^
*
-<
^J
UD
*A
^ *
-------
II. GOALS AND PRIORITIES
A. Goal
The goal of the WQM program is to assist the development and administration
of a State and local government decision-making process to control point and non-
point sources of pollution to meet the clean water goals of section 101 of the
Act.
B. Management Priorities
This strategy is primarily concerned with management of two types of
grants under the Clean Water Act: sections 106 State program grants and
section 208 waste treatment, management grants. EPA manages these grants
together in the WQM program. As mentioned above, this FY 80-Baseline WQM
Strategy is a transitional strategy and does not set priorities for the use
of 106 funds.
It is difficult to set priorities for 106 grants since they support a
wide range of activities in the State agencies and EPA Headquarters has
traditionally delegated program management to the Regional Offices. But
now that demands on State programs are increasing because of the addition
of activities such as spill prevention, nonpoint source control, and
toxic controls and because of further emphasis on traditional areas such
as enforcement, EPA must address 106 priorities. The WQM Needs Assessment
will provide the data EPA needs, and the FY 81-Baseline strategy will
discuss 106 further after EPA has analyzed the data.
Given that this is a transitional strategy, the following items are
high management priorities for the WQM program in the next five years:
improved program management and completion of the 208 grant program.
Improved Program Management
In FY 80 and beyond, EPA will initiate a more active, rather than reactive,
management stance for the WQM program. Examples of EPA's more-active management
are:
-- increased emphasis in the continuing planning phase on filling in the
crucial gaps in State and areawide plans by identifying cost-effective
solutions to priority problems
-- continuation of problem-specific technical assistance contracts
with technical experts for groundwater, urban runoff, and
municipal treatment
-------
-- initiation of a long-term Financial Management Assistance Project
(FMAP) to assist State, areawide and local agencies develop fiscal
expertise for water quality management planning and implementation
-- assessment of five-year costs of planning and administering solutions
to point and nonpoint source water quality problems for budget justi-
fication and analysis of priorities
-- participation by EPA Regions, State and areawide staffs, and the
public in annual State/EPA Agreements which coordinate and integrate
programs, identify high-priority problems, lay out approaches to solving
these problems, and assign responsibility
-- use of WQM public participation mechanisms to support not only plan-
ning activities but also State/EPA Agreement development, WQM plan
implementation, and refinement of WQM plans through site-specific
projects
-- emphasis on better Headquarters and Regional Office management of
the WQM program through training for project officers, development
of management strategies, and annual management reviews; EPA will
use contract funds to expand management capability at all levels
of the program
The new WQM regulations [1] and the supplemental WQM guidance [3] pre-
sent policies which support the priority on improved management. See Funding
Policies, pages 15 through 17.
Completion of the 208 Grant Program
The concept. The WQM program has made great progress in cleaning the
Nation's waters. The program has brought about documented water quality
improvements and cost savings, and will bring about more as additional WQM
plans enter the implementation stage. In FY 80-83, the States and areawide
agencies will fill the important gaps in their plans with 208 grants, particularly
for urban runoff, groundwater pollution, and other nonpoint source pollution.
Then, EPA will recommend a restructured program focusing on the implementation
of nonpoint source controls.
In FY 83, EPA anticipates completion of the 208 grant program, given
adequate funding, and expects no 208 grants after FY 83. The end of the
208 grant program will represent the successful completion of an important
taskdevelopment of a framework or blueprint for solving most water quality
problems. Between now and FY 83, EPA, the States, and the areawide" will
evaluate progress and problems, develop technical knowledge to solve the
problems, and identify needed changes in program direction for the future.
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) illustrates the concept of
208 grant completion. Having already identified urban storm runoff as a
problem, the States and areawides will determine the extent of the problem
in FY 80-83, develop and test best management practices., and develop financial
arrangements for urban runoff management programs. Based on the experience
in the NURP, EPA will make a report to the Congress describing progress and
proposing new starts or directions for urban storm runoff control. At the
same time, State and local management agencies will implement feasible BMP's
in their own areas as appropriate.
-------
Actions--FY 80-83. EPA is now relying on prototype projects to develop
cost-effective controls on selected sites for transfer to other sites, reducing
duplication of effort and stressing technically sound approaches. The 208
funding emphasis is on good, implementable projects which will solve water
quality problems, rather than on general planning activities. The rationale
for this emphasis is to provide a technical base from which to develop and
implement solutions nationwide.
EPA is also directing 208 funding into projects which will bring about
implementation of previously developed WQM plan elements. For example, 208
grants may fund development and adoption of ordinances and financing to control
specific nonpoint source problems in specific areas. For a 208 grant program
which includes this emphasis on prototype problem-solving projects, it is
estimated that full funding in FY 80-83 would be approximately $50 million
per year.
Information Transfer. Information transfer is a key aspect of the
concept of 208 grant completion. EPA recognizes that only a certain level
of information is tranferrable and that it must be tailored to each exact
situation. EPA Headquarters and the Regions will be responsible for
information transfer and are investigating available transfer techniques.
To enhance the potential of information transfer, EPA has selected
prototype projects in a variety of settings with different types of receiving
waters, different designated uses, different types of possible controls, and
different pollutants. Thus, a State or local environmental manager wishing
to use the results of the prototype projects can concentrate on examples
which match his or her own situation. To further promote transfer, Water
Planning Division will also develop a technology transfer methodology which
will employ various tools of use to Federal, State, and local agencies and
the public.
After FY 83. After FY 83, although EPA will not award 208 grants, there
will still be a WQM program and a need for planning and decision-making as
States, areawide agencies, and local governments continue to manage point and
nonpoint sources. The Water Planning Division will provide guidance and
assistance well in advance to ensure that completion of the 208 grants occurs
smoothly, and that 106 grants and State and local funds continue to support
effective problem-solving activities after FY 83.
There are, of course, many demands on 106 funds, and these demands are
increasing. Thus, EPA is taking steps such as the WQM Needs Assessment to
evaluate State, areawide and local demands, requirements, and priorities
for future 106 funding.
-------
As mentioned above, full funding for the 208 grant program through FY 83
is approximately $50 million per year. If the 208 program does not receive
full funding through FY 83, EPA has a fall-back strategy: First, with less
than full funding, 208 grants would follow priorities the Agency sets in the
Zero Base Budget (ZBB) process. Second, EPA would attempt to extend completion
past FY 83 if necessary to counter lower funding.
C. Problem Priorities
Because water pollution is a complex problem involving many technical
and institutional variables, management of water quality requires a systematic
problem-oriented approach. Based on legislative mandate, the difficulty of
developing solutions, and the degree of the problems, the WQM program will
address four high-priority problem areas in FY 80-84: urban storm runoff,
nonpoint sources, groundwater quality, and waste treatment facilities. Coupled
with the management priorities, above, the problem priorities will contribute
to the meeting of the WQM program objectives and achieving the goal of clean water.
The order in which the strategy lists the four priorities does not necessarily
indicate their relative priority. Since conditions vary drastically from Region
to Region, State to State, and locality to locality, all these problems are
high priorities. Generally, however, the highest-priority problem areas are
urban storm runoff, agricultural pollution, and groundwater protection. For
each problem area, the detailed discussions, below, describe high-priority
activities.
Although the four priority problems are quite broad, there are other
important problems in various locations that are not covered. The WQM program
supports Regional, State, or local priorities which differ from the national
priorities if they are implementation oriented and would have a major impact
on water quality. An example of such a project is the Colorado River Salinity
Study.
Urban Storm Runoff
While it is generally believed that urban storm runoff is a major
water pollution problem, exact impacts and effectiveness of controls are
largely unknown. It is also a major pathway for the entry of toxic substances
lead, cadmium, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and othersinto the aquatic environ-
ment.
Since structural controls for urban storm runoff would be prohibitively
expensive, EPA and State and areawide planning agencies are developing
cost-effective non-structural controls. The 1978 Construction Grants
Needs Survey [6] estimated the cost of controlling urban runoff from
pipes (not including overland runoff) at over $60 billion. Over 90
areawide agencies gave high priority to urban runoff problems during the
initial phase of the WQM program, but lack of data on sources, impacts,
and controls frustrated them.
-------
Given this background, the WQM program has undertaken a National
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) to test various controls in different
geographic settings to find a set of transferrable cost-effective controls,
that is, best management practices (BMP's). Starting in FY 79 and
continuing in FY 80, EPA will initiate about 30 three-year prototype
projects for urban runoff control. EPA will fund these projects directly
from the total 208 appropriation each year. Headquarters, the Regions,
States and areawide agencies will work jointly io select the specific
locations for the projects.
Headquarters has contracted with a team of technical experts to
assist State and areawide agencies in work plan development, project manage-
ment, analysis, and information exchange for the NURP. The Financial
Management Assistance Project (FMAP) is also available to provide expertise
on financial aspects.
Nonpoint Sources
Together, nonpoint sources are the largest source of water pollution
in the country. Runoff from farming, logging, mining, and other activities
degrades surface and groundwater with sediment, nutrients, salinity,
BOD, and toxic chemicals. Nonpoint sources are difficult to control
institutionally and politically. BMP's, while generally known, are not
consistently applied.
Although other agencies have programs to consider parts of the nonpoint
source problem (e.g., erosion) the WQM program is the only Federal
program with a comprehensive legislative mandate to address nonpoint
source pollution. The program both identifies solutions to problems and
implements solutions which planning agencies have identified in WQM plans.
With respect to agricultural and silvicultural problems, EPA is
cooperating with the USDA on funding and management of different types
of pilot projects. For agriculture, they are cooperating on Model
Implementation Program (MIP) projects, Agricultural Conservation Program
(ACP) projects, Small Farmer Demonstration Projects, Great Plains Con-
servation Program projects, and others. For silviculture, USDA and EPA
are cooperating on State Forest Resource Programs, National Forest Land
Management Planning projects, Forest Incentives Program (FIP) projects,
and Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) projects. For more details
on WQM activities in these cooperative efforts, see the WPD work program
for FY 79 [2], and the EPA/Forest Service Statement of Intent [15].
Under section 208(j) of the Act, EPA also participates in an imple-
mentation program for rural nonpoint sources, the Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP). Under the RCWP, USDA will cost share the application of BMP's
by owners or operators of rural lands, if the BMP's are contained in
certified and approved WQM plans. The RCWP projects are of a 5-to-10 year
duration, are initiated by the Governor's Office, and are managed by the
Soil Conservation Service (USDA).
-------
A related priority nonpoint source problem which generally occurs
in urban or developing areas, is construction runoff. Since BMP's are
readily available, WQM efforts in FY 80-84 will focus on States developing
regulatory programs for construction runoff, giving special attention to
financial approaches with assistance from the FMAP.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater, as a national resource and water supply source, is of
tremendous significance. Increasing reliance on groundwater is a result
of growing demand and the high costs of treating surface water. However,
many pollution sources are threatening groundwater. Contamination from
such sources as landfills, saltwater intrusion, underground injection
and the storing of hazardous wastes, has reduced groundwater quality.
Once a source is contaminated it is difficult, if not impossible, to
restore.
As with nonpoint sources in general, the WQM program is the only
Federal program taking a systematic approach to the protection of ground-
water quality. The Safe Drinking Water program impacts groundwater
through regulation of underground injections and sole source aquifers.
The Solid Waste program will control hazardous wastes and land disposal
activities, protecting groundwater from leachates. However, the WQM
program has the capability to consider the entire groundwater problem
in an area and to develop and coordinate controls.
Since groundwater protection is an area for which no cohesive
national policy exists, WPD has initiated a major three-year contract
to develop a framework for a national policy. WPD, the Office of Drinking
Water, the Office of Solid Waste, the Office of Water Program Operations,
and the Office of Research and Development, will, through a contractor,
assist State and areawide agencies with work plan development, program
management, analysis, and evaluation. With this hands-on technical
assistance, EPA will gain information and experience to develop a groundwater
policy framework. Where groundwater protection is a priority, State/EPA
Agreement negotiations will determine project objectives and funding
levels.
In coordination with the technical work in the groundwater area,
the Financial Management Assistance Project (FMAP) can provide necessary
financial analysis, providing tools for the development and implementation
of the financial components. The State/EPA Agreement process is the
management process for coordinating groundwater protection needs with
available assistance and resources.
Waste Treatment Facilities
Municipal waste treatment problems exist in every State. Many of
the problems lend themselves to straightforward solutions, via EPA's
construction grants program, with construction of secondary treatment
facilities. Sometimes, however, municipal waste treatment problems are
-------
complex, and require extensive front-end planning before EPA and the
municipalities can proceed with construction. This front-end planning
involves not only technical considerations but also financial arrangements
and public participation.
In the first round of 208 grants, many State and areawide agencies success-
fully addressed municipal waste treatment problems, identifying service areas,
making population disaggregations, and identifying necessary levels of treat-
ment. Often, however, where advanced waste treatment (AWT) appeared to be
necessary for the solution to a problem, further planning was required to
confirm the need.
Because the costs of AWT are potentially quite high, it is EPA policy that
proposed AWT projects undergo careful planning and review to justify proposed
levels of treatment. The role of the WQM program is to help establish a process
in each State to ensure that water quality standards, total maximum daily loads,
waste load allocations, and population/economic projections which drive facility
decisions are technically sound, and that financial arrangements and public
participation are equally sound. The process must consider point/nonpoint source
control tradeoffs, innovative or alternative technologies, and alternative approaches
such as water conservation.
To assist with development of State processes for municipal facility
planning EPA is funding about 15 AWT planning and review projects in FY 79
with 208 grants. In these projects, EPA, the States, areawide agencies,
local agencies, and the public will work together to arrive at site-specific
decisions. Starting in FY 80, point source projects are ineligible for
receiving 208 grants, but funding for AWT reviews will still be available
from 106 grants and, for waste load allocations in certain cases, from
201 grants. (For details on using 201 funds for waste load allocation work,
see the 201/WLA policy statement [7].) Although the WQM program won't be
using 208 funds for municipal waste treatment planning after FY 79, it will
have a major management involvement with the projects funded in FY 79, which
will continue through FY 81, and with projects funded with 106 and 201 funds.
Where waste treatment facilities are a high priority, EPA, the
States, and areawide agencies should determine the location, scope, and
funding of necessary planning projects in their State/EPA Agreement
negotiations. For these projects, EPA can provide financial management
assistance through the FMAP. The FMAP contract will work with planning
agencies during work plan development and project management to assist
with fiscal/financial aspects.
Another aspect of the WQM priority on waste treatment facilities is the
problem of pollution from malfunctioning septic systems. There are nearly 17
million septic systems nationwide producing about a trillion gallons of liquid
waste annually, with high growth rates in rural areas and on the urban fringe.
When septic systems are properly engineered and maintained, they are a safe,
economical, energy-efficient alternative to central sewage treatment. But when
they are not properly engineered ot» aintained, they may contaminate surface and
groundwaters with nitrates and pathogens. Also, replacing septic systems with
new interceptor and collector sewers can result in unplanned urban sprawl, loss
of prime farm land, and extreme economic impacts on homeowners. Sewage user
charges in some of these cases have reached $500 per year.
10
-------
Section 201(h) of the Act makes construction of alternative or uncon-
ventional treatment works for individual residences or clusters of residences
eligible for construction grants. Alternatives include, but are not limited
to, septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems, other on-site systems, cluster
systems, and pressure and vacuum sewers. Both private and public small alternative
wastewater systems are eligible under specific restrictions and conditions in the
Act, the construction grant regulations [16], and the construction grant program
guidance [17].
Given that the correction of failing septic systems is eligible (under
certain conditions) for construction grant funding, the role of the WQM program
is to work with the States on overall State management programs, to assist
with the development of State or local regulatory programs, and to help local
communities avoid both the water quality problems associated with failing
systems and the financial burdens which frequently accompany "sewer-and-treat"
solutions. As with the other priority problem areas, the Financial Management
Assistance Project (FMAP) will provide financial management technical assistance
to certain communities interested in mitigating the financial impacts of
controlling septic system problems.
11
-------
III. FUNDING
A. Description of Sources
Through the process of work plan development and State/EPA Agreement
negotiations, the States, areawide agencies, and EPA will develop and implement
a problem-solving process which utilizes all available sources of funding. This
approach will bring about significant program integration by matching the com-
plementary aspects of various EPA programs, State and local programs, and programs
of other Federal agencies such as USDA. Integrated programs will solve difficult
environmental problems at a lower overall cost to the public. (See the
State/EPA Agreement guidance [8]).
The WQM regulations [1] describe the major work elements States are
eligible to address in their work programs, and identifies the CWA
funding sources States may use to pay for these elements. (See Table I.)
Grants to areawide agencies are only for WQM planning under section 208
of the Act. However, areawide agencies and local management agencies may
receive pass-through funds from the States to perform specific duties
under sections 106, 205(g), 208, or 314 of the Act.
The following is a synopsis of each of the major funding sources
for the WQM process. Table II shows historic funding for FY 72-79 for
106 and 208 funds.
1. section 106
Section 106 provides for annual grants to State and interstate
agencies to assist them in administering programs for the prevention,
reduction, and elimination of pollution. 106 funds are used for opera-
tions and implementation activities, such as monitoring, evaluation,
enforcement and administration.
2. section 208
Section 208 provides grants to encourage and facilitate the "develop-
ment and implementation of areawide waste treatment management plans."
The section sets forth requirements for the designation of planning and
management agencies, for the contents of plans prepared under the program,
and for certification of completed plans. In accordance with the NRDC v.
Train [9] decision, EPA awards grants to States for planning in non-
designated areas of the State. WQM planning under section 208 is primarily
to solve priority problems through certified and approved WQM plans.
The role of WQM planning is to provide a technical base for controls,
investigate cause-effect relations, evaluate cost-effective solutions to
problems, and through the political process select the implementable
solutions.
12
-------
TABLE I
WQM WORK PROGRAM ELEMENTS*
With approval of the Regional Administrator after negotiation with the
State, the State may receive funding under this subpart for the follow-
ing elements (potential funding sources shown in brackets):
(1) Construction grants management (to the extent not funded under
subpart F), development of the fundable and extended portions
of the project priority list for construction grants under
§35.915 of subpart E, and management of pretreatment programs
[106, 208 as appropriate].
(2) Administration of permits programs, including programs under
sections 402 and 404 of the Act [106, 205(g)].
(3) WQM planning and certification [primarily 208; 106 where the
Regional Administrator determines appropriate; 205(g) for
development of the 208(b)(4) program].
(4) Water quality standards development, review, and revision
[106].
(5) Waste load allocation development, review, and revision [106].
(6) Nonpoint source management activities [106].
(7) Monitoring and assessment [106, 208, 314].
(8) Enforcement (including compliance assurance and litigation
support activities) [106].
(9) Training and facilities operation and maintenance [106].
(10) Emergency response programs [1061.
(11) Program Evaluation [106, 208].
(12) Administration of regulatory and other water quality control
programs [106].
(13) Planning for and coordination with section 208(j) programs
[106, 208].
(14) Program Administration [106, 205(g), 208].
(15) Public participation [106, 205(g), 208].
(16) Phase 1 and 2 activities for clean lakes [314].
* 40 CFR, Subpart G Part 35
13
-------
TABLE II
WQM FUNDINGFY 72-79
($ millions)
FY c
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
1 1.
ippropriated
15.0
20.0
40.0
48.5
50.0
50.0
52.4
52.4
j\j
obi igated
15.0
20.0
40.0
48.5
50.0
50.0
52.4
52.4
appropriated
. -.
50.0
100.0
150.0
53.0
15.0
69.0
32.0*
JO
obligated
__....
13.6
150.0
53.0
15.0
69.0
16.0**
* $2 million was taken for an Agency pay raise and is not
available for obligation
** as of July 9, 1979
14
-------
3. section 201
Section 201 establishes a grant program for construction of publicly-
owned treatment works (POTW's). EPA awards grants to owner/operators of POTVJ'5
in accordance with a five-year State Construction Grant priority list.
The Construction Grant process consists of three steps. Step 1
grants are for facility planning, Step 2 grants are for detailed plans
and specifications, and Step 3 grants are for actual construction. The
Step 1 facility plans are closely related to State and areawide WQM plans,
especially since the Act requires consistency between the two types of
plans. Facility planning may include pretreatment planning and water
quality analysis/waste load allocation work in some cases.
4. section 205(g)
Under section 205(g), States are delegated responsibility and awarded
funds to manage construction grants. The Administrator is authorized to
reserve each fiscal year two percent of a State's construction grant
allotment, or $400,000, whichever amount is greater. Once construction
management needs are satisfied, these funds may also be used to support
administration of NPDES permits (section 402), dredge/fill permits
(section 404), and dredge/fill regulatory programs under 208(b)(4).
5. section 314
Section 314 of the Act provides matching grants to States for the
operation of the Clean Lakes program. The objective of the Clean Lakes
program is to restore and protect water quality in publicly-owned fresh-
water lakes. A majority of the efforts are for restoring lake quality,
with added provisions for management practices to prevent problems from
recurring.
States apply for two types of grants under section 314. Phase I
grants support diagnostic feasibility studies to evaluate lake character-
istics and develop plans for restoration and preservation. Phase I grants are
70 percent Federal-share matching grants, with a limit of $100,000.
Phase II grants fund implementation of pollution control or restoration.
They are 50 percent-Federal-share grants.
All applications for Clean Lakes grants must be consistent with
State/EPA Agreements and applicable WQM plans.
6. section 208(j)
Section 208(j) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, with the
concurrence of the EPA Administrator, to establish and administer a
program to enter into 5-to-10 year contracts with owners or operators
of rural lands. The purpose of the program is to install and maintain
best management practices (BMP's) from certified/approved WQM plans.
15
-------
7. State and local
State and local governments both support and initiate environmental
programs. One aim of the WQM program is for State and local governmental
bodies to develop self-sustaining funding sources to help achieve water
quality goals.
Implementation and continuing planning responsibilities lie largely
with the States and localities. To alleviate financial barriers, WPD has
initiated the Financial Management Assistance Project to help agencies develop
management tools which will allow States, areawides, and the public to assume
responsibility for financial aspects of water quality projects.
8. other Federal sources
Many Federal agencies are involved in programs that impact WQM either
by providing grants or loans or by conducting related planning or data
collection. Some of the agencies involved in awarding grants and loans
are USDA (through ASCS, FHA, USFS, and SCS), EDA, HEW, DOI (through HCRS,
BOR, and F&WS), and DOE. Examples of agencies that conduct planning or
collect data are NOAA (CZM), USGS, DOT, and HUD. A good source of
information on programs of other Federal agencies is the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance. [10] EPA, States, and local agencies should
work with these Federal agencies at all levels to coordinate programs
so that their complementary features strengthen the WQM program.
B. Funding Policies--106 and 208 Grants
The funding policies of the WQM program are based on several overall
objectives. First, all program participants must be responsible for
stewardship of grant funds. Second, they should fund problem-solving
projects for priority problems that will be implemented. Third, they
should integrate and coordinate the WQM program to the extent feasible
with related EPA programs, other Federal programs, and State and local
programs.
The following paragraphs present an overview of WQM funding policy.
For details, see the supplemental WQM Guidance [3].
1. general policy--106 and 208
Beginning with FY 80, EPA will allocate section 106 and 208 funds,
to the extent feasible, on the basis of program needs and national
priorities. As soon as EPA, with State and areawide input, can conduct
appropriate analyses, it will develop needs-based procedures for allocating
106 and 208 funds.
16
-------
2. 208 policyState and areawides
EPA will award section 208 grants to both State and areawide agencies.
In FY 80 and beyond, these agencies may use 208 funds only for nonpoint source
problem-solving activities. Planning for point sources and general planning
activities (e.g., population projections, A-95 review) are not eligible for
208 funds after FY 79. Grants to States and areawides are subject to the
following policies:
o Implementation of plans is a prerequisite for receiving further
planning funds. Beginning in FY 80, EPA will not provide States
or areawides with additional funding if designated management
agencies are not implementing significant portions of the WQM
plans the State or areawide agencies developed.
o In accordance with the WQM regulations [1], EPA will not make
a 208 grant to any designated agency which does not have a
certified and approved WQM plan.
o As it has in the past, EPA will award funds to State and areawide
agencies based on priority needs. Regional Administrators should
determine if anticipated water quality benefits justify Federal
funding.
o The size of each grant and the activities the grant will support
will be determined through negotiations among EPA Headquarters
and Regions, States and designated areawide agencies.
o EPA may award grants for multi-year periods of performance, but
every grant agreement will include specific annual outputs. EPA
will use the outputs to evaluate grantee performance.
o EPA will not award grants to grantees without approved work
programs.
3. 208 policyStates only
In addition to the policies immediately above, State 208 grants are
subject to the following policies:
o Each State must be a party to a current State/EPA Agreement.
o Each State must have a five-year WQM strategy in accordance with
the WQM regulations [1].
17
-------
4. 106 policyStates and Interstate Basin Commissions
o Although EPA will allocate 106 funds to Regions with the existing
formula until EPA revises it or develops other allocation procedures,
Regional Administrators will base actual grant awards on needs
identified in the process of developing State/EPA Agreements.
o Awards of 106 funds to interstate commissions must be consistent
with the detailed provisions of the supplemental WQM guidance [3].
o Section 106 funds which become available as a result of 205(g)
delegations should be directed to priority activities identified
in the EPA Guidance or the State/EPA Agreement process. The
EPA Guidance to the States (April 1979) [11] directs States to use
106 funds for hazardous and toxic materials monitoring, spill
prevention, implementation of WQM plans, and State compliance
and enforcement activities.
C. Projected Funding
One purpose of the five-year strategy is to provide information on future
funding to assist EPA Regional, State, and areawide planning. Future funding
data is sketchy and subject to change. Nevertheless, it is necessary to attempt
to project funding levels to assist long-term planning.
1. FY 80
Table III shows individual State and interstate commission 106 targets
for FY 80. The projected total, $48.7 million, comes from the President's
FY 80 budget. The targets are not commitments or entitlements, but simply
guidelines. In the State/EPA Agreement process, States and EPA will negotiate
exact funding levels and outputs.
The projected 208 appropriation for FY 80 is $37.5 million, based on the
outcome of the House-Senate conference on the 208 appropriation. Of the $37.5
million, S12 million will be allocated to urban storm runoff projects. For
planning purposes only, Table IV presents Regional 208 targets for FY 80.
EPA will base actual allocations to the Regions on funding needs for nonpoint
source control priority programs.
The national priorities for 208 funding are urban storm runoff, nonpoint
sources, and groundwater as discussed previously under Funding Policy. Each
State should document its FY 80 208 funding priorities in its State/EPA
Agreement. WPD will review the priorities for FY 81 based on the findings
of the WQM Needs Assessment.
18
-------
TABLE III
STATE 106 TARGETS FOR FY 80
BASED Cd TOTAL APPROPRIATION OF $48.73 MILLION
($ MILLIONS)
Region
Region
Region
Region
Region
I CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
NEIWPCC
TOTAL
II NJ
MY
PR
VI
ISC
TOTAL
III DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
VI V
DRBC
INCOPQT
SRBC
TOTAL
IV AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
ORSANCO
TOTAL
V IL
IN
MI
MM
OH
WI
TOTAL
0.75
0.54
1.16
0.33
0.51
0.24
0.22
3.74
1.33
2 . 63
0.79
0.35
0.26
5.43
0.41
0.41
0.32
2.13
1.23
0.62
0.22
0.14
0.03
6.10
1.30
1.26
1.52
0.72
0.73
1.80
0.97
0.88
0.33
9.48
1.82
1.02
1.74
0.91
1.36
1.38
8.74
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
AR
LA
MM
OK
TX
TOTAL
I A
KS
no
NE
TOTAL
: co
VT
I;D
SD
UT
WY
TOTAL
AZ
CA
HI
NV
AS
GU
TT
TOTAL
AK
ID
OR
HA
TOTAL
0.72
0.82
0.28
0 . 54
1 .80
4.16
0.71
0.51
0.86
0.56
2.64
0.46
0.33
0.21
0.22
0.30
0.15
1 .68
0.40
2.37
0.34
0.17
0.08
0.36
0.16
4.38
0.15
0.38
0.80
1 .04
2.37
TOTAL 43.73
NOTE: columns may not sum
exactly due to rounding error
19
-------
TABLE IV
REGIONAL 208 TARGETS FOR FY 80
BASED ON TOTAL APPROPRIATION OF $37.5 MILLION*
($ MILLIONS)
Region I 1.139
Region II 2.422
Region III 2.221
Region IV 3.744
Region V 4.361
Region VI 3.018
Region VII 1.543
Region VIII 1.756
Region IX 2.960
Region X 2.336
* $12 million to be held at
Headquarters for NURP
funding during FY 80
20
-------
2. FY 81-84
Funding projections for FY 81-84 are based on projections in the President's
FY 80 budget. Projections for 106 remain at about $50 million. Although EPA
will be reviewing WQM needs, hopefully to arrive at a needs-based method for
adjusting the 106 allocation formula, EPA does not anticipate that changes for
individual States would be substantial. The needs-based approach should not
affect gross funding levels as much as priorities within existing levels.
As discussed under Management Priorities, completion of the 208 grant
portion of the WQM program is scheduled for FY 83. Headquarters will provide
guidance regarding the phase-out of 208 grants well in advance of FY 83. Funding
projections for 208 over the remaining years are $50 million annually. EPA
will spend a percentage of this total directly for urban runoff projects
through FY 81.
IV. STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
This section of the strategy presents five discussions of strategic
directions for the WQM program. These are new and cross-cutting policies
which relate to all the management priorities and problem priorities,
above. Several of the following discussions (e.g., water quality/quantity
relationships) are open-ended, indicating that WQM policy in these areas
is still in the formative stage.
A. Toxics
The WQM program role in controlling toxics is to help control toxic
substances before they enter the environment. The program's involvement in
toxic controls has increased because of EPA actions underway in accordance with
the NRDC consent decree [12]--establishment of toxic effluent guidelines, pre-
treatment standards, and water quality criteria. These actions related to the
consent decree place an increasing burden on 106 grants as EPA, the States, and
others gear up to attack the complex problem of toxic controls.
In FY 80 and beyond, EPA will devote much effort to laying the groundwork
for toxic controls. The agency will promulgate toxic water quality criteria
and begin to make adjustments in its water quality standards, monitoring,
permits, and enforcement programs to better control toxic wastes.
21
-------
Two of the most critical pathways by which toxics enter the environment
are WQM priority problems: urban storm runoff and nonpoint sources. For this
reason, the urban runoff and agricultural nonpoint source prototype projects
will assess toxic contributions to pollution and attempt to determine feasible
controls (BMP's). Also, the groundwater prototype projects will address toxic
pollutants and their controls. These efforts will be coordinated with other
toxic control programs through the process of negotiating State work programs
and State/EPA Agreements,
B. Hater Conservation
Both municipal and agricultural water conservation practices can have a
large impact on water quality, since for both surface and groundwaters, suf-
ficient quantity is a major consideration in preserving quality.
The WQM regulations [1] require State an^ areawide WQM agencies to consider
water conservation needs related to water quality in their problem assessment
processes, for the purposes of increasing treatment plant efficiency and/or
reducing raw water withdraw!s.
Where problem assessments identify overuse of water as the cause of major
water quality problems, water conservation may well be the most cost-effective
solution. Water conservation, therefore, is a tool for solving water quality
problems. Indeed, many best management practices (BMP's) for irrigated agri-
cultural have essential water conservation components.
Thus, WQM agencies may promote the use of water conservation practices
through application of BMP's and also through their key role of educating and
informing the public on water quality issues.
r. Nonpoint Source Control on Federal Lands
A vast amount of acreage in the West is Federally-owned. Much mining,
silviculture, and agriculture takes place on Federal lands, with associated
water quality impacts. Section 304(k) of the Act authorizes $100 million
per year for the Departments of Interior, Agriculture, Army and others to
control nonpoint source pollution on Federally-owned land, but to date,
the Congress has appropriated no funds.
Section 313 of the Act and paragraph 35.1531-3 of the WQM regulations
[1] state that Federal responsibilities in the control and abatement of
water pollution are the same as for any non-governmental body. The WQM
program will rely on the EPA Regions and the States to ensure that
Federal agencies implement nonpoint source controls on their lands. The
State/EPA Agreement will provide the States, Regions, and other Federal
agencies with the opportunity to identify problems and assign responsi-
bilities for controlling such pollution.
22
-------
D. Urban Strategy
EPA's Administrator, in recent policy guidance, urged EPA programs
to continue to implement urban initiatives and develop new and innovative
solutions for urban problems. The WQM program is contributing to the urban
strategy through its national priority efforts to control urban storm and
construction runoff and to solve difficult municipal treatment system
problems. The WQM regulations [1] state that WQM plans shall assess the
impact of plan provisions on urban development and contain measures for
mitigation of adverse impacts.
Water Planning Division's Financial Management Assistance Project
(FMAP) will also contribute to solutions for urban problems, since it
will assist municipal sewage agencies in identifying and implementing
cost-effective approaches which minimize the fiscal impacts on local
economies. By carefully reviewing system capacities, designs, and costs,
State and local planning agencies will, in many instances, save money for
urban taxpayers.
E. Water Quality/Quantity Relationships
The use and allocation of water can directly impact water quality.
Surface and groundwater interact hydrologically both in terms of quality
and quantity. Effective water quality management requires conjunctive
management of both surface and groundwaters.
State and areawide WQM agencies and State and local water resources
agencies should coordinate their programs to promote management of the
total water resource. EPA is preparing two reports to the Congress
containing policy options and Agency recommendations on quality/quantity
coordination: the 102(d) report [13] and the 1442(c)/516(e) study [14].
Where water allocation or quantity considerations directly affect
water quality, WQM agencies should address them. Such efforts are a
legitimate use of funds (sections 106 and 208). Further efforts to
coordinate quality and quantity considerations will be recommended in
the final 102(d) and 1442(c)/516(e) reports.
23
-------
V. OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this section of the WQM Strategy is to give the major
participants in the WQM processHeadquarters, Regions, States, and areawide
agenciesa firm idea of EPA's expectations for FY 80-84 for solving the
priority problems. As the strategy states elsewhere, the emphasis of the
program over the next five years is on problem solving. The program will
solve problems by building the technological base for control and, through
the political process, selecting and implementing cost-effective solutions.
The major underlying assumption within the objectives is that the use
of section 208 grants will be completed in FY 83, implying sunset for 208
grants in FY 84. This assumption, in turn, depends on two assumptions:
(1) section 208 will receive full funding in FY 80-83, (2) States and area-
wides will assume more responsibility for planning and decision-making
After FY 83, EPA will make recommendations for restructuring the WQM
program. Nonpoint sources will be the major focus of the restructured
program, since there will still be many nonpoint sources needing controls
at that time.
The objectives related to solving the priority problems appear on the
following pages. For each problem area, there is a statement of an overall
objective, a set of related "givens," and examples of how the objectives will
be met. Detailed objectives follow for each problem in a matrix format. The
matrices do not show all activities that will be occurring in FY 80-84. Instead,
they show specific concrete targets or sub-objectives which will contribute to
the attainment of the overall objectives.
The problem areas are the same as the priorities in Section II, except
that construction runoff and septic systems appear separately. In Section II,
they appear in the discussions of nonpoint sources and waste treatment facili-
ties, respectively.
24
-------
Urban Storm Runoff
Overall Objective
- - ' ~' - j »
The overall objectives for urban storm runoff in FY 80-84 are (1) to
develop a technological base for control by the end of FY 82, (2) to make
a report to Congress on effects, causes and controls in FY 83, and (3) to
make the transition from prototype planning projects to widespread imple-
mentation in FY 81-83, assuming that the prototype projects identify a set
of feasible and cost-effective BMP's that can be transferred to other areas.
Given
2.
In FY 79-80, EPA through the National Urban Runoff Program will
fund with 208 grants about 30 carefully-selected prototype projects
to test USR BMP's.
The projects will generally last three years, but EPA will usually
fund them on a year-to-year basis.
3. Funds for urban storm runoff programs will come directly from the
national 208 appropriation.
4. EPA will provide expert technical and financial management assistance
to agencies exploring solutions to urban storm runoff problems through
FY 82. Existing contracts run through FY 82.
Examples
Altogether, EPA will fund 30 urban storm runoff prototype projects under
the NURP. All of the projects focus on testing various BMP's (detention basin
storage, street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, sewer flushing) and determining
their impacts on water quality. These projects will enhance the possibilities
of urban storm runoff control nationwide by filling in the data gaps in WQM
plans and developing transferrable controls.
In Washington State, three communities are already implementing urban run-
off BMP's. Snohomish County is initiating adoption of storm drainage/erosion
control ordinances and initiating an inspector training program. Clark County
is purchasing property for retention basins and will implement BMP's recommended
in the 208 plans. Seattle Metro is adopting ordinances leading to the establish-
ment of stormwater drainage districts and starting a salmon enhancement program
as part of a broad water quality project to rehabilitate urban streams.
EPA and the State will monitor the effectiveness of these various urban
storm runoff controls and, to the extent they prove effective, see that other
State and local governments put their findings to use.
25
-------
to
I <
co n:
i
>-
LUN~\OO
CD
C/O
i
i
x
K
I
<
en
OJ
<
Qi
C5
O
o:
Q_
UJ
>
u
LU
CQ
O
CtL
LU
CO
CO
u_
CM
CO
CO
u.
0
CO
,_
u_
CTi
(-->,
l_i_
n of report to Congress on complete program present findings to
tion effects, causes, and assessment, evaluation Congress, mid-83, with
controls for urban runoff v recommendations
develop recommended
f and begin to transfer info to national urban runoff
ral other Federal, State, control program
O fO
£ E
03 O
zi M-
= £
ra <- rtJ
> s-
CU CL CT)
0 0
>> s-
i. CD CL
03 >
c o> s-
p- -CJ CD
E 4-
r- - (/I
to C
03
1_ ftj S-
CLTD 4->
4-> £
cn
O co O
Q.4-J CL
03
OJ 4-J ^£
Q_ L/I $_
>-> O
O co
4-J C JZ
S££
Q. CT 3
at
4-J a: 4->
OJ J= -^
i 4-J CO
CU - I/)
co 5 ^
O
CO
VI
OJ
C
ZJ
CJ-
n)
zj
ra
>
CD
QJ
C
CD
C71
S-
o
C|_
co
4-J
C
OJ
E
OJ
O.
CZ (0
zs c
^ 0
OJ 4-J
4-1 -r-
fT5 "O
c -a
r- (Q
o
i. 4-J
0 U
Q ai
a i
-v a>
O) 0s
Ol
fT3 CL
C i
CO
O-T-
O co
I CO
CD 03
>
CD JZ
"O U
a>
« 4-J
CO
4-» CD
u -a
CD T-
--) >
2 £
Q. CL
4-J
S_
O
CL
2
>^
i,
rti
C
S
CD
i_
CL
CL
>,
4-J
o
4-J
o
s_
CL
OJ
01
fX3
C
fO
E
4^
U
(U
r-5
O
CL
13
CL
>*.
4-J
O
4->
O
i_
Q.
*->
CU
CU
eo
CD
CD
(j
C
-f
0 4-»
S- fO
CL 3
4->
CO
CO
fa en
E
« ro
co S.
0) cn
4-> O
03 S-
4-> CL
_^
- S-
CT O
-C J=
4-J 4-J
2 2
"S
<4-
^j
C
QJ
~o
o
4-J
OJ
CU
c
fO
_c
V)
CU en
(_) Q_
c s;
OJ CQ
cn
OlX CL
ai err CL
en
4-1
05
cn
s-
03
2
3 03
E
-r-
O U
s- c
CL 03
c
o «-
4-» M-
C_ S-
i
r- 4-J
C O
-C -t-J
U 0
CD S-
4J CL
0)
CL
>»
4->
O
4-*
O
i_
CL
4->
ZJ
O
CD
en
O
U
en
+J
U
CD
'}
O
s_
Q.
C
ft)
.0
i_
ZJ
JZ
4->
S
CO
OJ
r
U
C
CD
cn
(O
CL
O-
fO
to
^_
jQ
O
1-
a.
4-
M-
O
C
ZJ
s-
C
OJ
C1J
Q.
S
eo
CL.
s:
CO
c
ra
CO
E
(O
S-
co
o
S-
Q.
>,
S-
0
4-^
ftJ
ZJ
en CO
O
i_
4-J
C
O
u
r
fa
i.
n
4-J
U
S
4->
CO
ZJ
S-
^:
-M
CU
4-J
fO
s_
Q.
O
i_
CL
CL
fO
other agencies with urb
runoff problems begin t
apply tested BMP's if
orototypes are successf
C
o
*
^1-
co
crt U O i-
«- - Q. jC
CJ i t/l 4-J
OJ -Q -, ^-o
- ^
o a, o i o >
^-2:00^- c
CLcD-MvlCL -r-
en
OJ
CL >,
>> i-
(/l 4-> O Q-
en - O co o
- S C o > 'QJ
U CO O ^- ~O ~>
c: ei_ CL nj QJ
CD 4-1 C "O
O"> en < 4-J _c
fQ CU ZI 4-* *
a. OJ *
aj
aj * tn
i COC
O-i-CLOJ
CL O
>> 4-»
4J 4->
>1 U 4->
3 O
CL u
26
-------
Agriculture NPS
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for controlling agriculture nonpoint sources
are (1) to immediately implement BMP's contained in certified/approved WQM
plans with State and local initiatives and with the assistance of Agricul-
ture Conservation Program (ACP) and Rural Clean Water Program (208(j)) funds
and (2) to continue to develop the technological and institutional bases
for controls through pilot and prototype projects throughout the five-year
period of this strategy.
Given
1. The RCWP program, which USDA has responsibility for administering,
will receive funding from the Congress in FY 80 and beyond.
2. At the State level, the State Conservationist, SCS, will set up a
State Rural Clean Water Coordinating Committee.
3. RCWP cost-sharing contracts will have a five-to-ten year life
and will be for implementing BMP's identified in certified/approved
WQM plans.
4. EPA will cooperate with USDA on funding and management of several
types of pilot/prototype projects on agricultural nonpoint source
control:
--MIP's (Model Implementation Projects)
--ACP (Agriculture Conservation Program) special water
qua!ity projects
other types of USDA projects
The projects are 3-5 year projects to test the cost-effectiveness
of BMP's. EPA will transfer results to all States and areawide
agencies as they come in.
5. EPA will provide expert technical and financial management assistance
for agencies addressing agricultural nonpoint source problems.
6. EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the State/EPA
Agreement process to agree upon where agriculture nonpoint source
problems exist, where to implement pilot projects, and what assist-
ance is needed from EPA, USDA, and others.
27
-------
Example
One of the first MIP projects which EPA and USDA initiated is located
on a 287,000 acre area in Delaware County, New York. The area has a large
concentration of dairy farms, and large amounts of sloping cropland and
forest with erosion problems, both contributing to water quality degradation
in the Cannonsville Reservoir, one of the major dams supplying water to New
York City.
Although the reservoir has been in use only since 1964, the water
quality is deteriorating and the City does not use all the water it could
from Cannonsville. The water has taste and odor problems from severe
summer and fall algae blooms.
BMP installation in the 450 square mile watershed started in the
spring of 1978, and is proceeding well. Participation of local farmers
has been excellent. In one part of the watershed, 37 of 43 farmers agreed to
participate in the evaluation of BMP's. Most of the BMP's are animal waste
facilities, with an average cost per farm of about $3,500.
Since the watershed is representative of much of the Northeast's dairy
country, EPA will monitor and evaluate the BMP's and determine their effects
on water quality so that the results of the project can be transferred to
other similar watersheds. Both EPA and USDA are contributing about a mil-
lion dollars each over the next three-to-five years to support the project.
Both the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS) are providing support.
28
-------
s:
OL.
0
Q_
21
2
C/O
Q_
LJJ
X3
1
1
=D
<_>
N -
cc
CO
1
1
X
>
CtC
t-
Z
LU
ECTIV
CQ
O
/APPROVED WQM PLANS WITH STATE AND
CONSERVATION PROGRAM (AC?) AND RURAI
DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGICAL AND INSTI
ROJECTS.
Q 1 O 0-
LU < I
i C£ LU
LL. _3 LU O-
P _JZ l
ce zi o
LU CJ r r
o s: o
c: o or
Z. O CJ 0.
<
O Q
OU. H Z
LU O <
z ^
LUCNI 1-
< U^ O
t- Z _1
Z X
CO CO CO CS
- CO Q =3
D_ < Z O
S Z) CC
02 LU LL. X
X h-
H- I- -
z «-> c/3
LU X "3 1
2: (' o
LU -co ce
Q- '~N1 Z
s: Q- - o
Z CJ
^ ^
> < C£
_i co or o
Hi ni tn u
r- > 0
< CL. CO
1 Q- LU
Q < co
LU ~- ce
1-
<_)
-3
CO
O
_l
_l
<£
LU
>
0
>-
u_
CsJ
CO
>-
LI-
CO
^
LU.
UP** prepare national MIP**
summary report
^.
c 4-j
o s-
r- O
ro QJ
C S-
OJ >>
S- i-
O- S
-
Ll_
QJ Q_
u_ 3
o .*
s- cc: QJ
QJ QJ
.C . 4->
-U ro 4-J
O C -i-
° §
4-* 4J O
- ro CJ
2 C
cn
QJ C C
4-> O T-
CL 1/1 ra
r- CJ C
CJ 'I '
-r- O -O
4-> C i-
i- QJ O
ra cn o
u_ ra cj
cn
r^.
>-
u_
'-'
TvT
s
o
CM
CL
CL E
O ro
QJ Ol
> o
OJ S-
-a CL
vi
s_
QJ
4->
4-J S-
r i ro
c 3
13 CT
a
ra
OJ
-X
*
4:
CL
4-1 . l/l
§S: 4-1
CJ
- OJ
< 0- 0
ra 2 s-
C 0 CL
o ce
'r~~ t
4-1 <4- ra
C LJ- .
* ai *r
OJ 0) CLCO
O -r~ l/l
> £* 2
o aj a_ x:
Q. 0 e£^
CO 1
LO £X C
OJ Z. (O
+-> C
rO QJ
-C 4-» S_ 4-
u t/i rs
t. +j cn
fO -^ C
QJ (/I 3 -i-
Ul C U "O
t -2 T 5
en cn u
*-» OJ fO C
r- CL ""
O JT O "
r- QJ r
QJ 2 > O
cn aj s-
ra ^c -o -t->
C i. C
ra o o o
E 3 -4-J u
Ul S-
Ci. JO
3 4
o
« £. E
r Q> QJ
u +->
QJ 4J 1-0
Q- i
,
QJ -r- i.
-a i. ui
a. t.
< QJ
S JZ QJ
O 'f ' »
3 S «=r
i- O ra CO
O ra S-
Ul If- ^1
-4-> C > -M
C_J »i QJ « f
O-r S_ ra ui
Ul CO QJ 4J QJ
rO 4- CO »
p ui u
r W C " C
rO .C fO "O QJ
^ 4-J s- QJ cn
O ^ 4-> U_ rC
> QJ
M tf- >
t-J (J -i QJ
O QJ +J "O
QJ -«-5 C
p O QJ TJ
QJ i- T3 C
t/l CL i ro
C
rO
S-
4J
o
c
>, Ul
+> -a ui cn
r- CU OJ C
i-
I Z O. 13
-C QJ -M
CDr- ,_ s- C
r- ra .a o QJ
_C t- fO M- E
>,-t-> -r- Ul r ^>
H- i rO -CJ CLCO
r- 13 > C £
-t-> u na 3 *- 3
C: -r- 4- i-
oj s- -a "a -c
a cn c i*- c +>
4->
c
=«= a;
Q_ £
3 ui
* C_J Ul
a. o: QJ
o -~ »
<: s- 4J
QJ U U
cn QJ C Ul
O 'r- QJ
i_ CL+J -*->
O- OJ C -P
o
ra c
>, S- ra
'QJ -P 'a.
-r->
ra 3 SI
£ U O*
xT3
ecnu-
rO O
Q.
CLi Ul
rO fO 4->
C C
QJ O QJ
> - C
0 4-> O
1- -i- Q.
CLT3 E
Q-T3 O
n3 n3 U
t/i
C
O
cn
OJ
ce
-W ro
ui 3
ui ro
V) >
ro QJ
QJ
ro i
4-> !-
r-
3 ra
U
O QJ
o t.
^ 0-r
Ul CO
* -K 3
* 0. S-
0-
31 QJ
C
ro
C I
ro CM
E
O
CXJ
>^
"aj
4-J
X ui
O +-»
s- u
CL QJ
ra O
Oj CL
O =te
1- Q_
0.3
CLO
i.
Ul
4->
""I
o
CL
CO
>> i-
r- QJ
QJ -M
4-> ra
03 2
£
r- -K
X Q-
O CJ
s- '
QJ r Q_ ra VI
£ S- c cn vi ra
3 O O VI S-
CL4-> *r- &_ c c: a.
S- -r- CO E- O QJ
0 S- OJ/r- E S.
-M Cfl 3 Ul 4-> QJ QJ
- ro S- C ro Ql 4->
C -C O 4-» fQ rfl
§M- 4-i O C C 3J
O - ' QJ E '- O
1 i 4-> i " ' U
i CL u 3 c i
3 OJ U ra ra
US 4-> -r-i -i- QJ C S-
1-0* U O S- T3 -r- Z3
s-3 ojs- cnou-o:
QJ
>
CU
>*
c
ra
Ul
i_
C 4 r
4- GJ S-
QJ C C
o ra o
i- 4-> U
> Ul
O -i- (/I
t- ui a_
a. ui z
ra
-M -4-J f
< r CO
S 3
U_ rfl U ZJ
CU U S- ^
ui c cn 4->
4-J
o
QJ
O
s-
CL
>,
^
ra
3
o~
cn u- CL II
~O > ro Q_ Q_
QJ t/l QJ C_) *
4-J 4-J VI VI » QJ CO CO
4^ r-
+J ro 1- 3 ro QJ
i- !- JC U r >
QJ 3 4J O fQ QJ
S- 1 S- 4->
O r- 3 ra
ex cn CL 4-> »- r
c ^s r -M ra
rd 4-> u c: u
i_ 03 QJ -t- *^ -r- QJ
3 ui c: cn i. co CL
4-> C ro cn - vi
i ro "O C ra 3 *
3 ' i- ra S- * *
DO- OE4-JZ V)Q_
i- O O 4-> - O
s_ 2; o * - a. «c
cnCr ui c i*
ra3 CL.QJOU1 ST2
3 QJ -^- - QJ Ul
>>4_ CJ 4-> 4_1 CL. -M C; 4-J
4-O CC4->ros; U U
f- -i- 4J CQ 3 LO QJ
s-c s-Ecuoo cTo
QJO ^roEQ- oc\ji-
U-r- 4->CJQj2: Ui CL
I Ul 4-> - - ^
~O -M O r U" Ul
i- u *i- 3 a- 4->
O OJ i VI QJ S_ U)
O .Q CZ 4-> O U)
CJ o 3 o 4-J CL QJ
s_ CL u -r- aj c ^
=tt= ui o. E ^- QJ "3"
Q_ aj E * E > CO
3QJ ^*te Cuiovi'r-
CJ4-J CL. OOJUV1U13
t*-4-J 3 M-CL QJC^-
r- CJ C>>>lS-O.C
o= cc: -i-+->i_cnCL4-J
<53~ E O O O VI ^
O O TD 4-J VI S_ QJ
^r cj cxj CO---CLS-V)
Ul rD i- > QJ
i C > >, ro O S- i-
jD-r- O 4--M ^raro
fO4-J i- -<-3-C:QJCLE
*->ra CL 4->O4-J>oj£
uic CL o .0 QJ S- 3
QJ-i ro Cro3-OClUl
T3
C OJ Ul
H3 T? OJ
QJ 5 0
4-» ra C
rO CJ QJ
-*-> s- cn
CO ra ro
1 1
a. a_
«t 3
S O
U_ Ct
-h ^tfc
-C ui
!j! « 0
4-> -r- i_
U 4->
c c c:
r- ro O
fO C 0
4-> -i-
-a 4- 4-
o o
O O ui
4-) 4-J
OJ O
4- U OJ-^-
a_ c; CLI
«C ra Ul CO
S -M ro
U. Ul 3
QJ ui e .c
ui ui cn -*-1
3 ra E- '
29
-------
Silviculture NPS
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for controlling silviculture nonpoint source pol-
lution are (1) to implement the EPA/FS Agreement [15], (2) to implement, starting
in FY 80, BMP's contained in certified and approved plans, with the assistance
of the RCWP (208(j)) and other forestry assistance programs, and (3) to continue
developing technological and institutional bases for controls through pilot and
prototype projects.
Given
1. The RCWP program, which USDA has responsibility for administering,
will receive funding from the Congress in FY 80 and beyond.
2. RCWP cost-sharing contracts will have a five-to-ten year life and
will be for implementing BMP's identified in certified/approved
WQM plans.
3. EPA will cooperate with the USDA on funding and management of
several types of pilot/prototype projects on silviculture non-
point source control:
--ACP (Agriculture Conservation Program)
--FIP (Forest Incentive Program)
--State WQM plan/State Forest Resource Program
The projects are long-term projects to test the cost-effectiveness
of BMP's. EPA will transfer the results to all States and areawide
agencies as they come in.
4. The EPA/FS Agreement [15] provides the mechanism for the two
agencies to work together to achieve common goals.
5. EPA will provide expert technical and financial management
assistance for agencies addressing silviculture nonpoint source
problems.
6. EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the
State/EPA Agreement process to agree upon where silviculture
pollution problems exist, where to implement pilot projects,
and what assistance is needed from EPA, USDA, FS and others.
Examples
As a result of initial WQM planning, silvicultural BMP's are being established
in most States where the plans have identified silvicultural problems. In South
Carolina, for example, the State assigned a full-time forester to initiate BMP
implementation in the Broadway Lake Model Implementation Project (MIP). Through
the forester's actions, the State has made 39 landowner contracts, produced 10
30
-------
land management plans for 850 acres, installed 40 miles of firebreaks, and
prepared and planted 1,200 acres of land under cooperative forestry programs.
In Oregon, the State passed a State Forest Practices Act in 1972 which
was the first of its kind in the country. The law established a mechanism
for implementing the approved silvicultural aspects of 208 plans. The
Governor designated the Oregon State Forestry Department as the management
agency and designated the Forest Service (USDA) and the Bureau of Land
Management (Interior) as the implementation agencies for Federal lands in
their jurisdiction. EPA will monitor the success of different State programs,
and encourage other States to adopt similar programs based on proven approaches.
31
-------
CO
O_
M 01
U OJ
>
O) -f- S-
S -t~> fa
oo
i
i
X
00
LLi
>
CQ
O
U r
O O)
-o s-
3 TO
U i
O OJ
01
4-> -
(O
O) O>
(J S-
I C 3
c ra 4->
O -C in CO
s- u
Q. OJ C71 3
4-> C S_
O - -C
-*-> 4J Q.-4-J
E C^-
+ Oli
Q. E OJ W
f> i
r- C
C O
QJ T
§-(-> f
tJ O)
U r- >
o oj at
TD S_ r-
5
OJ i
4-) CJ O) CQ
i/) L.
a- o
3 M-
Se.
CD O"
r _
Q. CTJ
E «=C
i O
CO
o
o:
a.
h-
o
LU
03
o
-J
<
c:
32
-------
Construction Runoff
Overall Objective
The overall objective for construction runoff is for all States with
construction runoff problems to have regulatory programs in place by the end
of FY 83. Needs for 208 grants for construction runoff planning should, how-
ever, be minimal in FY 80 through 83.
Given
1. Many States already have adequate controls for construction runoff.
2. Feasible BMP's exist.
3.
4.
5.
Examples
Obstacles to implementation of construction runoff controls tend
to be fiscal, political and institutional in nature.
EPA will provide expert financial management technical assistance
to agencies developing regulatory programs for construction runoff.
EPA will also conduct technical symposia in States requesting or
needing them.
EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the State/EPA
Agreement process to document where construction runoff problems
exist and what actions each party will take.
In North Carolina, the State passed a tough erosion and sediment and control
law in 1973. For any public or private project in the State involving the
disturbance of an acre or more of land, the developer must first prepare an
acceptable erosion and sediment control plan.
The law allows cities and counties to develop their own erosion control
programs. Presently, 19 municipalities and 16 counties have such programs,
and in those jurisdictions the State does not review erosion control plans
unless State or Federal funds finance the project. In jurisdictions having
no erosion control programs, the State reviews plans for all projects. North
Carolina's erosion control program is flexible and performance-oriented. The
State encourages developers to use their imagination to install any erosion
control measures that will do the job.
EPA will attempt to transfer the knowledge gained in North Carolina to
other States with similar circumstances, to help meet the overall objective
of having regulatory programs in place by the end of FY 83 wherever construction
runoff problems exist.
33
-------
E r
O TO
CO
o
ce
a.
E O
CU S-
+-> m
a. c co
o
3
o:
l
CO
z
o
CJ
X
co
LU
o
=> -IN-V
ce _ioo
= «^ 5
CD o: u_ >-
0 "-
1 U- LU
< > O
=3 00
Oi Q
1 z
OO U- LU
2: LU
O O LU
(_> Z Z
1 3 1
i a:
x >
Z PQ
o: o
|_ _ UU
< 1 CJ
s; o <
n i
CO C£. Q-
LU 1-
> «z g
H 0 "" >-
O O CO '
LU s:
-) c; <
CQ O C£
O LU O
LU
>
1
CJ
LU
-J
oa
o
_i
_i
<
or
LU
>
O
o
cc
Q.
ct symposia on
3
TD
C
O
u
>-
cc
o
H-
<
_l
r>
C3
LU
ce
1 1 1
> <*
< l^-
LU ~ ul
X O
\
LU
>
t
CJ
LU
~"3
CQ
O
1
^_
o
t/>
+-)
i.
o
M-
4_
OJ
>T:
+->
c
I/I
3
u
o
M-
I c
0)
C CO
3
<+- s_
M- .c
o +->
c -
3
S- VI
V)
C
o
u
c
o
-M
U
3
i_
+j
o
u
c
o
K
Q_
<:
s:
Li_
M
3
O
JD
fO
LO
o
S-
+->
c
o
u
*4-
**-
o
c
3
i.
ft)
O O)
+-> S-
OJ iTJ
en*
T3 0_ "
OJ '"»
- s: oj r
3 U_ +J CO
O CO
C E +-» 3
^ O OO 1-
i- jz
S_ M_ * 4-)
OJ i/l - '
^ -a c
VI
c
informa
u
JD
13
CL
develop
CJ O
C "- OJ
r- cn-o
rO OJ -r-
0>c£ 5
M-
M_
O
c
3
i-
c
o
-4->
(J
3
S-
i-J
VI
c
O ul
u -
Q.
c s:
O CO
4>>
C
4_) OJ
U I M-
0; 5.4-
r 0> O O
OJ Q.4- vi -Q J3 i C LO
(/lO^E T-UCU3E
« OT3 >OJ>i-(T3
"OJCt- O4-»0) i-
v>>3Oi i- -occn
OJ OJ S- O Q--*-> O O
-M TJ S- £ C -- S-
to co. ocno+->o.
-4-> O O -ME U
UO -*-> -r- >, QJ = >,
+J S-^ - * r U S- !»<-
"U1UOCSJ Q_(OC+->O'
O"OJ3-«->CO ct-r-rtSVl+JCO
rr-T-i-ftJ zu-MCfo
U-Mr 3 U. C Ul O 33
jT-CVlZ3i- ra -r- U 3 i-
4-) oj c cn^c qj c vi CT.C
f-cnOOJ+J vi-r-tnM-OJ-*-)
3K rQ (J t- 3 4 fO O i-
C -t-5
o c:
-- OJ
4J E
O vi
3 VJ
S- QJ
-(-J VI
V) I/I
C ro
0
U £
a)
+J jQ
(O O
M i-
l/l d.
5 4-
0) H-
r- O
> c
QJ n
S- S-
VI
c
op implementation ol
;ion controls in addit
OJ
>
aj
o
V)
c
o
C7l
CU
cc
cr
z
^1
4->
i
CD
S_
OJ
-C
^
VI
fO
OJ
t_
03
>,
+J
C
OJ
-o
mplement construct
-o
c:
H3
M-
U-
O
C
13
i_
C
O
u
constn
CJ
CO
3
s_
J=
+J
VI
OJ
4-)
03
4-J
t/^
>>
fU
:f controls; especi
icial aspects
O 03
C C
3 -
S- 4-
4->
o
OJ
-a
OJ
GJ
C
OJ
S-
03 cr
v^
control
proted
CX CD
0 >
OJ O
5 S
"O VI -t V)
E vi
V) O3 "O OJ
OJ i- C U
+» CT O3 O
03 O S-
-4-) S. U Q-
co Q. .-
r CD
>i ju c:
iTJ S- 3 -r-
c o a. c
O 4-J C
r- fO E O3
>- 3 O CL
T3 CTl 4-
-o cu c c
03 S- -i -r-
o
ce
Q_
- T- U
o
01
LU
>
O
CU 3 U
4-j ta c:
ft3 CU CU
4-J i- en
34
-------
Groundwater
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for groundwater protection are (1) to develop an
EPA and WQM groundwater policy and strategy and (2) to continue to develop
technological and financial bases for controls through pilot and prototype
projects.
Given
1.
4.
5.
Examples
WPD has contracted with a national team of groundwater technical
experts to assist in the development of agency and WQM ground-
water strategies, to assist in the development and implementation
of prototype projects at Regional Office request, and to provide
technical assistance as necessary.
WPD will coordinate with the Offices of Drinking Water and Solid
Waste to produce a comprehensive integrated policy.
EPA HQ, the Regions, and the States will select approximately
10 prototype projects for more detailed assistance to develop
BMP's which can be transferred nationally.
The FMAP will provide financial management technical assistance
to prototype projects in developing an implementable national
policy.
EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the State/
EPA Agreement process to document where groundwater quality
problems exist and what actions each party will take.
EPA, the State of New York, and the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board
have developed, through the 208 program, a management program to protect ground-
water on Long Island, N.Y. Groundwater beneath Nassau and Suffolk Counties is
the only source of fresh water for three million people. (It was designated
a sole source aquifer in 1978 pursuant to SDWA, section 1424(e).) Water quality,
not quantity, is the major limiting factor.
The Nassau-Suffolk County 208 program recommended over 100 actions to
address identified ground and surface water quality problems. Some of the
recommendations have already been implemented and the thrust of the continuing
208 program is to seek implementation for the remainder. Some examples of
implementation actions the local governments are taking are banning septic
tank cleaners, preparing new regulations governing underground chemical storage,
and revising regulations to control pollution from animal wastes, as follows:
35
-------
To protect groundwater from certain carcinogens, the Nassau-Suffolk 208
program recommended the elimination of the sale and use of household drain
and septic tank cleaners. As a result, septic cleaners are banned for sale
on Long Island.
The initial 208 effort called for tougher standards to regulate leaking
storage tanks. As a result, several local governments, including Suffolk
County and the towns of Hempstead and Islip have changed their regulations
and toughened standards for in-ground storage tanks.
For animal wastes, municipalities on Long Island are reviewing and revising
regulations to obtain better control of nitrate loads. Most municipalites have
eliminated laws which force pet owners to curb their dogs, a practice which in
turn forces animal wastes into storm sewers.
Through projects like this one on Long Island, EPA will gain enough experience
with solutions to groundwater quality problems to develop a national groundwater
policy and strategy which will be a part of the restructured WQM program after
FY 83.
36
-------
Q.
O
LU
Q
O
I-CO
LU CJ
ID LU
t-cc.
Z 0.
o
O LU
0.
o >-
h-H
o
^-v h-
CNI O
or
CL
Q
ZQ
ID I-
LU O
CU r 1 '
sa ai
*
J
10 C C
4-> E O
>>*-* CU
O rd (J
^ N C
r -1- 3
«3t»
C i- S-
O CU O
S s- o
$0. 14-
g c
ID S- -
t. CU
4- 4J i.
m 3 cu
Q. S 5 H-
O ^? C (/)
CU 3 - iQ
> O 3! *-
CU S-
IO C
c c S~
*a o CTCO
c 1-
3
C ^ C
i-^fl-^.
-t-»o*c:wjE
- «; a> «
identify target gr
develop system for I
transfer; develop pu
information material
provide technical assist-
ance, evaluation, funding
for intensive grdundwater
studies (thru 81)
to provide
management
e to intens
er studies
use
fin
ass
gro
(th
CU
CU >
.> g
CU CU
u -w
Ol C
!- -r- T3
i- ro 3
CU U '*- 4J
-> C (-> in
ID CU -
4-> C7> C S-
to (O -f- CU
4->
o QJ o re
o -a -u 2
+j-^ -a
u z c/i c
cu ^-*
> c: 3 ^r
i O CO
o i- r
> 4-> O 3
c: ITJ ex s-
l- 4J J=
C S- -M
T3 Q) ^J *-^
c E *J
a
M
>> in
r- HJ
o eg s-
nj 4-> 4->
i- .0 C
t-> S 3
C T3 O
O C U
(J 3
O O)
m -u S
4-> O T3
00 CU C
« 3 tn
* cu o cu
i/> to L. ^«
c o»*o
O « 3
^ t/» i- 4-1
cn cu O t/»
cS 5 "3 >,
^i5.^
4-> CU i- *
f- S- O O
2 10 14- CL
O. 3 01
r- O i/l
<
a:
O
O
cc
(X
CQ
o
cc
LU
t} OJ CU
+J S- CT
t/1 ra 19
37
-------
Municipal Point Source
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for municipal point source pollution controls are
(1) to establish an improved methodology for performing waste load allocations
and making decisions on appropriate levels of treatment, (2) to evaluate what
controls are necessary on specific stream segments to meet effluent and water
quality standards, and (3) to participate in the resolution of the issue of
how and when section 201 funds may be used to perform waste load allocations
and water quality analyses.
Given
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Water Planning Division will participate on the Headquarters
AST/AWT review task force.
WQM agencies, primarily at the State level, will carry out
prototype projects on AWT planning and review with section
208 grants awarded in FY 79.
Starting in FY 80, no section 208 funds will be used for muni-
cipal point source planning projects. However, the WQM program
will still use section 106 or other funds for this purpose, and
manage the prototype projects started in FY 79 with 208 funds.
The FMAP will provide financial management technical assistance
on selected municipal projects.
EPA Regions, States, and areawide agencies may use the State/
EPA Agreement process to document where municipal problems
exist, what actions each party will take, and what sources
of funds they will employ other than 208 funds.
Examples
EPA and the State of Vermont have selected a 208-funded AWT review project
on the Lower Winooski River. A large percentage of the State's population,
including the cities of Montpelier and Burlington, discharge into the Lower
Winooski. If the seven sewage treatment plants existing or proposed on the
river were operating at their design capacity, the ultimate oxygen demand
would be about four times the low flow assimilative capacity.
Water quality standards violations occur in the Lower Winooski every
summer. To prevent future violations, the State is planning AWT for the
treatment plants. The 208-funded analysis will determine what specific
levels of treatment will meet WQS at low flow.
38
-------
In addition to the existing water quality problems, the Winooski is
an example of a conflict between differing goalsachieving clean water and
generating hydroelectric power. Green Mountain Power has two generating
stations on the river and is planning a third. The levels of treatment
needed to meet WQS depend on the river's assimilative capacity which, in
turn, depends on the regulated low flow.
EPA, through a contractor, is providing technical assistance to Vermont
by analyzing the existing data on the watershed and recommending approaches
for the Lower Winooski work plan. The Vermont Agency of Environmental Con-
servation has selected a computer model and is presently collecting critical
low flow water quality data for calibration and verification. The overall
study will take one-to-two years, and should result in an improved general
methodology for making waste load allocations and selecting necessary levels
of treatment.
39
-------
O
CO
O
CL.
D_
c_>
[5
"T
i
x
a:
-5
CO
O
«
O Z ZOO
u. ui 01 3: o
O < U_ O UJ
o uJ u- I
_i a: uj LU <
01- 02
Q h- to
O u_ LU t/5 Q
X O
O5-CO
Z 0. _l
< OS O Q
a: < in <
X Q- uj LU o
co a. t:: Q: _l
: o
i u
cu
u 3
C CU trt
a -i- c
UJ > o
i/l 0) -
- t. t/1
I/I »-
in "a u
nj c cu
ra -o
S'S.i-
o «
QJ H- CU OD
-O 3: 0-
r- <=C CO 3
s-
E * "3
C -r- -M
,^
1 * O 1- 1- -C
T i S_ O O 4->
4->
U
OJ
3?
> Cu
CU
CL
C >i
O
(J 4->
r- £3
!o o.
0-4-
o
0)
< a
O QJ
> §_
r- Q
t/i
C
rO
CL
S-
3
ra
(/I
OJ
(/)
Wl
cu
u
o
s_
Q.
CU
-M
fO
a
a.
3
C
ra
CL
4-J (/}
E -*->
cr> u
E 01
">
r- O
03 U
c a.
-2 cu
C71) Q-
cp >>
C£ 4->
O
CU 4-»
."^ £
> CL
2 o
Q.4J
C
O
fO
3
'«3
>
CU
c
4-> C
01 !-
(/> 3
(O 4-
c
4-
OJ
>
S
Q.
O
4->
a.
li_
CU
=>
c
o
CO
Ul 4->
«- (J
CO OJ
I/) !-)
fC O
S-
4-> C-
E
O> QJ -" ^
E g-rj
r -4->
r- 4J 1»
^25
01 C-^
|
O
(J^,
CU
u
Q
U
CL
CL.
0
CL)
1 C 4-
Q. O fl
0 T-
CL 4->
u ;
CT» QJ *
C -T
r O
L- CL
CT1 U
g
i/l C
OJ O
4-> U
ra QJ
"O --^
CX C
3 O
ra ra
O. 3
J Q)
u >
o
*1 CL
J CL
(O
-o
cu
4-
" 4-J
s_
cu
o
4J
c
e
'a.
r-
o
O *3-
3 CQ
s-
4-J 3
co S-
O 4-*
LJ -^^
3 t=
E 1
^: i_
-M CTt
o
tn S-
c: a.
i CO
s: ra
^ Cn
_ CO LU LU
ca z z i-
< o u H- co
i- <
to co u.
oo s:
O ~ UU LU QZ
H- COD. t- O
CO < LL.
^-. U Q_ 01
tI UJ Z > U-l
^- QO o a.
I 'I (/)
O -UJ-
Q. u '
r- co
fO O
c oo
O
CL QJ
O E
r CD
O) -4-J
O
O
"- U O
uC
ml
01
"I
si
ai
3!
ca
o
>
o
QJ
c ra
3
4- QJ
uT 3
3 ^
CO "0
O QJ
OJ 4->
CJ
-C QJ
r- CU
3 CO
cn
c
o
^
C71
cu
cd
>»
O »~"
4-J C
O
QJ Ti
r- |*-~
c >-
|>^
CU "O
UJ CU
n3 1J
UJ c
h-
0
1
fO
c
o
Q>
0)
Qi
QJ
o
>
O
s_
CL
2
CL
OJ
CL
>>
4-J
O
4-J
O
S-
CL
1_
O
4-
4-J
C
QJ
E
c
o
4->
U
3
i_
4_>
O
I
>
QJ
!- ^
0 4->
4- S-
QJ
0 -C
r- 4-J
£ 5
CL c
CL CU
fa 4->
4-J
C I/I
ra c
t- O
CT) U
CO
3
4->
Ul
C
"a.
s_
O.
CL
fO
c
u
QJ
U
cn
QJ
3
QJ
TJ
T5
ro
OJ
4-)
2
t/>
O
CU
o
5-
Q.
QJ
CL
O
4-)
O
4-)
0
a
lf_
3
'C
OJ
T3
ra
i1
c
'o,
i 3
>
0 S-
QJ
U
C
cu
en
a3 £
X3 OJ C
(/> *
OJ OJ *
-a -LJ CU
rO f CL
(/> U 1/1
OJ -i- QJ
rO 4 i/)
l/l "O *l
C
ra
CL
0
QJ
"ro
IS)
40
-------
Septic Systems
Overall Objective
The overall objectives for the control of pollution from septic systems
are that (1) either the States, or the States working with sub-State agencies,
implement regulatory programs governing septic systems by FY 83, and (2) EPA
develop recommended criteria for inclusion in State reaulatory programs on
when and how septic systems should be installed or maintained on the basis
of ground and surface water quality and financial feasibility.
Given
1. Feasible controls (BMP's) exist. EPA's effort on septic systems
will focus on overall State management and regulatory programs.
2. Obstacles to implementation of septic system controls tend to
be financial and institutional in nature.
3. The initial efforts of the FMAP will focus on the financial
aspects of septic system control.
4. EPA Regions, the States, and areawide agencies may use the
State/EPA Agreement process to document where septic system
problems exist and what actions each party will take.
5. EPA's Office of Research and Development, as part of their
overall groundwater research strategy, will conduct septic
tank investigations in cooperation with MERL-Cinncinnati
which will lead to guidance on construction, operation, and
maintenance of systems to protect groundwater. ORD will com-
plete these studies by July 1981.
6. WPD will maintain a groundwater technical assistance program
which will select at least one prototype project to develop
BMP's for septic systems to protect groundwater quality.
7. Section 201(h) of the Act makes funding of private and public
small alternative wastewater systems eligible for construction
grant funding. During facility planning, local governments will
explore all alternatives to determine the most cost-effective
method of treatment.
8. EPA's Office of Water Program Operations, Facility Requirements
Division, is developing a new design manual for on-site treat-
ment systems. It is scheduled for publication early in 1980.
41
-------
Example
EPA and the Panhandle Health District in Northern Idaho have developed
a management strategy for a five country area to protect the quality of surface
water supplies and, especially, the Rathdrum Prairie sole-source aquifer. The
management of septic systems is critical to the protection of groundwater quality.
The Panhandle Region of Idaho is rapidly developing with over 2,000 septic tank
permits issued in FY 78.
The Panhandle WQM plan resulted in the initiation of rules and regulations
for the Rathdrum Prairie aquifer and completion of a sewage management plan.
The Panhandle Health District operates a regulatory program for septic systems
including a stringent permit system. The density limit for septics is one
per five-acre parcel, except in areas to be sewered within five years. All
new development must have dry sewers even if the area is currently on
septic systems.
Regulatory programs such as this one in Idaho are needed to protect surface
and groundwater quality in many States, especially where use of septic tanks
is increasing. EPA and the State of Idaho will monitor the success of the
Panhandle program and, if it is working well, transfer the knowledge gained
to other areas with similar problems.
42
-------
a:
o
i-
_1 LU
r>H-
o <
ce co
l- z
Q- CO
s: =>
01 E
E fO u
S S- --
i a>+-> (^
CL O 0.00
in >,. c
O) S- O --
*j o s-
ro 4-> -*J wl
+J (T3 C E
OO i O
i Ol i/l
. HI O >,
IB S- 4-> VI
ES MATRIX-SEPTIC SYSTEMS
1
(_)
LU
O
s
03
ia
O|
03
- O
LU u_ o:
H- CL.
H- pa >-
co o:
CO O
x<< a,
I ce _i r^
^~. O CD >
( | ce uj LJ-
^0-0:
LU
>
h-
U
1 1 1
co
0
_j
1 E
0= 3
LU
>
O
tates, monitor and evaluate
t progress of WQM plan imp-
0-1 C
i- VI
O >>
4 VI
4-
QJ U
03 CL
-- QJ
-M VI
C C
i- O
3 S_
0 S
4- LJ_
£
01
+j
1
CT
-o
C
QJ
VI
S
4~>
V>
I/I
v>
°
o
!_
O
r
2
U
C
03
c
4
VI
*0
^_j
C
o
u
S-
.c
s
>>
VI
u
o.
QJ
VI
4J -0
E QJ 3
0 1 C S-
E > '" -C
" QJ fO V) +J
^ VI ^ D1 C -^
r- +JQEE QJ-r-S-QJ
C i -M +Jt_ T30J-UC
roco uni/ii/icn QJO^ 03
c QJ >> o i vi X)
1-3 - -i- vi S- 5 O S- *-
4-S- t/i(J Q. O-*-)OJ3
.c ecu c .c en
«3vi QJ OJ-M QJE:«C
r- -M CC -M VI (Q 4 Li_ i/l *r
U U U . VJ QJ C
QJQJ -CQJCX3 CE+J'<-
V1V) T-QJi QJ S~S_+JS-i
QJ03 3V10JS- -t->4-un-MCO
4->
U
QJ
Q.
VI
O3
c
(/) .^- ,__
P ns +-> CO
* o.
°-4J QJ 2(
Q_ *~ "*~*
SC u f_ ^j
"- c V)
QJ V) >,
. cn C vi
VI -i- r U CO
0 C -M C
c oj s: Q. 03
3 CJiCy QJ 1-
4- O3 3
2 (_) l_
O.
VI VI
O C vi
r- 03 C
4-» 1- O
3 4-J
+J C 3
r- O
V> 'i~ O
-M VI
>) U
4- 3 QJ
^ i- T3
C VI >
OJ C 0
T3 O 1-
i £_) O.
-^
S-
o
S-
a.
4->
t/i
0
4->
3 4->
CL VI
C -r-
--- ,
U
VI i- 4J-^
-0 > 0 vi
T3 QJ i_ >,
O3 "O Q- vi
QJ
QJ C QJ
i S£
I/) VI l/l
C -M
O C O
r- 03 -M
4-» S-
<->
3 3 4-J
4J C Q. VI
r- O C -
V) -r- < i
4-J
>, U - >,
r- S- QJ r-
C VI 3 O
QJ C -r-
-0 0 QJ S^
r- U -0 0.
TD
c a> vi
03 "O QJ
QJ S ^
4-> 03 C
03 S- CD
UO 03 03
QJ
U
C
03 E
i 4-> 33
C vi +*
r- -r- VI
4- VI >>
V) (- r-
4-> C 4-> CO
f*j flj cX
O E OJ 3
QJ VI i-
0 CD _C
* O3 4->
a. E u vi
^ QJ 4J
u_ 03 QJ qj
r- VI (->
QJ U O
VI C C S.
3 03 O Q.
VI
O O
-0 -»->
QJ i/l C
r- C 0
<4_ O3 U
4-» CL VI
S- E
QJ ^ QJ
(j o» 4j
3 vi
4J >^.^
C "O vi *q-
QJ QJ CO
E > " 3
r S- 4-> S_
CL CL CLJ£
P= CL O) 4J
r- rD VI --^
C
O
fO
4J
QJ C
> QJ
C QJ
> i
C Q.
^ E
c: c
/T3
E U
O r
4 -Q
C 3
- CL
L
C
<
L
₯
>,
C
o
+->
03
3
at
s-
'!
VI
l/l
u
CL
QJ
VI
4
0
43
-------
REFERENCES
1. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart G, "Grants for Water Quality Planning,
Management, and Implementation." Final Regulations. May 23, 1979.
2. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "FY 79 Work Programs." December, 1978.
3. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Draft Supplemental Guidance for FY 80--
Water Quality Management Program." May 18, 1979.
4. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Strategy for the Water Quality
Management Process." April 1976.
5. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Program Strategy for Water Quality
Management, FY 1979-83." March 1, 1978.
6. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Cost Estimates for
Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
1978 Meeds Survey." February 1979.
7. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "Draft Policy--Funding
of Waste Load Allocations and Water Quality Analyses for POTW
Decisions." June 8, 1979.
8. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "FY 80 State/EPA Agreement
Guidance." February 1979.
9. NRDC v. Train 396 F Suppl 1386 (D.D.C. 1975), aff'd sub nom NRDC v. Costle
564 F2 573 (D.C. circ 1977).
10. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget,
"Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance." May 1979.
11. US-EPA, Office of Planning and Management, "EPA Guidance to the States--
Fiscal Year 1980." April 1979.
12. Settlement Agreement, NRDC v. Train, 8 ERC 2120, 2122-2129 (D.D.C. 1976).
Modified March 9, 1979.
13. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "Draft Water Allocation/Water Quality
Coordination Study (Section 102(d))." August 1979.
14. US-EPA, Office of Water and Waste Management, "Draft Report to Congress--
Water Supply/Wastewater Treatment Coordination Study." August 1979.
44
-------
References, cont.
15. US-EPA, Water Planning Division, "EPA-FS Forestry WQM Statement of
Intent." (INFO 79-49). March 2, 1979.
16. 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, "Grants for Construction of Treatment Works."
September 27, 1978.
17. US-EPA, Office of Water Program Operations, "Program Requirements
Memorandum 79-8, Small Wastewater Systems." May 9, 1979.
45
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 0-302-684/6512
-------
United States Postage and
Environmental Protection Fees paid
Agency Environmental
Washington DC 20460 Protection
UH-S S 4 Agency
WH -5_^J___ _ EPA 335
Official Business _
Penalty for Private Use $300 nird-uass
------- |