c/EPA
FINAL REPORT ON THE
Federal/State/Local
Nonpoint Source Task Force
and Recommended
National Nonpoint Source Policy
Prepared for the
Nonpoint Source Task farce
by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of \fater
January 1985
-------
&EPA
FINAL REPORT ON THE
National
ouice Task Force
int Source Policy
Prepared for the
Nonpoint Source Task Force
by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
January 1985
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task Force was
chaired by Jack E. Ravan, Assistant Administrator for Water
at EPA. EPA expresses its appreciation to the agencies and
organizations that were willing to commit senior managers
and staff to this effort. The work of the Task Force could
not have been accomplished without the active and continued
participation of the members of the Task Force and their
staff. The Task Force members and their staff are listed
in Appendix A.
The Synectics Group, Inc. (TSG), 1130 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., assisted EPA in coordinating the Task
Force, arranging meetings^ developing working materials for
the Task Force, and preparing this report under EPA
Contract #68-01-6629.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION v
PURPOSE v
TASK FORCE MEMBERS v
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT vi
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM 1
DEFINITION OF A NONPOINT SOURCE 1
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM 1
CHAPTER 2: STEPS TAKEN IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS , , , 7
INTRODUCTION , 7
EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS IDENTIFIES EXISTING FEDERAL
STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR NPS MANAGEMENT, , , 7
OTHER CURRENT NONPOINT SOURCE EFFORTS ADDRESS
MANAGEMENT NEEDS ,,,,,.,, 9
NPS MANAGEMENT NEEDS LED TO FORMATION OF THE FEDERAL/
STATE/LOCAL NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE 10
NPS TASK FORCE DRAFTS A NATIONAL POLICY 10
STRATEGIES WILL AID IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY 10
CHAPTER 3: ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE TASK FORCE—RECOMMENDED
NATIONAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLICY 12
INTRODUCTION 12
NATIONAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLICY 13
CHAPTER 4: ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE TASK FORCE—AGENCY
STRATEGIES 19
INTRODUCTION 19
OVERVIEW OF AGENCY STRATEGIES 19
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 19
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 21
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PAGE
AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE , , , , 23
U,S, FOREST SERVICE 24
USDA EXTENSION SERVICE 26
U,S, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 27
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT , , , , , 28
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 29
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 30
CORPS OF ENGINEERS 31
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 31
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 33
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 34
MARYLAND OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 34
OKLAHOMA FORESTRY DIVISION, 36
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 37
APPENDIX A: TASK FORCE MEMBERS A-l
APPENDIX B: AGENCY STRATEGIES—AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
iv
-------
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
This report summarizes the accomplishments of the Federal/State/Local Nonpoint
Source Task Force. In recognition of the diversity of agencies with nonpoint
source (NPS) management responsibilities and the need for coordination among
these agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened the
Task Force in March 1984. The Task Force was charged with developing
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on:
• A national nonpoint source policy; and
• Implementation strategies that address both single-agency
and interagency issues and recommend appropriate management
approaches to assure broader implementation of needed
nonpoint source controls.
The recommended National Nonpoint Source Policy is presented in Chapter 3, and
the implementation strategies developed by participating federal, state,
local, and areawide agencies are summarized in Chapter 4. (The full text of
each strategy is contained in Appendix B, with a limited number available upon
request.)
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
When convening the Task Force, an attempt was made to include as many agencies
with NPS management responsibilities as possible, but due to the large number
of agencies with these responsibilities, it was not feasible to include all of
them. The agencies on the Task Force were selected to be representative of
the diversity of federal, state, local, and areawide agencies involved in NPS
management. The names and affiliations of Task Force members (principals
only) are listed below, while the names of Task Force staff are provided in
Appendix A at the end of this report:
Valdas Adamkus, U.S. EPA Region 5
John Amberger, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Lamar Beasley, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
James Boil lot, Missouri Department of Agriculture
Clyde Bohmfalk, Texas Department of Water Resources/Interstate Conference
on Water Problems
Josephine Cooper, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Roger Davis, Oklahoma Forestry Division
Thomas Eichler, U.S. EPA Region 3
-------
Larry Isaacson, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Kenneth McETroy, Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
Neil Morck, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI)
Peter Myers, Soil Conservation Service, USDA
Jim Nelson, South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources
Dr. Meredith Ostrom, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey
Dr. Allen Perry, Office of Surface Mining, DOI
Neal Potter, National Association of Counties
Merrill Petoskey, Extension Service, USDA
Everett Rank, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, USDA
Jack Ravan, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Martin Rivers, Tennessee Valley Authority
George Rupert, Denver Department of Public Works/National League of Cities
Milton Russell, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Bob Schoen, U.S. Geological Survey, DOI
Major General John Wall, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
John Welles, U.S. EPA Region 8
Lyman Wible, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources/Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA)
George Wolff, National Association of Conservation Districts
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The first chapter of this report presents an overview of the nonpoint source
problem by first defining "nonpoint sources" and then describing the nature
and magnitude of the problem and providing information on specific NPS
categories. The second chapter sets the context for formation of the Task
Force and describes the steps involved in developing and implementing the
National NPS Policy. The third and fourth chapters, as mentioned above,
present some of the accomplishments of the Task Force; they contain the
National NPS Policy and summaries of agency implementation strategies,
respectively.
vr
-------
CHAPTER 1
Overview of the
Nonpoint Source Problem
-------
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM
DEFINITION OF A NONPOINT SOURCE
Over the last decade, significant achievements have been made nationally in
the protection and enhancement of water quality. Much of this progress,
however, has been accomplished by controlling the many point sources of
pollution. While some state and local NFS management programs have been
developed and implemented, pollutant loads from nonpoint sources present
continuing problems for achieving water quality goals and maintaining
designated uses in many parts of the United States.
Nonpoint sources of water pollution are both diffuse in nature and difficult
to define. A commonly used definition is simply "a diffuse source of water
pollution that does not discharge through a pipe." Examples include, but are
not limited to, runoff from construction sites and from agricultural, silvi-
cultural, mining, and urban areas. Nonpoint sources of pollution can scome
from any area, and most nonpoint sources do not discharge at a specific,
single location. In general, NPS pollutants are carried over and through the
ground by rainfall, runoff, and snowmelt. Legal distinctions complicate the
definition, however. When runoff is collected and discharged through a pipe
(e.g., in combined storm and sanitary sewers, or in cases of runoff from
active mines), it is usually considered to be a point source. There are
exceptions, however, such as the Clean Water Act's definition of irrigation
return flow as a nonpoint source, despite the fact that the water is collected
and returned to the stream through a discrete channel or pipe.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM
Nonpoint sources may generate both conventional and toxic pollutants, just as
point sources do. Although nonpoint and point sources may contribute many of
the same kinds of pollutants, these pollutants are generated in different
volumes, combinations, and concentrations. Pollutants from nonpoint sources
are mobilized primarily during storm events. Consequently, NPS pollution
episodes are generally less frequent and shorter in duration than continuous
point source discharges.
Recently, much information has been compiled that demonstrates the pervasive
nature of the NPS problem:
• The 1982 state Section 305(b) reports (i.e., water quality
reports submitted biennially by the states to EPA pursuant
to Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act) indicate that
virtually all states have some water quality problems caused
by nonpoint sources. Half of the states said that nonpoint
sources were a major or significant cause of remaining water
quality problems, and approximately one-fifth of the states
identified nonpoint sources as their major cause of water
quality problems.
-------
t In response to the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Admistrators1 (ASIWPCA) Nonpoint Source
Pollution Survey (February 1984), 78% of the states
indicated that the magnitude of current NPS pollution
problems was greater than or equal to that of point source
problems.
t All but one of the 38 states responding to a 1983 survey by
the North American Lake Management Society indicated that
nonpoint sources seriously affect lake water quality within
their states, and more than two-thirds indicated that at
least half of their lakes were being adversely affected by
NPS pollution.
• The 1982 National Fisheries Survey conducted jointly by EPA
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that NPS
pollution adversely affects fish populations in 38% of the
nation's waters and is a major concern in 19%. Agricultural
sources are the most widespread NPS problem and affect 29%
of all waters.
t In the 1983 Environmental Management Reports, six of the ten
EPA Regions stated that pollution generated by nonpoint
sources was the principal remaining cause of water quality
problems in their Region.
"The State's Evaluation of Progress," commonly referred to as the "STEP
Report," produced jointly by ASIWPCA and EPA in 1984, shows that the nature of
the NPS problem varies by state and Region (see Table 1). Agricultural
activities are identified as the largest problem and are cited as "widespread
problems" by two^-thirds of the states. Mining, urban runoff, construction
erosion, and silviculture are most often cited as "localized problems" in the
STEP Report.
Agricultural Activities are a Dominant Source in Many Areas
The EPA Report to Congress entitled Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S.
(January 1984) states that about 63% of non-federal lands in the U.S. are used
for agricultural purposes, including crop and livestock production. It is not
surprising, therefore, that agricultural activities constitute the most
widespread cause of water quality problems from nonpoint sources. Indeed,
they are considered the most serious cause in most of the EPA Regions.
National studies suggest that agricultural NPS pollution adversely affects
portions of more than two-thirds of the nation's river basins. For these
reasons, agricultural NPS pollution is getting the most attention at this
time.
NPS pollution from agriculture actually has several different sources with
different associated effects. These sources include nonirrigated croplands
(both row and field), irrigated croplands, animal production on rangeland and
pastureland, and livestock facilities. The primary pollutants from nonirri-
gated croplands are sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. Irrigated farming is
also a source of these pollutants, as well as salts and other minerals. Many
-------
TABLE 1 NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEMS BY STATE
State
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
i
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NE
CO
MT
NO
SD
UT
WY
AZ
CA
HI
NV
AK
ID
OR
wA
Nonpoint
Agriculture Silviculture
*
• o
* *
it it
*
0 t
it it
it it
f
-
.
-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
it
it
*
*
* *
Not reported upon
.
g
*
•
* *
e *
i
• *
i *
Q *
* *
t *
*
* *
.
t i
, (
• •
Source
Mining
.
*
-
.
*
*
*
it
it
it
.
-
*
|
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
it
it
it
it
it
-
*
*
.
*
*
*
*
*
.
*
.
*
*
*
Category
Construction
.
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
•
*
it
it
it
it
•
•
it
it
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
it
it
*
*
_
it
it
it
*
*
_
-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
it
*
*
*
*
*
Urban
,
*
*
*
*
*
,
*
t
-
*
t
*
it
•
*
*
f
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
_
*
*
*
• Identified as a widespread problem (50% or more of state's waters affected)
* Identified as a localized problem (less than 50% of state's waters affected)
- Source does not occur in state or does not affect support of designated uses
Source: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators,
1984, America's Clean Hater: The State's Evaluation of Progress 1972-1982.
Appendix, Washington. D.C. and updated by EPA Regions and states.
3
-------
of these pollutants may affect both ground and surface waters, and pesticides
and nitrates (from excessive fertilizer applications) are being detected in
some ground-water supplies. Runoff from barnyards and feedlots primarily
contributes nutrients, organic matter", ammonia, fecal bacteria, and other
microorganisms to receiving surface waters and sometimes ground water.
Overgrazing of rangelands and pasture-lands often contributes sediment and
nutrient pollution through runoff; t_ffe surface disruption and reduction in
natural cover associated with overgrazing increase the erodibility of these
lands. Livestock grazing freely alorfg streambanks compact and damage them,
thereby increasing erosion and sedimentation problems. Livestock wastes also
contribute to stream pollution.
Urbanization Increases Runoff Vbjuine
and Associated Pollutants
Urban runoff causes significant local water quality effects. Rainwater
running off roofs, lawns, streets, industrial sites, and other pervious and
impervious areas washes a number of important pollutants into urban lakes and
streams. Runoff may also percolate thrSugh the soil to ground-water supplies,
carrying pollutants with it. Of equal (importance is the volume of stormwater
runoff leaving urban areas —larger 'volume's of runoff can destroy aquatic
habitat. As the percentage of paved surfaces increases, the volume and rate
of runoff and the corresponding pollutant loads also increase. A large
percentage of the pollutant load in urban runoff is comprised of sediment and
debris from decaying pavements and buildings that can clog sewers arid
waterways, reducing hydraulic capacity^' .(arid thus increasing the chance of
flooding) and degrading aquatic Hlbitats. Heavy metals and inorganic
chemicals (including copper, lead, zind; and cyanides) arising from transpor-
tation activities'; building materials?, arid other sources are also significant
pollutants. Nutrients are found in urb'an runoff as a result of fertilizers
applied around homes and in parks and degrading vegetative debris. Fecal
bacteria from animal wastes are other important contaminants in urban runoff
and may affect ground water as Well a;s surface water. In addition, leaking
septic tanks may cause nutrients, fecal cblifbrm bacteria, and other materials
to enter ground-water supplies.
Pollution from Mining; Difficult to Cofitrbl
Although mining activities are not as Widespread as agriculture, the :water
quality effects resulting from mining a!re usually much more harmful. Sedimen-
tation rates resulting from mining can ,be extraordinarily high. Furthermore•,
whole streams may be biologically dead as a result of acid mine drainage.
Other pollutants in mining runoff with potentially serious effects include
heavy metals and radioactive material^; Active mine sites may pose a number
of water quality problems. Most of these; however, are considered to be point
source problems and are regulated Uride'r' state and federal National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, the main NPS problems at in in ing
sites are runoff of sediment from haul roads at both active and inactive mine
sites; drainage of pollutants including acid, sediment, salts; and metals from
inactive mines; and drainage and leaGliates containing acid, metals, arid sedi-
ment from the spoil and tailings piles located at both active and inactive
mines. Both ground and surface waters may be adversely affected. In the
-------
West, water quality effects from metal and uranium mining are more serious
than those from other types of mining. Acid drainage from coal mines
adversely affects water quality in the East and Midwest; the most damage has
been observed in the heavily mined areas of the mid-Atlantic and Appalachian
regions, where stream quality is severely affected by drainage from abandoned
inactive coal mines.
Silviculture Generates Major Localized Problems
The smaller areal extent of forest management activities, less intensive site
preparation, infrequent harvest, and lower frequency of pesticide and nutrient
applications in a given year all result in silviculture generating a smaller
volume of total NPS pollutants than agriculture nationwide. Silvicultural
management activities can nonetheless generate major localized NPS pollution
problems. In addition, the significance of nonpoint source pollution from
silviculture goes beyond the total pollutant load contributed by this source.
Forested watersheds often have the nation's highest quality waters, and these
areas are the source of many municipal water supplies and are prized for
cold-water fisheries, aesthetics, and other values. Silvicultural activities
are actually comprised of a number of different operations, each of which has
a different potential for NPS pollution. These activities include road
building, pesticide and herbicide application, harvesting and logging opera-
tions, removal of trees from the harvesting site, and preparation of the site
for revegetation. As is the case with agriculture, sediment is the major
pollutant by volume. Soil type, slope, climate, and management practices
markedly alter the rates of erosion and resulting sediment delivery to water
courses. Although fertilizers and pesticides have been used increasingly in
silviculture, they are typically applied only once or twice during a 20- to
35-year period, as compared to annual agricultural applications. Although the
contribution of chemicals to lakes and streams is less frequently a problem
for silviculture than agriculture, localized problems may result due to
practices such as aerial spraying near a water course. Other water quality
problems associated with forestry practices include debris from forest opera-
tions that contributes organic matter to water bodies and water temperature
alterations resulting from removal of the vegetation that shades water bodies.
Construction Activities Yield Sediment and Other Pollutants
On a national basis, the water quality degradation caused by NPS pollution
from construction activities is not nearly as great as the amount caused by
other major nonpoint sources. This is due, in part, to improved construction
erosion control by local jurisdictions. In addition, construction sites are
often dispersed and, as a result, usually create only localized problems. In
areas where construction activities are intensive, however, the localized
impacts on water quality may be severe because of the high unit loads
involved. Erosion rates from construction sites typically are 10 to 20 times
that of agricultural lands. Sediment is the main construction site pollutant;
according to the EPA Water Quality Management Needs Assessment for Fiscal
Years 1980-1984 (1980), however, sediment from construction sites accounts for
only about 4% to 5% of nationwide sediment loads in receiving waters. Other
pollutants generated by construction activities include: chemicals from
fertilizers, such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and other nutrients, which can be
-------
attached to sediment particles or dissolved in solution; pesticides used to
control weeds' and insects at construction sites; petroleum products and
construction chemicals, such as cleaning solvents, paints, asphalt, acids, and
salts; and solid wastes, ranging from coffee cups to trees and other debris
left at construction sites. Some of these materials can be toxic to aquatic
organisms and seriously impair their fitness for human consumption. Such
pollutants can also degrade the water itself, impairing its use for drinking
and water-contact recreation.
-------
CHAPTER 2
Steps Taken in the
Policy Development Process
-------
CHAPTER 2: STEPS TAKEN IN THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The beginning of the policy development process occurred months before the
Task Force was formed. In response to a Congressional request, EPA prepared a
Report to Congress that examined the nature and magnitude of NPS pollution
nationwide. The report's technical findings included a comparison of point
and NPS pollutant loadings, a demonstration of the national scope of the
problem, a description of some best management practices (BMPs) to control NPS
pollution, and a discussion of technical factors affecting mitigation of the
NPS problem. The Report to Congress also contained a number of institutional
and management oriented findings. It outlined key components of state
strategies to address the problem, examined institutional and economic factors
affecting the control of NPS pollution, and identified existing federal,
state, and, to a lesser degree, local programs to address the NPS problem.
The Report to Congress and other efforts have illustrated that a multitude of
agencies are involved in the management of nonpoint sources, and that these
agencies often have overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions. Because of
the number of agencies involved, the need arose for a coordinated approach to
the problem. As a result, the Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task Force
was formed.
This chapter provides background information on existing programs to address
NPS polllution and research efforts to facilitate the management of nonpoint
sources. The chapter then describes the formation of the Task Force, its
mission, and its accomplishments.
EPA REPORT TO CONGRESS IDENTIFIED EXISTING FEDERAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR NPS MANAGEMENT
Most state agricultural and silvicultural programs tend to be voluntary in
nature, although approximately 11 states have regulatory or quasi-regulatory
silvicultural programs. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have
regulatory programs to address construction site runoff, and all coal mining
states have regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and Reclama-
tion Act (SMCRA). Urban runoff from new development activities is addressed
by some local governments; these programs tend to be regulatory in nature.
Federal programs for NPS management are addressed by a variety of agencies.
The activities of federal agencies are important in the management of certain
nonpoint sources because they concern either direct management of federally
owned land (Bureau of Land Management within DOI, Forest Service within USDA,
etc.) or they are programs designed to assist private landowners. Agencies
with programs that reach the land manager, or that affect the relationship
between the state and the land manager, are key to the implementation of non-
point source controls for agriculture, silviculture, construction, and mining.
• Various USDA programs provide not only technical assistance
to individual landowners, but also a range of incentives
that affect the way the landowner chooses to manage the
-------
land. In addition, USDA manages significant amounts of
public land. Its programs affect agricultural, silvicul-
tural, and mining nonppint sources.
• The Office of Surface Mining (U.S. Department of the
Interior) implements SMCRA, which regulates the activities
of operating and abandoned coal mines.
• The Federal Highway Administration within the U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation grants billions of dollars of Federal
Highway Trust Fund monies to construct interstate and
federal highways, and conditions such grants on the applica-
tion of appropriate BMPs.
Other federal programs both affect and provide support for control of nonpoint
sources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for example, as part of its feasi-
bility study program, conducts comprehensive watershed analyses that address
both water quality and water quantity concerns. In addition, the Corps issues
permits for a variety of activities that take place in or affect navigable
waters. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides technical assistance to land-
owners in its region. This technical assistance is directed toward a variety
of purposes, including management of nonpoint sources of pollution. In addi-
tion, huge landholdings are managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the
Corps of Engineers, and the Forest Service for multiple-use purposes.
Grazing, mining, silvicultural, and other activities take place on these
publicly owned lands. Comprehensive planning processes are undertaken to
ensure protection of the resource base and use of these lands for a variety of
activities.
EPA programs cut across NPS categories and are directed toward the cleanup of
any sources of pollutants that impede the achievement of water quality goals.
Water quality management planning efforts funded under Section 208 of the
Clean Water Act were largely completed by FY'81. States have developed
varying levels of nonpoint source control programs as a direct result of
Section 208 activity. EPA has continued to support the states in their
development of nonpoint source control programs through other funded sections
of the Clean Water Act. Sections 106 and 205(j) have provided basic direction
and support for state nonppint source activities. While Section 205(g) funds
are also eligible for nonpoint source activities, they are not in widespread
use due to high demand to address point source program needs. EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program is an ongoing effort to implement needed point and NPS
controls in the watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay, based on the findings of
research studies conducted under the program.
In addition, EPA continues to support a variety of experimental, demonstra-
tion, and research-oriented programs, the results of which will provide
technical assistance to the states in implementing nonpoint source controls.
One example is the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP), which investigated
urban runoff problems and alternative control measures in 28 cities around the
country. The Great Lakes Program has provided funds for demonstration pro-
jects directed toward nonpoint source pollution control measures in several
watersheds of the Great Lakes, and the Clean Lakes Program has provided cost-
share funds for implementation of nonpoint source controls to protect and
restore lake water quality.
-------
OTHER CURRENT NONPOINT SOURCE EFFORTS ADDRESS MANAGEMENT NEEDS
ASIWPCA Project Is Addressing State Nonpoint Source Management
EPA has funded a project by the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to determine where the NPS problems
exist, the sources that dominate in any given area, and the the status of
state NPS water quality programs. An important result of the study will be
the compilation of data using a consistent format, facilitating data compari-
son and analysis. The data collected by this project will be used to define a
national baseline for NPS-related water quality, needed for successful and
effective NPS management at all levels of government. The project began in
April 1984 and is scheduled for completion in September 1985.
RCA Process Identifies Problems and Helps Set Priorities
The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (RCA) directs USDA to
continually appraise the status and condition of soil, water, and related
resources of the U.S. and to analyze trends in this information. The 1980 RCA
appraisal identified water quality problems, and results of the analyses were
used to set priorities for the future. In 1985, an update of the 1980
appraisal will be completed.
Nonpoint Source Data Center Is Being Designed
Under a grant from EPA, the National Association of Conservation Districts
(NACD) is studying the need for and potential design of a NPS data center to
facilitate NPS management. NACD is conducting five tasks as part of the pro-
ject: study of the type of NPS data and information needed by local agencies;
development of profiles of seven state cost-sharing programs; preparation of a
report on the legislative and program status of the erosion and sediment
control programs in the 23 states with these programs; development of stand-
ardized conceptual definitions of BMP systems; and production of a bi-monthly
NPS newsletter. The project began in August 1984 and will be completed in
approximately one year. The study is focusing on the Chesapeake Bay basin as
a pilot for a national data center.
NALMS Conference Will Address Technical,
Institutional, and Management Concerns
The North American Lake Management Society (NALMS), an organization dedicated
to the protection, restoration, and management of lakes, reservoirs, ponds,
and their watersheds, is currently working with EPA, other federal agencies,
and private organizations to sponsor a NPS conference in May 1985. The program
for this conference is currently being developed and will include the status
of NPS control programs, challenges facing NPS programs, NPS monitoring and
assessment techniques, NPS pollution and lake and estuarine water quality,
federal compliance with state laws, institutional and financial aspects of NPS
controls, point/nonpoint source abatement tradeoffs, and ground-water consid-
erations in NPS management.
-------
NFS MANAGEMENT NEEDS LED TO FORMATION OF THE
FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE
The NPS-related activities described above, as well as others not specifically
mentioned, collectively pointed to an overriding need for improved coordina-
tion among the numerous agencies involved in NPS management. NPS pollution
can result from virtually every land use and land management activity. The
management of nonpoint sources requires the involvement and commitment of all
federal, state, local, and areawide agencies and those components of the
private sector that either affect or conduct land use and land management
activities. NPS management objectives cannot be accomplished by agencies
working in isolation. The diversity of agencies and organizations presents a
difficult challenge—the coordination of NPS management efforts by a variety
of agencies with diverse and potentially overlapping responsibilities.
Enhancement of water quality benefits is made more difficult to achieve due to
the competing priorities of the various agencies involved.
In recognition of the responsibility all these agencies have in NPS manage-
ment, EPA convened a Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task Force. (Task
Force members and their staff are listed in Appendix A.) The Task Force was
charged with two primary responsibilities: (1) to recommend a national NPS
policy to the EPA Administrator to guide the implementation efforts of
federal, state, areawide, and local governmental agencies and the private
sector and (2) to develop agency strategies for implementing the national
policy. This effort was viewed as a first and necessary step in addressing
some of the interagency problems inherent in NPS management, strengthening the
commitment of the individual agencies, establishing an understanding of the
concerns unique to each agency, and establishing a communication network among
the various agencies involved in NPS management.
NPS TASK FORCE DRAFTS A NATIONAL POLICY
The Task Force held a series of six meetings over a period of nine months. At
the first meeting, Task Force members discussed important elements for inclu-
sion in a national policy. From points raised during this discussion, a draft
policy was written. Subsequent meetings served as a forum to solicit comments
on the draft. These group sessions were important in building a consensus
among Task Force members and the organizations that they represent. The final
recommended policy, which is printed in Chapter 3, was adopted by the Task
Force and presented to Mr. William Ruckleshaus, the then Administrator of EPA,
at the final meeting of the Task Force on December 12, 1984. Letters of
support for the policy can be found in Appendix B;
STRATEGIES WILL AID IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY
During the nine months in which the Task Force developed the national policy,
individual agency representatives were responsible for drafting NPS strategies
to implement the National NPS Policy. Each federal agency and some state and
local agencies participating on the Task Force developed an implementation
10
-------
strategy. These strategies are summarized in Chapter 4 and are printed in
full in Appendix B.
Development of these strategies can only be viewed as a first step in imple-
mentation however. A continued commitment from each agency is necessary to
ensure that these strategies are implemented and that progress toward meeting
NPS objectives continues to be made. The Task Force plans to reconvene in
approximately six months and again in a year to assess progress to date,
review the results of the ASIWPCA project and other NPS efforts, and consider
any changes that may be needed to improve the management of NPS pollution.
11
-------
CHAPTERS
Accomplishments
of the Task Force:
Recommended National
Nonpoint Source Policy
-------
CHAPTER 3: ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE TASK FORCE-RECOMMENDED
NATIONAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The National Nonpoint Source Policy was developed based on extensive delibera-
tions by the Task Force. Early Task Force meetings established the framework
for the policy and the major points to be included. Later meetings refined
the wording of the policy to reflect the concerns of the participating
agencies and to develop a workable policy consistent with the legislative
mandate of each agency. In addition, members of the Task Force solicited
comments from numerous individuals within their organizations, so that the
final Policy statement could represent a consensus opinion. After the Policy
was completed, each principal on the Task Force recommended that it be
presented to Mr. Ruckleshaus, EPA Administrator at the time, as a Task Force
document on December 12, 1984. The recommended National NPS Policy is
presented in the following pages. Letters of support for the policy are
printed in Appendix B.
12
-------
NATIONAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLICY
PREAMBLE
the Clean Water Act establishes goals for the nation's waters.
Considerable progress has been made in achieving these goals.
However, additional progress in restoring and maintaining the
nation's water quality and water uses will require greater
implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) management programs in
addition to ongoing point source control efforts. NPS manage-
ment programs must build upon past planning and management
efforts and strive for continued progress in achieving water
quality goals and designated beneficial uses.
The objective of this National Nonpoint Source Policy is to
support and accelerate the development and implementation of NPS
management programs that ensure water quality protection while
recognizing the competing uses of resources. The success of
this policy is dependent on the willingness and ability of both
the private and public sectors to manage their activities to
support water quality goals wherever possible.
Meeting the objective of the Policy will require the following
actions:
1. Use of the existing knowledge and program base and
support of increased research efforts to define and
assess NPS problems.
2. Identification of the appropriate roles of federal,
state, local, areawide, and interstate agencies and the
private sector in developing and implementing NPS
programs.
3. Provision of the structure, available resources, and
commitment by which all levels of government and the
private sector can coordinate their efforts to identify
priority needs and develop and implement cost-effective
NPS management programs.
4. Support for an increased level of effort and emphasis
on NPS programs by all levels of government and the
private sector, for the purpose of meeting water
quality goals.
NOTE: See Glossary for definition' of several key terms used in
this policy.
-------
5. Preparation by each agency of a strategy for program
development and Implementation that: Incorporates both
short- and long-term objectives; recognizes that
different areas of the country are at different stages
of developing their NPS management programs; and that
different geographical areas have different priority
NPS problems.
6. Development and assessment of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) based upon site-specific conditions that reflect
natural background and natural variability of nonpoint
sources, and that include consideration of political,
social, economic, and technical feasibility.
7. Ensuring the recognition that nonpoint sources are
different from point sources and that NPS programs are
based on site-specific actions and application of pre-
ventive practices. Further, recognition of the need
for flexibility in water quality standards to address
the impacts of time and space components of NPS as well
as naturally occurring events.
8. Development of working partnerships among all federal,
state, local, areawide, and interstate agencies and the
private sector, including non-governmental organiza-
tions, to best address NPS problems. These organiza-
tions, working in partnership, will be responsible for
identifying needs, developing NPS programs, gathering
and assessing data,.and maximizing available resources.
STATEMENT OF POLICY
Achievement of national clean water goals requires greater implementation of
NPS management programs. Emphasis should be placed on .implementing NPS pro-
grams in watersheds affecting priority waters. Sources of nonpoint pollution
should be evaluated to assess potential water quality impacts and needed
program actions. NPS management is required to protect high quality surface
and ground waters, and to restore and/or improve water quality for designated
uses. In many instances, prevention of degradation has proven to be far more
cost-effective than remedial measures.
NPS management programs must be flexible to allow for site-specific solutions
to problems, to accommodate changes in technical knowledge, to respond to
changes in uses of land, and to optimize net on- and off-site benefits. A mix
of both point and nonpoint source measures should be considered in developing
cost-effective strategies to improve and maintain water quality.
With federal leadership and coordination, a-11 levels of government and the
private sector need to cooperate to provide continued progress with available
programs and delivery systems, to identify unmet needs, and to develop and
implement NPS management programs where needed.
14
-------
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Following 1s a general summary of responsibilities of the different levels of
government agencies and the private sector in managing NPS programs:
All Agencies - All agencies, where appropriate* will determine what institu-
tional barriers to NPS management and implementation exist and work to remove
them. All agencies will work to coordinate their NPS related data collection
and research activities. In addition, inter- and intra-agency mechanisms will
be developed for coordinating NPS management and implementation.
Federal Agencies - Federal agencies, in preparing their NPS strategies * will
use available and future programs to provide state and local governments With
financial and technical assistance and Will conduct research and development.
The provisions of this policy will be integrated into the decision processes
of applicable federal agencies and into their delivery systems for funding and
technical assistance. Where federal agencies have the responsibility for
direct planning and management of NPS programs on public lands, they must
coordinate NPS management actions with all levels of government.
As directed by the Clean Water Act, EPA will serve as the lead agency in coor-
dinating interagency and state actions for managing rionpoint source programs.
EPA will promote adoption of NPS management programs directed at achieving
water quality goals; assist with program' development; promote provision of
incentives where needed; provide oversight of its water quality programs to
ensure that they adequately address NPS problems; and include other agencies'
evaluations of the water quality components of their programs in assessing
overall NPS impacts on water 'quality.*. EPA will coordinate activities in
research, education, demonstration projects^ training, information transfer,
technical assistance, and data collection arid analysis with other agencies.
States - States will have the lead in developing' and implementing NPS manage-
ment strategies on state and private: Tarids', in cooperation with appropriate
levels of government and the private settlor. Each strategy should define the.
state role and, in consultation with areawide and local agencies, the roles of
areawide and local agencies in managing NPS programs, and designate a lead
agency for managing NPS programs at the state level (several different state
agencies may be needed to address different types of nonpoint sources). The
lead state agency is: responsible for .developing? and implementing strategies
for managing NPS programs and should-' Save water quality as its primary
concern. States with effective NPS management programs should share their
experiences with other states.
Local *. Areawide, and Interstate Agenciesi - Local, areawide, and interstate
agenqies,through the mechanisms provided: in continuing WQM planning
processes^, will develop NPS strategifesM'n' coordination with their respective
states and will implement the programs* within their jurisdictions using direct
or delegated authorities.
Local agencies, often the first point of contact for the private" sector, are
in a unique position to soTve NPS problems. The active involvement of these
local agencies, with and through their areawide agencies in the preparation of
strategies, will help to erisure con?s%£eiicy among strategies and provide a
vehicle for public participation.
-------
Private Sector - For activities other than those on federal and state lands,
successful implementation of the NPS Policy and agencies' strategies 1s depen-
dent on the cooperation and effort of the private sector. It is the policy of
the government agencies to assist landowners and coordinate efforts with
involved organizations, associations, and industry. It is the further inten-
tion of these agencies to help develop the potential for application of
managerial and other private resources in the implementation of NPS management
practices as part of each agency's strategy. Private investment in nonpoint
source research and development of BMPs is strongly encouraged and will be
supported with agency resources where feasible and available.
IMPLEMENTATION
To implement this National Policy, federal, state, local, areawide, and
interstate agencies will develop and implement NPS strategies. Key strategy
activities for Policy implementation include: problem assessment (e.g.
problem identification, monitoring and data maintenance, research and develop-
ment); program implementation (e.g. program planning, development, and imple-
mentation, targeting, technical assistance and education, BMP emplacement);
incentives and compliance (including enforcement); coordination; resources;
program evaluation and oversight. The strategies will be refined as existing
programs and authorities are reviewed for consistency with existing and future
state NPS management objectives and as institutional barriers are identified.
Responsibility for NPS implementation will depend on the nature of the NPS
problem, the area in question, and the statutory framework. Implementation
activities will emphasize site-specific solutions but will maintain a consis-
tent NPS management approach across all levels of government and the private
sector. Where appropriate, all agencies should consider and include as part
of their strategies minimum eligibility requirements to enhance implementation
of NPS management practices. Cooperative agreements will be developed, as
needed, to ensure continued progress toward meeting national water quality
objectives. A schedule for strategy development and implementation should be
drafted recognizing the nationwide variability in program implementation.
EVALUATION
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to oversee the implementation of water
quality programs and to report to Congress on the effectiveness of these
programs. Given that all agencies are individually responsible for the
periodic evaluation of their programs, EPA will include these, evaluations in
its assessment of NPS jmanagement efforts in determining if national water
quality goals are being'adequately:addressed.
16
-------
GLOSSARY
Agencies; All governmental bodies and entities that — under their
mandates—have a role in addressing and/or mitigating NFS pollution. Federal,
state, local, areawide, and interstate agencies are included.
Benefits (on-site and off-site); The whole range of direct and indirect
benefits including, but not limited to, water quality, soil conservation,
recreational and other beneficial uses, habitat and wildlife protection,
increased productivity, flood control, and economic benefits to landowners or
the public at large.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods, measures, or practices to prevent
or reduce water pollution,including, but not limited to, structural and
nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures. Usually,
BMPs are applied as a system of practices rather than a single practice. BMPs
are selected on the basis of site-specific conditions that reflect, natural
background conditions and political, social, economic, and technical
feasibility.
Net Benefits: Since trade-offs (competitive relationships, in the language of
economics) may exist between water quality and other social benefits, the
social objective must be in terms of optimizing net benefits.
NPS Management Programs; All programs conducted by the public and/or private
sector toward the goal of preventing or abating nonpoint source pollution. A
wide range of activities may be pursued to this end, including BMP
identification, training, dissemination of educational materials, technical
assistance, monitoring, research and development, and oversight/evaluation.
Cost-sharing programs and other incentives can also play vital roles.
Programs may be regulatory or nonregulatory (voluntary), or combinations of
both.
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution; Diffuse sources of water pollution that are
not regulated as point sources and normally include agricultural and urban
runoff, runoff from construction activities, etc. In practical terms,
nonpoint sources do not discharge at a specific, single location (such as a
single pipe). Nonpoint source pollutants are generally carried over or
through the soil and ground cover via stormflow processes. Unlike point
sources of pollution (such as industrial and municipal effluent discharge
pipes), nonpoint sources are diffuse and can come from any land area. It must
be kept in mind that this definition is necessarily general; legal and
regulatory decisions have sometimes resulted in certain sources being assigned
to either the point or nonpoint source categories because of considerations
other than their manner of discharge (for example, irrigation return flows are
designated as "nonpoint sources" by law, even though the discharge is through
a discrete conveyance).
17
-------
\
Partnership;
-------
CHAPTER 4
Accomplishments
of the Task Force:
Agency Strategies
\mJ +/ \—/
-------
CHAPTER 4: ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE TASK FORCE-AGENCY STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
Each federal agency and some state and local agencies participating on the
Task Force prepared a NPS strategy outlining agency-specific activities to be
undertaken to implement the national policy. These strategies were evaluated
by the other participating agencies at a workshop meeting. Each agency then
revised its strategy to incorporate the comments, where appropriate. These
strategies have been summarized in the following section and are printed in
full in Appendix B, available upon request.
OVERVIEW OF AGENCY STRATEGIES
Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for comprehen-
sively addressing the environmental problems of air and water pollution, solid
waste management, pesticides, toxic substances * radiation, and noise. The
agency's primary functions include: setting and enforcing environmental
standards; conducting research on the causes* effects, and cbhtrol of environ-
mental problems; and assisting state, interstate, areawide, and local agencies
in implementing various environmental programs^
EPA is responsible for administering comprehensive environmental protection
laws, including the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is
responsible for assuring the development arid implementation of programs for
preventing and abating both point and rioripoint sources of water pollution in
cooperation with other agencies and the private sector. Since the passage of
the Clean Water Act over a decade ago, much progress has been made in
controlling industrial and municipal point sources; However, in many parts of
the country, pollution from nonpoint sources prevents the attainment of water
quality goals arid designated uses. EPA recognizes that further progress will
require accelerated implementation of NPS management programs.
EPA's NPS strategy notes that the management of NPS pollution is a high
priority at EPA and that it has been clearly identified as a priority issue in
the Agency's operating guidance. The strategy commits EPA to intensify its
NPS activities, utilizing the staff resources riecessary to do so.
As part of the strategy, EPA is encouraging the development and implementation
of NPS management programs in those areas where pollution from nonpoint
sources is preventing the attainment or maintenance of water quality goals and
designated uses. The strategy emphasizes the need for programs to address
both the maintenance and protection of clean water as well as remedial
measures to correct existing problems^ EPA encourages NPS implementation
programs to be focused within specific geographic areas to achieve specific
water quality goals for either surface water or groundwater arid for NPS
programs to address all the major nonpoint sources of concern. EPA's strategy
also encourages management agencies to gfve particular attentiori to watersheds
affecting priority waters.
jgf
-------
EPA is encouraging state, areawide, and local agencies to take the lead in
developing and implementing NPS management programs because site-specific and
source-specific decisions at these levels are necessary for implementing
effective NPS management programs. EPA's strategy emphasizes that solving NPS
pollution problems requires commitment from all levels of government, but that
more intensified efforts at the state, areawide, and local levels are
essential for substantial progress. •••
The strategy notes that, as provided in the Clean Water Act, EPA serves as the
lead agency in coordinating inter-agency actions for addressing NPS-related
water quality problems. EPA's strategy commits the Agency to. working with
other agencies and the private sector to incorporate NPS control measures into
their programs where appropriate.
EPA's NPS strategy also defines specific tasks (see Appendix B) that EPA will
undertake to accelerate the management of NPS pollution including:
• Problem Assessment - Although state, areawide, and local
agencies have the lead role in problem assessment, EPA will
work with these agencies to identify water quality problems,
pollution sources, and control needs. EPA will also assist
in monitoring, data collection and maintenance, and research
and development.
t NPS Program Development - EPA expects states, in cooperation
withappropriate levels of government and the private
sector, to take the lead, in developing needed NPS management
programs for priority waters (ground or surface waters).
EPA will provide guidance and assistance to states and other
agencies in developing NPS management programs. EPA's
strategy includes a model list of activities to be under-
taken in the development of state NPS management programs.
9 Funding - A variety of funding sources are available under
the Clean Water Act for managing NPS pollution. EPA will
continue to make available and will increase the priority
for using Section 106, 205, and 314 funds for NPS activities
within the limitations of existing and future resources.
• Technical Assistance and Information Transfer - EPA will
assiststatesandotheragenciesin identifying priority
waters affected by nonpoint sources, developing cost-
effective programs for achieving the desired environmental
results, and promoting innovative approaches to NPS control,
and will facilitate technology transfer and information
sharing among states and localities.
20
-------
e Coordination and Cooperation - Based on Section 304(k) of
the Clean Water Act, EPA has a lead federal agency role in
facilitating and coordinating consistency in the management
of NPS water pollution. To accomplish this, EPA will
develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) as needed with
other appropriate federal agencies. These MOUs will help
ensure the maximum utilization of existing federal programs,
policies, and legislative authority in achieving the
implementation of state NPS management programs. EPA will
encourage and support, to the maximum extent feasible,
interstate coordination of NPS programs, including the
Chesapeake Bay as a prototype of interstate cooperation and
the Great Lakes as a prototype of international cooperation.
e Federal Compliance - Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and
ExecutiveOrder12088 establish policies and procedures
related to compliance of federal facilities with applicable
state, interstate, or local water pollution control require-
ments, including any requirements for controlling NPS
pollution. Compliance is the primary responsibility of the
appropriate federal facility manager or agency. EPA will
participate in this process as required by the Clean Water
Act and the Executive Order.
© Oversight and Accountability - EPA is responsible for
reviewing NPS programs to ensure that water quality goals,
standards, and designated uses are being met. To this end,
EPA annually reviews the status of state NPS problems and
management programs as part o-f the Office of Water
Accountability System review. In1 addition,, EPA plans to
explore other programs and policies that can be developed
under current authorities to improve the Agency's ability to
control NPS pollution and achieve water quality goals and
standards more cost-effectively. As outlined in its NPS
strategy, EPA will try to identify institutional constraints
to effective NPS management and* will work- with the affected
parties to remove or ameliorate these barriers.
SjoiV Conservation! Service
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was created in> 1935 to control erosion
which was stripping topsoil from America's farms at a dangerous rate. Since
then the SCS mission has expanded to cover three major areas: soil and water
conservation, natural resource surveys,, and rural community protection and
development. Since 1982, the SCS water quality strategy has recognized water
as an inseparable component of the resource base and has sought the integra-
tion of water quality concerns into aH! ongoing. SCS programs and activities.
The SCS nonpoint source strategy extends this commitment to ensure that NPS
pollution concerns are recognized and. integrated into SCS programs'.
-------
NPS pollution will be addressed through SCS technical assistance to programs
such as the EPA Clean Lakes, Chesapeake Bay Basin, and Area Wide Waste Water
Management Programs. NPS concerns will also be incorporated into SCS's tech-
nical assistance programs to states and to other federal agencies.
To improve NPS monitoring and assessment, SCS will undertake a number of new
projects including:
• Formulating an SCS Geographical Information System for use
in addressing water quality concerns.
e Initiating pesticide-groundwater field studies
• Supporting, in cooperation with other agencies, the use of
the Resources for the Future (RFF) national water quality
model as a method of analyzing on a national and regional
level, off-site effects from agricultural activities.
® Initiating special studies to develop data on cost-
effectiveness of NPS control measures and the quantification
of both problems and impacts.
In the area of education and training SCS has several new and ongoing activi-
ties planned which will contribute to its NPS strategy:
e Ongoing training of SCS and ASCS personnel in water quality.
o Providing training to state water quality agencies and
conservation districts via specific agreements.
» Creating a position for technical specialist on pesticide-
groundwater interactions and developing a training program
for it.
« Convening a symposium on Off-Site Effects with emphasis on
calculation of economic impacts.
As part of its 1985 Resource Conservation Act activities, SCS will be
reassessing water quality concerns from agricultural nonpoint sources through
September 1985. Reassessment and review activities will center on targeting,
resource, and incentive issues, including plans to:
e Review existing targeted areas for possible redistribution
of SCS project resources, particularly in areas with
multiple resource problems where the soil resource base can
be protected while improving water quality.
• Consider modifications to Conservation Operations allocation
formula to ensure consideration of NPS problems identifed
with agricultural activities.
• Participate in the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) National
Coordinating Committee review of resource allocation for
existing RCWP projects and determine if there is an oppor-
tunity for new project starts.
22
-------
© In cooperation with ASCS, assist state and national level
conservation groups in reviewing existing programs for
opportunities to implement the National NPS Policy.
© In conjunction with EPA, review proposals for tax incentives
for NPS management practices. r
o Review regulations governing incentive payments for all SCS
programs to insure adequate consideration of off-site
effects.
Finally, SCS will continue to serve on a number of committees such as:
o NACD/EPA NPS Clearinghouse and ASIWPCA state NPS Assessment
Steering Committees.
o SCS-USGS, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, and
RCWP National Coordinating Committees.
•§" Interagency Committee on Groundwater, International Joint
Commission-Water Quality Board, and National NPS Task Force.
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
As an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administers farm commodity,
conservation, environmental protection, and emergency programs related to
agricultural production. These programs provide for commodity loans and, as
required, price support payments, acreage reduction, cropland set-aside, and
other means of production adjustment, as well as conservation cost-sharing
agreements and emergency assistance.
Within ASCS, the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) is charged with:
e Helping prevent soil erosion and water pollution,
o Protecting and improving productive farm and ranch land,
© Conserving water used in agriculture,
o Preserving and developing wildlife habitat, and
© Encouraging energy conservation measures.
The ACP is national in scope and provides cost-sharing to farmers and ranchers
to carry out conservation and environmental protection practices that result
in long-term public benefits, but which the farmer or rancher could not be
expected to undertake without financial and technical assistance.
To implement the National NPS Policy, ASCS has identified several program
areas where NPS pollution control can be emphasized or introduced. NPS
problems are currently recognized as one of the primary purposes eligible for
cost-sharing assistance reported in the;,Conservation Reporting and Evaluation
System (CRES). To improve its effectiveness, the ASCS strategy calls for
23
-------
cooperation with EPA and the Soil Conservation Service to develop quantifiable
data that can be collected through CRES to provide a better tool for
monitoring and evaluating NPS water quality efforts, and to develop MOUs with
non-USDA entities to use CRES for NPS evaluation purposes.
NPS problems are also an important concern for the local, state, and national
conservation review groups who meet periodically to review accomplishments,
establish priorities, and recommend needed changes. However, ASCS plans to
place additional emphasis on NPS pollution by encouraging conservation review
groups at all levels to:
t Identify and rank known NPS problem areas;
• Develop any cost-effective special practices necessary to
solve the identified NPS water quality problem; arid
t Propose selected water quality projects for special funding
consideration.
To aid in the development of best management practices (BMPs),;ASCS plans to
use the Rural Clean Water Program water quality data to evaluate BMPs and will
identify available resources for commitment to cost-effective NPS BMPs.
Lastly, ASCS will work with other agencies to provide training to employees in
identifying agricultural NPS problems.
U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is dedicated to multiple-use management of the
nation's forests and rangelands for sustained yields of renewable resources
such as water, forage, wildlife, timber, and recreation. To accomplish this,
Forest Service activities cover three major areas:
0 Management, protection, and use of the National Forest
System for a continuous flow of services and products both
now and in the future;
• Cooperation with state and local governments, forest
industries, and other private landowners and forest users in
the management, protection, and development of 877 million
acres of forest land in non-federal ownership; and
0 Research in forestry and forest products utilization to
provide the scientific and technical knowledge necessary to
protect the nation's natural resources on all lands, gain
the maximum benefit from their use, and leave the
environment unspoiled.
The U.S. Forest Service strategy is to continue current program activities
mentioned above as they relate to NPS pollution, and to coordinate these
activities with EPA and other agencies. Specific National Forest System (NFS)
management plans include:
24
-------
o Using and refining handbooks and materials such as the
Forest Service Manual, Regional Guides, and Water Resource
Evaluation Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) to
accomplish NFS control objectives;
e Continuing improvement of watershed conditions to reduce
nonpoint sources;
« Monitoring baseline water quality and NFS operations to
determine effectiveness of prescribed best management
practices; and
o Implementing water quality programs as contained in the
Resource Planning Act (RPA) Program, Regional Guides, and
Forest and Research Plans.
The U.S. Forest Service already has in place a substantial technology
transfer/state assistance program related to NPS concerns. Continuing
activities will include:
© Assisting in the development of State Forest Resource Plans
and Water Quality Plans;
o Participating in state technical committees;
,® Assisting states in developing monitoring strategies and
procedures for silvicultural NPS control;
© Providing technical expertise to EPA for all aspects of
forest management nonpoint sources; and
Q Providing in-service training for personnel involved in
resource management where there is a potential for affecting
water quality.
Forest management research will be used to determine effectiveness of a
specific practice or set of practices where adequate information does not
exist. USFS will continue to:
® Work with states, universities, and forest managers in
setting research priorities and developing programs related
to NPS;
® Conduct site specific evaluations to determine cause/effect
relationships between forest practices and water quality;
and
o Determine better means of estimating effects of planned
forest management activities on water resources.
USFS is engaged in several coordination activities. The agency's NPS strategy
calls for continued cooperation with other agencies by:
® Sharing USFS data with others through storage in the EPA
STORET system;
25
-------
Participating in USGS's Interagency Committee on Water Data
and the Interagency Committee on Ground Water;
Coordinating USFS programs with EPA, other federal agencies,
state agencies, and local water quality entities to
implement NPS control programs; and
Reviewing and strengthening, as needed, the EPA/USFS
interagency agreement.
USDA Extension Service
The USDA Extension Service (USDA-ES) is part of a three-way partnership
(federal, state, and county) known as the Cooperative Extension Service (CES).
The basic mission of CES is to improve American agriculture and strengthen
American families and communities through the dissemination and application of
research-generated knowledge and leadership techniques. The federal partner,
USDA Extension Service, provides support for the State Cooperative Extension
organizations by overseeing the distribution of federal funds, reviewing CES
programs, and informing states about federal priorities and programs.
As the educational arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, CES provides
information, materials, publications, and advice in several major areas that
involve NPS concerns: agricultural production, natural resources and
conservation, and family living. CES involvement in the national NPS effort
focuses on information and education programs that develop awareness of: (1)
the nature, scope, and impacts of NPS pollution, (2) the need to employ best
management practices to reduce NPS pollutant loadings to surface and ground
waters, and (3) the mechanisms to integrate such BMPs into the production
systems and lifestyles of the audiences.
Current CES activities relevant to NPS pollution include:
• Designation of an NPS coordinator in every state;
• Active participation in multi-agency efforts to assess the
extent and impact of NPS pollutants on surface and ground
water; and
9 Development of educational programs for farmers, homeowners,
pesticide applicators, and forest managers on such topics as
proper management of animal wastes, disposal of household
pesticides, irrigation scheduling, conservation tillage
techniques, integrated pest management, and BMPs for forest
industries.
For the future, USDA's Extension Service will build upon current efforts and
encourage state and local Extension staff to develop NPS education programs
that reflect their needs and priorities. To assist in these efforts, USDA-ES
will perform a variety of activities including:
26
-------
e Continuing to inform CES of the need for programs to develop
public understanding and further individual efforts to
reduce NFS pollution;
© Periodically monitoring the level of CES involvement in the
development and delivery of NPS educational programs;
@ Assisting the states in identifying resources for NPS
educational programs;
0 Encouraging communication and, where appropriate, formal
agreements between CES and EPA Regional Offices, private
organizations, and state water quality agencies;
© Cooperating with other federal agencies to develop
coordinated programs to reduce NPS pollution; and
© Continuing, and periodically updating, the MOU between
USDA-ES and EPA.
U.S. Geological Survey
Established by an Act of Congress in 1879 and charged with responsibility for
"classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological
structure, mineral resources, and products of the national domain," the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) has been the nation's principal source ,of information
about its physical resources. Over the years, Congressional and Executive
directives have expanded the Survey's geological mission to include
topographic mapping and hydrological investigations of water in streams and
underground. In compliance with this broad mission for earth science research
and application, the USGS provides hydro-logic data and an understanding of
hydrologic processes for the best use and management of the nation's water
resources. Although not a regulatory or land management agency, USGS collects
large amounts of data and performs hydrologic investigations related to the
identification and management of nonpoint sources of pollution. Some of these
activities are federally funded under various national programs of the USGS.
Others are conducted in cooperation with state and local agencies (on a 50/50
matching basis) or are supported by other federal agencies.
In keeping with its mission to provide earth science research and related
applications, the USGS will contribute to the national nonpoint source pollu-
tion effort by developing, interpreting, and disseminating scientific informa-
tion on the nature, extent, and causes of the problem. This strategy assumes
that management strategies including >BMPs -must be based upon a sound under-
standing of hydrologic factors if they ,are to result in a net improvement,
rather than an exchange of one problem for another.
USGS already collects large amounts of data and performs hydrologic
investigations related to the identification and management ,of nonpoint
sources of pollution under its various national and cooperative programs. The
USGS strategy will be to continue such activities as:
27
-------
e Providing high-quality chemical analyses of water samples
for Federal and Federal/State Cooperative investigations of
water quality problems.
• Monitoring water quality at a nationwide network of 503
fixed stations (the National Stream Quality Accounting
Network) representing major drainage basins, and at a
nationwide network of 52 fixed stations located in pristine
areas (Hydrologic Bench-Mark Network).
• Providing computer-assisted access to these and all other
water quality data through the USGS WATSTORE system, and
providing these data to EPA's STORE! system.
• Undertaking cooperative hydrologic investigations with other
federal agencies and with state or local governments on
specific hydrologic problems.
@ Publishing an annual "National Water Summary" including
descriptions of major NPS pollution problems in each state.
« Supporting the development of models to compute loadings,
transport, and fate of contaminants in surface and ground
waters.
• Continuing investigation of urban runoff processes to
provide guidance to urban planners and to aid the
development of methods for controlling NPS pollutants.
• Conducting research on the fundamental processes of
pollutant mobilization, partitioning between sediment and
water, bioaccumulation, transport, degradation, and fate.
Increased efforts are now being planned for toxic substances
in surface water and sediment in FY 1986,
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for achieving balanced and
effective multiple-use management of publicly owned land in 11 Western states
and Alaska. In addition, BLM manages federally owned subsurface water rights
throughout the nation underlying lands that are administered by other agencies
or are privately owned. These lands contain a vast and rich array of
resources. BLM is charged with managing these resources to provide for the
needs of America's people for self-sufficiency in energy, mineral,
agricultural and forestry products, for recreational opportunities, and for
preservation of historic and cultural resources.
BLM potential land management actions address background levels and the
potential of contributions of NPS pollution during the documented planning
analysis and selection of alternatives of single and multiple use actions. In
addition, BLM has undertaken site-specific on-the-ground research projects
targeting runoff, sediment, and chemical nonpoint source problems.
28
-------
The BLM NPS strategy will be to continue to:
o Provide cooperation and assistance to state agencies in the
management of the public lands to reduce nonpoint source
pollution sources.
• Incorporate water quality impacts, including nonpoint
sources, into land management actions planned and imple-
mented by the BLM, including BMPs.
• Identify and address nonpoint source water quality issues in
BLM activitiy plans, including grazing allotment management
plans, timber plans, watershed activity plans, minerals
plans, and environmental documents.
• Provide personnel and resources to identify nonpoint source
pollution and control techniques through coordinated
research efforts and the implementation of BMPs.
• Implement program practices in conducting land use and land
management activities to avoid or reduce water quality
impacts and to improve water quality as necessary to meet
management objectives and regulatory requirements.
Office of Surface Mining
In 1977 the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) was established in the Interior
Department to provide a nationwide program protecting citizens and the
environment from the adverse effects of surface and underground coal mining
operations. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), which
created OSM, specifies a "state-lead" concept in conjunction with minimum
federal standards. As a consequence, the states are responsible for doing the
bulk of the regulatory and reclamation work, while OSM has assumed an
oversight role to assure the job is done in concert with the law.
To carry out its NPS strategy, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) will use its
existing oversight, inspection, and permitting processes. NPS pollution will
continue to be monitored on a state-by-state basis for all coal mine
operations. Where NPS problems exist, recommendations will be made for
remedial action. In subsequent oversight reports, follow-ups will be made to
ensure that remedial action has been taken and the problem corrected.
Through the inspection and permitting process, compliance with all OSM
regulations which affect NPS pollution is assured. These regulations were
updated recently to reflect state-of-the-art technology with regard to water
pollution control.
The OSM strategy also calls for NPS pollution abatement through its Abandoned
Mine Land (AML) programs. The AML fund may be used for reclamation projects
in order to restore water resources previously degraded by adverse effects of
coal mining.
29
-------
Although research and development funds are limited, hydrology has been given
a very high priority. Currently, a" major research effort is underway to
evaluate alternatives to sediment ponds, some of which may prove to be
effective NFS control methodologies.
At present, technical assistance is provided to state governments when
requested. However, a specific course on hydrology is being developed for
inspectors which should enhance NPS pal Tut. ion control.
Federal Highway Administration
The federal-aid highway program administered by the Federal Highway Admini-
stration (FHWA) is a federally assisted, state administered program that
operates through the distribution of federal funds to the states to construct
and improve a designated system of urban and rural highways. Local roads and
streets are not included as part of the federal-aid system and make up 78
percent of the total mileage in the United States. As part of its mandate,
the FWHA currently incorporates withiit its program a process to consider the
effects of federally aided highway projects on water quality, including both
point and NPS pollution impacts on s'urface and ground water. Specifically,
FHWA policy requires that federal aid2 highways and highways constructed under
the direct supervision of FHWA must be located, designed, constructed, and
operated according to standards that will minimize erosion and sediment damage
to the highway and adjacent properties and abate pollution of surface and
ground-water resources.
The FHWA strategy is to continue to ensure, through existing regulations and
enforcement mechanisms, the adequate consideration and mitigation of NPS
pollution impacts in the construction of roads receiving federal aid. In
practice, this takes the form of a series of steps that must be followed when
seeking federal funds for highway projects. The first step is an evaluation
of potential water pollution impacts from construction, such as effects from
erosion or on-site asphalt plants, as well as operational impacts from such
things as surface runoff of herbicides, fertilizers, and de-icing materials.
When an adverse environmental impact is identified for a project, an attempt
is made to mitigate the impact by a variety of activities including the use of
BMPs. Mitigation activities are tften included as binding commitments in
project plans and designs.
During the construction and operational phases, the FHWA is responsible for
overseeing the implementation of various regulations designed to minimize the
adverse environmental effects of these activities. For example, temporary
erosion and sediment control measures must be coordinated with permanent
measures to assure economical, effective, and continuous control throughout
the construction phase. Other, regulations require that materials from
sediment traps and materials used during highway construction or operation are
not stockpiled or disposed of in a manner which makes them susceptible to
washoff into any water course. Compliance with such regulations is monitored
through mechanisms such as environmental document approval, approval of plans,
specifications, and estimates, and project acceptance reports.
30
-------
In targeting its efforts, FHWA is responsive to the priority water bodies as
identified by the responsible state water quality agencies. In addition, FHWA
has an extensive technology transfer program, which includes training, re-
search, and two recent demonstration projects entitled "Water Quality Monitor-
ing for Construction Projects" and "Monitoring and Analysis of Highway
Stormwater Runoff."
Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers (COE) is charged with the responsibility of undertaking
water resource development projects having navigational, flood control, water
supply, hydroelectric, recreational, environmental, and other attendant
benefits to the nation. This requires COE to study water and related land
resource problems and to evaluate the need, engineering feasibility, economic
justification, and environmental and social suitability of proposed solutions.
In most cases, the COE has continuing responsibility after completion of
construction for the preservation, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitaton
of its projects, which include canals, levees, dams, harbor and navigational
channels, and reservoirs, as well as thejir related waters. In addition, the
COE manages the multiple use of nearly 12 million acres of land and water on
these projects nationwide. As a consequence, COE is deeply concerned with the
effects of runoff from areas upstream of its projects and facilities, as well
as the downstream effects of Corps projects and facilities.
The main emphasis of the Corps of Engineers' NPS strategy is on the provision
of technical assistance. The COE does 'opt anticipate taking a lead role, but
rather will assist federal, state, areawide, local, and private sector
agencies in their efforts to manage NPS ^pollution, particularly in the problem
assessment phase. For instance, in the ahea of problem identification, the COE
proposes that it participate in the formulation .of screening criteria for
targeting water bodies for protection, ,as we.ll as reviewing and providing
water quality and hydrologic data and ,models. In terms of data management,
the COE will establish and maintain -close coordination with existing and
proposed EP.A databases and will .participate in any annual NPS data
coordination meetings. Also, the COE will provide technical assistance
through its research and development ^program. COE plans to examine its
current research and development activities to determine which programs have
elements that would increase knowledge of
-------
In response to the National NPS Policy, DOO has developed an NPS management
strategy designed to abate NPS pollution generated by DOD. The DOD
implementation strategy is directed at the installation level, and thus will
be the responsibility of installation commanders. Guidance and oversight will
be provided at various levels of the command structure—the major commands,
the DOD Headquarters component (i.e., Army, Navy, etc.), and the overall DOD.
Because the Department of Defense is a major landholder within the U.S., any
national effort to control NPS pollution will have a significant impact at
every level of management within DOD. Consequently, a number of steps will be
taken to reflect this. DOD will:
• Include NPS management in existing training for individuals
and managers responsible for installation activities and
operations;
• Support the exchange of water quality and other management
and technical specialists between the DOD and other federal,
state, areawide, local, and private sector agencies with NPS
management responsibilities; and
• Designate DOD interagency/intergovernmental coordinating
agents who will coordinate installation NPS management
efforts in multi-installation/multi-service areas.
As part of its comprehensive strategy, DOD will include language reflecting
the principles of the National NPS Policy in planning, policy, operation and
maintenance, and construction regulations. This will affect such diverse
activities as military construction projects, installation operations,
community planning, and land management. Land management activities, in
particular, will increasingly take into account NPS concerns in such areas as
forestry management, off-road vehicle use, stormwater runoff, fish and
wildlife management, erosion control, leased agricultural land, and pest
management.
In the areas of problem assessment and research, DOD will:
e Provide routinely collected water quality and hydrologic
data, and relevant research and development information upon
request by NPS management agencies; and
• Coordinate with federal, state, areawide, local, and private
sector agencies to examine the possibility of including NPS
considerations in DOD research and development projects
designed for other purposes.
In terms of coordinating efforts nationally, DOD and its components will
continue to cooperate with other government and private sector NPS management
agencies in all aspects of NPS management. Although DOD has no authority for
enforcement of the National NPS Policy, DOD will cooperate fully with those
NPS management agencies that have enforcement authorities.
32
-------
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority was created by the U.S. Congress to assist in
the proper use, conservation, and development of the natural resources of the
seven-state Tennessee Valley region. In addition to its energy, economic
development, and agricultural programs, TVA is committed to programs and
policies that protect environmental quality. Specifically in the area of
water quality, TVA's activities have as their primary purpose the restoration
and maintenance of suitable water quality throughout the Valley to permit
optimum use of surface and ground waters for: municipal, industrial, and
agricultural water supplies; propagation of fish and wildlife, and water
contact recreation. As a consequence, TVA's involvement with farming and
mining operations in the region and its monitoring and regulating of
watersheds translate into a diverse set of responsibilities and opportunities
for managing NPS pollution.
Although TVA has not yet developed a long-term strategy, it has already begun
and will continue to address NPS pollution control as a regular part of its
regulatory and program objectives. For instance, as part of its agricultural
assistance programs, TVA conducts research and demonstrates soil conservation
techniques and methods for reducing the loss of nitrogen from applied ferti-
lizers. In cooperation with state and federal agencies, TVA also provides
cost-sharing assistance for the construction of animal waste facilities in
targeted watersheds with water quality problems. As part of its land admini-
stration activities, TVA makes it a practice to incorporate requirements for
using BMPs to control NPS pollutants into the deeds, leases, and permits of
those using TVA lands for agricultural purposes.
Similarly, TVA's contracts with coal providers contain provisions which allow
TVA to suspend shipments from coal companies that do not comply with state or
federal laws or regulations regarding pollution (including NPS) control. TVA
is also active in reclaiming abandoned mined lands through its reclamation
demonstration projects for both coal- and noncoal-mined lands, and use of
cost-sharing incentives for abandoned mined land reclamation in several
targeted watersheds. In FY 1985, TVA will select, plan, and initiate
reclamation activities on some 142 contracts associated with pre-1978 strip
mined land from which TVA purchased coal.
Many of TVA's activities center around the assessment, monitoring, and
protection of the reservoirs and watersheds under its management. To improve
its assessment capabilities, TVA is cooperating with USDA and Valley State
Food and Agriculture Councils to complete the development of a computer-based
natural resource data information system and to prepare an assessment of the
status and condition of soil, water, and related agricultural resources in the
seven-state TVA region. Following this assessment, TVA and cooperating
agencies are committed to conducting demonstration projects for soil erosion
control and water quality improvements in agricultural watersheds in each of
the seven river valley states. One goal of these demonstration projects is to
serve as national models for NPS pollution control to achieve Clean Water Act
goals. TVA is also engaged in the testing of alternative data collection
techniques, such as the use of aerial photographs and other remote sensing
systems for inventorying nonpoint pollution source areas. In cooperation with
the seven river valley states, TVA is in the process of developing water
quality management plans for TVA reservoirs, including NPS pollution control
33
-------
needs. NPS pollution control is also.be;ing sought in watersheds by specifying.
the use of BMPs in land management plans! In FY 1986, TVA will be
implementing a water quality mon:itpj4pg program for the seven-state TVA,
region. This program is being designed; in, cooperation w.ith river valley state
agencies and will include NPS pollution, assessments.
Coordination activities include the signing of an MOU with Tennessee regarding
NPS pollution control. TVA anticipates developing MOUs with three other
states and with EPA. Finally, in FY-'l9B5, TVA plans to develop a long-range
NPS pollution control strategy for its. activities and facilities.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is currently implementing a NPS
control program. The program concentrates available funds in priority
watersheds. Watershed projects ar-e selected to maximize comprehensive
improvements in water quality. Al;1; NPS. categories of concern in each
watershed are addressed. Priority watersheds are identified, and, within
these watersheds, priority- management, ai/eas contributing most significantly to
the pollution problem are further identified, through a detailed planning
process. Priority watershed projects are selected for concentrated attention
based on the severity of the waterquality problem(s), potential for pollutant
load reduction, willingness of lando.waers and local agencies to participate,
and potential benefits to, be achieved.!
Watershed implementation plans are prepared which include a detailed inventory
and assessment of critical pollutants and sources and with an identification
of project objectives. Water quality, objectives for NPS control are based on
the type of impairment and on bp;th biolog-tcal and physical parameters.
Through the development of a watershed; implementation plan, the critical land
areas producing the majority o,f the pollutant load are identified and become
the focus for project implementation,.. After the implementation plan is.
approved, cost-share agreements with landowners and municipalities are signed,
requiring BMP installation within fi:ve"years and binding cost-share recipients,
to operation and maintenance requirements for the life of each practice.
Watershed project implementation generality takes about eight to nine years.
The entire process relies on continual involvement of s,tate and local agencies
and individual landowners. The program, also attempts to, build, upon existing
agencies and institutions. Interagency coordination and copp'eration are
essential in this integrated program. In addition, project progress is
tracked on a regular basis to relate'w,ater quality improvements, to specific
control activities, to provide information on BMP effectiveness, and to
provide feedback to appropriate agencies for needed program adjustments. Dyer
fiscal years 1979-1985, the State'of Wisconsin has appropriated $23^8 million
to the NPS control program.
i
Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
Table 2 was provided by the State of Maryland as a summary of its NPS
programs.
34
-------
TABLE 2 STATE OF MARYLAND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
PtoqCM
Maryland Agricultural Cost-
Share Prograa
Stale supftort of SCO*
Maryland Agricultural
Enlorceaent SysUft
Sedlaent/erosioa control
prugrae*
S*t»( ic sytteB regulation
Wfare Bining prugraa
WOtS program - industrial
ruimi I
CPA Chesapeake Bay Prograa
EPA National Urban Runoff
Program
EPA iigH Planning (i 30 it, 208.
205 j)
EPA Clean lakes
ASCS/SCS Rural Clean Water
Program
Maryland Agriculture VS
researtk
Maryland Urban Stonwater Ngt.
Program
Maryland Watershed »*»l. Program
MarylauJ Tidal Wetlands
Program (s)
Maryland Coastal Critical Areas
Pro^raM
Maryland Coastal lone Mgl.
Maryland Solid Waste Ngt. Program
Maryland Hazardous Waste Mgt.
Progra»
Fisheries Mu,t. 1 protection
Soil Conservation Program
Ei tens ion Service
Abandoned Nine Prograa
Local
SCO*
SCOs
SCOs
SCOs and
counties
(SOBO (QMS)
local healu
deparUMOts
.
.
Wasb. COG
Bait. RFC
Wash. COG
Bait. RFC
Columbia;
Baltimore Ca
Carroll Co.
.
Cownties
.
- -
Counties
-
Counties
Counties
-
SCOs
-
State
Oept. of Agr.
DMW
Oept. of Agr.
OMW
ON8
DMW
(MR
OMW
OMW t OUR
i
1
OMW
DMW
OMW (samp-
ling)
BMW i fet*.
or M.
DM
DM
OHfl
Cr It. Areas
Cuoilsslon
DM
OIMI
UMH
DM
0«ft. of Agr
U*l*. of Md
DM
Federal
•
-
-
.
.
-
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
ASCS/SCS
.
—
.
-
.
NOAA
EPA
EPA
fish 1 Wild-
life
SCS. ASCS
US (USOA)
OSM. SCS
Proaran
VOL
INCEH
INCEI
RES
REG
ICC
RtG
REG
OTH
Assess-
•eet)
OTU
Assess-
•entl
VOL
OIH
Assess-
Ben t)
1NCCM
Old
I Assam-
KG
Rf6
ate
REG
VOL
REG
RCG
VOL
ML
VOL
VOL
btont
State
State
Stale
State
State
State
State
Region
Region
Slate
Local
local
Local
State
State
Beg loo
Region
Region
State
State
Region
Stale
State
•et lea
Portia of
tonpoint Source
Pollution
Agriculture (.soil.
nlaal wastes.
healcals)
Agriculture, urban
sedlaent (con-
struction)
Agriculture
Construct ion. sur-
face lining
(resource eitrac
Land disposal
Resource eitrac -
lloa
Industrial runoff
All najor sources
Urban Runoff
All aajor sources
Agricultural Urbai
Runoff
Agriculture
Agriculture
Urban renoff
HydroBodiricaiioa.
construction an
floodplain
Dredging, wetlands
destruction
iBapproprute
development or
otter actlvltie
in defined cri-
tical area
•
Land disposal
land disposal
HydrOBOdtflcatioa
Agriculture
Agriculture
Acid alM dralnagt
Iffeotlveaeos
New (locally effective!
Locally
locally
Locally
Locally
Fully
Locally
Locally
Locally
Locally/partially
locally
locally
locally
•
He*
Unknown
Unknown (partial)
Mew
locally/partially
Fully
Fully
Partially
Locally
Locally
Locally
Source: Maryland Office of Environmental Programs
35
-------
Oklahoma Forestry Division
The Forestry Division of the Oklahoma, State Department of Agriculture,
water quality management responsibilities delegated to it under the State's
water quality management program. Wto.iflie; these responsibilities lie primarily
with the Forestry Division, the Diytsjpn's program depends' heavily on. the
cooperation of both public and private landowners and other agencies for
research and technical assistance. Two, basic premises drive the water quality,
program: (1) preventive rather than corrective actions are the best approach,
and (2) water quality protection is best accomplished through nonregulatory
application of accepted practices on &, site-specific basis. The primary goal
of Oklahoma's forest water quality management program is to protect water
quality while effectively managing and utilizing the State's forest resources.
The overall objectives of the program are to educate landowners and operators,
to develop incentives and management support for non-industrial private
owners, and to increase public and industry support.
The Forestry Division's strategy outlines, nine specific objectives and details
activities designed to meet them. These specific objectives are:
e To prepare and present training' programs for landowners,
contractors, loggers, and forest managers on the topic of
selection and application of management practices for water
quality protection;
e To prepare and present a comprehensive public information
and education program;
o To develop and operate a model! demonstration area designed
as an example of coordinated! forestry and water quality
protection activities;
® To provide technical assistance to landowners, on the
installation of effective water quality management practices
(and to propose a pilot cost-sharing program for providing
landowner incentives);
o To continue operating a hydrological and biological
monitoring program in areas of forestry activities;
© To continue evaluating BMP effectiveness;
© To evaluate the effectiveness of the Division's water
quality management program;
e To identify and support needed water quality-related
research and development activities; and
@ To coordinate forestry water quality management programs
with other water quality planning efforts.
To serve as a general guideline for priorities in future NPS management
activities, the strategy ranks several silvicultural practices by the
potential for causing NPS pollution: forest roads and streamside management
36
-------
practices; clear-cut harvesting; site preparation; and use of chemicals. The
strategy recognizes that a greater effort will be needed to reach absentee
owners and owners with extreme financial limitations; in addition, in some
cases, financial incentives (such as cost-sharing, direct grants, and tax
incentives) will be needed to promote implementation.
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is a regional planning
agency that relies on both the State of Michigan and the local units of
governments within its jurisdiction for actual implementation activities.
However, in addition to needed NPS planning activities SEMCOG, as a Continuing
Planning Agency, can through a variety of mechanisms such as education,
persuasion, publicity, and support for legislation, give broad exposure to NPS
priorities to encourage the allocation of resources for implementation of
solutions. Also, SEMCOG is participating under contract to the State of
Michigan in the development of the State's NPS strategy for both urban and
rural areas.
SEMCOG's main NPS strategy responsibilities are carried out through the
Areawide Water Quality Board. The SEMCOG NPS strategy is actually a chapter
of the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, which is an adopted policy
document. This Plan summarizes of all relevant policy statements. However,
the Plan can be described in terms of five general categories of NPS pollution
and related policy objectives that are of concern to the planning area. They
are :
1. Urban Stormwater
• Prevent any increase in the quantity of stormwater
runoff in new development above that which naturally
occurs.
• Reduce degradation to receiving waters by refining and
expanding identification of stormwater quality problems
and control techniques.
t Control stormwater runoff from surface storage sites.
2. Agricultural and Other Rural Area Runoff
o Preserve and properly manage wetland areas.
• Provide control methods for nonpoint pollution from
agricultural sources including animal wastes and wind
and water erosion from cropland.
• Provide for control of sedimentation from streambanks
and roadsides.
37
-------
3. Chemical Uses
© Promote the development of snow and ice management
practices and dust control ^procedures that minimize
water quality degradation.
© Ensure the use of fertilizer ,-management practices and
rates that protect water ;quaVity, minimizing nutrient
losses from overland flow and {leaching.
® Ensure the use of pestiCfide control techniques that
minimize water quality effects.
4, Septic Systems
e Guide land use planning sfpr unsewered development
through the use of environmental information.
Q Ensure the use of ,envir;pnmental.liy sound septic system
design and location standards.
® Establish an institutional .method for proper septic
system management.
0 Monitor water quality i.,n suspected septic system
problem areas.
5. Sanitary Landfills
® Provide review and regulation procedures and utilize
environmentally sound methods for the site selection
and design qf sanitary landfills.
® Establish procedures that prpyide for the operation and
maintenance of sanitary landfills to a level necessary
for controlling the possible negative effect on water
quality^ '!
@ Monitor water quality in landfill areas suspected of
causing water quality prpblens.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
Task Force Members
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE
PRINCIPAL
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Everett Rank, Administrator
Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 3086 S. Agriculture Bldg.
P.O. Box 2145
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-3467 .
STAFF CONTACT
Gordell Brown, Director
Conservation and Environmental
Protection Division--ASCS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 4714 S. Agriculture Bldg.
P.O. Box 2145
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-6221
Peter C. Myers, Chief
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 5105 S. Agriculture Bldg.
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-4525
Walter Rittall
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 6035 S. Agriculture Bldg.
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 382-8520
J. Lamar Beasley, Deputy Chief
Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 3024 S. Agriculture Bldg.
P.O. Box 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-6663
Merrill L. Petoskey, Deputy
Administrator
Extension Service
3909 S. Agriculture Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
(202) 447-7947
Warren Harper
Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
WS&A Room 810 RP-E
P.O. Box 2417
Washington, D.C. 20013
[810 Rosslyn Plaza East
1621 N. Kent St., Arlington, VA]
(703) 235-8178
Fred Swader
Extension Service
3344 S. Agriculture Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
(202) 447-5369
U.S. Department of the Interior
Dr. Allen Perry, Chief
Division of Environmental Analysis,
Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Department of the Interior
1951 Constitution Ave., NW
Room 134 - South Interior Building
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-5245
John P. Mosesso
Division of Environmental Analysis,
Office of Surface Mining
U.S. Department of the Interior
1951 Constitution Ave., NW
Room 130 - South Interior Building
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-2168
A-l
-------
NONPO*NT SOURCE TtfSfc FORGE (Continued^
PRINCIPAL
Neil Morck, Deputy Director
Lands and Renewable Resources
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
1951 Constitution Ave., NW
Room 5654
Wash ingtori,, D1. C. 20240 (;BLM-200)
(202) 343-4896
STAFF CONTACT
Ron Kuhlman, Chief
Resource Science Staff
U.S. Department of the Interior
Wash.ington:, D;.C.. 20240; (BLM-201)
[Room; 906, I, 1725 I St., NW]
(202) 653-9200
Stan Col off
Bureau of Land Management
II'.. S., Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240 (BLM-202)
[Room 909, 1725 I Street, NW]
(-202) 653-9210
Bob Schoen, HydroTogist
U.S. Geological Survey
412 National Center, Rm. 5A429
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 860-6834
None provided
U.S. Department of Transportation
Larry Isaacson, Chief
Environmental Analysis Division
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW
Room 4218
Washington, D,.C. 20590
(202) 426-9173
Charles DesJardins
Environmental Analysis Division
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 7th Street, SW
Room 4218
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 426-9173
A-2
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE (Continued)
PRINCIPAL
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Major General John F. Wall, Director
Civil Works
HQ (DAEN CWZ-A)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, O.C. 20314
(202 272-0099
STAFF CONTACT
Lt. Col. Ronald G. Kelsey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineering
Office of the Chief of Engineering
DAEN-CWZ-P
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, O.C. 20314
(202) 272-0103
Tennessee Valley Authority
Martin Rivers
Office of Natural Resources
Economic Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
201 Summer Place Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37902
(615) 632-6578
( 8) 856-6578
and
Dr. William Klesch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HQ (DAEN-CWP-P)
20 Massachusetts Ave.. NW
Washington, D.C. 20314
(202) 272-0132
Bob Johnson
Environmental Quality Staff
Tennessee Valley Authority (NALMS)
206 Summer Place Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
(615) 632-6599
( 8) 856-6599
Al Duda
Environmental Quality Staff
Tennessee Valley Authority (NALMS)
230 Summer Place Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37902
(615) 632-6694
A-3
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE (Continued)
PRINCIPAL
U.S. Environmental ProtectIon Agency
(Headquarters)
Jack E. Ravan, AA
Office of Water
(WH-5'56)
1035 East Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St£, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5700
STAFF CONTACT
Milton Russell, AA
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation - (PM-219)
1013 West Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4332
Josephine S. Cooper, AA
Office of External Affairs
(A-100EA)
1135 West Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5654
Carl Myers, Acting Director
Water Planning Division
(WH-554)
817 East Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7100
James Meek, Chief
Implementation Branch
Water Planning Division
(WH-554)
821 East Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7085
John. Jaksch
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation - (PM-219)
1013 West Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M> Street, SW
Washington, D;. C. 20460
(.202) 382-2736
Debbie Steelman
Office' of External Affairs
CA-LOOEA)'
1135' West Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington^, D.C. 20460
(202)' 382-4454
Margaret Schneider
Office of Federal Activities (A-104')'
MaTl 2119
U.S. Environmental Protection' Agency'
401 M' Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)! 382-5070
A'--4'
-------
NONPOINf SOURCE TASK FORGE (Continued)
PRINCIPAL
U; S uEhv i rbhmehtal Protecti6ri Agency
(Regions)"
fh arias P. EichTerj Reg i'oh a 1
Administrator - Region 3
U.S: Environmental Protection Agency
6th and Walnut Streets
PhiladSiphiai PA 19106
(215) 59'7-9800
( 8) 597-9800
STAFF CONTACT
bale Wismer
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-8244
( 8) 597-8244
Vaida? V. Adamkusv, Regional
Administrator - Reg i'oh 5
U.S., Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, it. 60604
(312) 353-2'pOO
'( 8) 353-2000
Gary Williams, Chie'f
Water Planning a'ri'd Standards Section
jRegion 5
U.S. Enyirb;nmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearbbrh Street
'Chicago, IL 60604
'(312) 353-2154
;( 8] 353-2154
John" G7 Wei Tes, Regi'onaT
Region 8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1860 Lincoln Stre'et
Denver, CO 80295
(303) 844-3895
( 8) 844-3895
;Roger Dean
?Regi'6n 8
U.S. Ehvi'rphmental Protection Agency
1860 'Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80295
'(303) 844-2721
( 8) 844-2721
State Agencies
Lyman Wible
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (ASIWPCA)
101 S. Webs'ter Street, Room 530
'G'E'F II
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-1099
Lin Eichmiller
'ASIWPCA
'444 'N. Capitol St., NW, Suite 330
'Hall of States
Washlngtoh, D.C. 20001
(202) 624-7782
Jim Nelson, Director
Division of Environmental Quality
S.D. Department of Water and
, Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg., Room'413
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-3351
William Mark ley
Division of Environmental Quality
S.D. Department of Water and
Natural 'Resources
Joe Foss Bldg., Room 413
Pierre, SD 57501
'(605) 773-3296
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE (Continued)
PRINCIPAL
Kenneth E. McElroy, Jr., Director
Planning and Analysis Unit
MO Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene
201 West Preston
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301) 383-5792
STAFF CONTACT
None provided
Roger L. Davis, Director
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture
Forestry Division
2800 N. Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-3886
Robert L. Miller
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture
Forestry Division
2800 N. Lincoln
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 521-3864
James Boil lot, Director of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3359
John Howl and
Water Pollution Control Division
Missouri Department of Agriculture
2010 Missouri Boulevard
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(314) 751-3332
Dr. Meredith Ostrom, Director and
State Geologist
Wisconsin Geological and Natural
History Survey
1815 University Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
(608) 262-1705
(608) 263-7384
None provided
Clyde Bohmfalk, Assistant Director
Construction Grants & Water Quality
Management Division
Texas Department of Water Resources
P.O. Box 13087—Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 475-3926
Joan Kovalic, Esq.
Interstate Conference on Water
Problems
21 Dupont Circle, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 466-7287
A-6
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE TASK FORCE (Continued)
PRINCIPAL
Local Agencies
George C. Rupert, Division Manager
Wastewater Management Division
Department of Public Works
City and County of Denver (NIC)
3840-G York Street
Denver, CO 80205
(303) 295-1451"
STAFF CONTACT
Nick Skifalides
Wastewater Management Division
Department of Public Works
City and County of Denver (NLC)
3840-G York Street
Denver, CO 80205
(303) 295-1451
Neal Potter
Member of the Montgomery County
Council
County Executive - National Association
of Counties
100 Maryland Avenue
Stellar Werner Office Bldg.
Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 251-7951
Cameron Wiegand
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governmentments (NARC)
1875 I St., NW, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 223-6800'
John M. Amberger, Executive Director
S.E. Michigan Council of Governments
(NARC)
Book Bldg. - Suite 800
1249 Washington Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 961-4266
Patrick J. Brunett
S.E. Michigan Council of Governments
(NARC)
Book Bldg. - Suite 800
1249 Washington Blvd.
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 961-4266
George Gaberlavage, Federal Liaison
National Association of Regional
Councils
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 1306
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 457-0710
George Wolff
Conservation District Director
National Association of Conservation
Districts
420 Mary Sachs Bldg.
208 North 3rd Street, Room 420
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-8754
Charles Bpothby
National Association of Conservation
Districts
1025 Vermont Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 347-5955
A-7
-------
OTHERS AFFILIATED WITH TASK FORCE
Liaison Group
Hope Babcock
National Audubon Society
645 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, 3rd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20003
(202) 547-9009
Gail Allison
League of Women Voters
1730 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 429-1965
Toby Clark, Senior Associate
The Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 797-4300
Mark Maslyn
American Farm Bureau Federation
600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 484-2222
Beth Reicheld
Office of Legislative Affairs
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 797-6800
Pat Hill
National Forest Products Association
1619 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 797-5800
James Scala
National Association of Home Builders
1201 15th Street, NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 822-0200
A-8
-------
Brenda Dawson
The Fertilizer Institute
1015 18th St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 861-4900
Congressional Staff
Craig DeRemer
House Committee on Public Works
and Transportation
2253 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, O.C. 20515
(202) 225-4472
John Doyle
House Committee on Public Works
and Transportation
2253 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4360
Caroline Gabel
House Committee on Public Works
and Transportation
B370A Rayburn Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-6151
Robert Hurley
Senator Chafee's Office
SD 567 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, D,.C. 20510
(202) 224-7189
Others
Alvin Aim, Deputy Administrator
(A-101)
1215 West Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-4711
Henry Longest
(WH-556)
1035 East Tower
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-5707
A-9
-------
Christina Ramsey
Deputy Director of Environmental Policy
Department of Defense
ODASD(I)EP
Pentagon Room 3D833
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000
(202) 695-7820
Dr. Robert Broadbent
Assistant Secretary for Water and Science
Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-2186
Tom Fair
Special Assistant to the Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science
Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-4457
A-10
-------
Additional EPA Staff
Dan Burrows
Office of Water
(202) 382-5675
Ralph Ross
Office of Water
(202) 475-8532
Rob Dunn
Water Planning Division
Walt Sanders
Environmental Research Lab
Office of Research and Development
College Station Road
Athens, GA 30613
Donna Fletcher
Office of Ground-Water Protection
(202) 382-7077
Karen Shafer
Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
(202) 382-2724
Lori Gribbon
Office of Water
(202) 382-5704
Stu Tuller
Water Planning Division
(202) 382-7108
Lori Mackey
Water Planning Division
(202) 382-7100
Diane Niedzialkowski
Office of Standards and
Regulations
(202) 382-2716
Anne Weinberg
Water Planning Division
(202) 382-7107
Rob Wolcott
Office of the Deputy
Administrator
(202) 382-4727
Contractor Support Staff (The Synectics Group, Inc.)
Sandra Christian
Vivian Daub
Claire Gesalman
Nancy Hershberger
Amy Marasco
Lewis Michaelson
Anthony Neville
Kathryn Schmitz
Sharon Tabor
A-ll
------- |