&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Sept/Oct 1978
208
Bulletin
Thoughts on
Project
Clearwater
" TTie activities which took
I place during Project Clear-
water (cover story July-August
208 Bulletin) provide an outstan-
ding example of the common ob-
jectives of the agricultural com-
munity and the environmental
movement. All of us want to
assure that the farmer and
rancher can produce the food
and fiber required by our nation
and for export to other parts of
the world at a fair price to the
consumer and a good return to
the farmer for his labor and in-
vestment. At the same time we
also want the soil resources to
stay on the land for use by
future generations and the water
that leaves the land to be clear.
This Project is only a small part
of the millions of acres which
will require similar treatment with
best management practices if we
are to meet our Nation's clear
water goals." Joseph Krivak
Continued on page 2
The Warren Roe/key barn, before
and after Projeot Clearwater. On
August 19, 500 volunteers
gathered to transform this
Frederick, Maryland farm into a
model of soil and water conser-
vation.
-------
Project
Clearwater
Continued from page 1
With the building of a new hog
barn, these pigs will no longer
contribute to pollution of this
stream.
Thousands of farmers had the
opportunity to learn about and
observe the application of
agricultural BMP's.
Daniel Poole, a Catoctin District
supervisor, gazes toward the
area soon to be the site of the
farm pond.
-------
Volunteers push (he soil to form
the bottom of a 1.2 acre pond.
This was just one of thirteen
conservation /best management
practices being applied to the
Roelkey farm.
Maryland Governor Blair Lee,
and EPA's Deputy Director for
Water Planning, Joseph Krivak,
(speaking) were among the
distinguished guests.
6
By dusk, the Roe/key farm had
taken on a new look. The con-
servation field day had suc-
cessfully dramatized the control
of agricultural nonpoint sources
of pollution.
-------
Status of The WQM Program
The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 provided
local areas with a unique oppor-
tunity to plan and manage a
comprehensive waste treatment
control program. Initiation of the
program lagged somewhat be-
cause of the attention demanded
by the permit program and con-
struction grants program. During
1974, however, the program was
launched with a $1 million grant
award in Raleigh-Durham, North
Carolina. At the close of FY
1974, there were 11 grant awards
otaling $13.5 million.
FY 1975 marked the real
growth of the program with the
addition of 138 grants at $150
million. In 1975, the U.S. District
Court ruled that States were re-
quired to conduct a level of plan-
ning that would have been con-
ducted by the local agency if the
area had been designated. Thus,
today, there are 175 areawides
and 49 States doing 208 planning
throughout the Nation with
Federal assistance of approx-
imately $220 million. Another $70
million remains available through
September 1979.
The majority of the initial
areawide plans will be submitted
for State certification and/or
EPA approval during 1978; 149
scheduled by September 30 and
214 by December 31. The re-
maining 11 are scheduled to be
submitted by June 30, 1979.
Twenty plans have been certified
and 2 approved with conditions
(Des Moines and Pikes Pr^k) as
of July 1978.
The President's budget in
eludes $50 million for the 208
program for FY 79. The Con-
gressional Appropriations Com-
mittees eventually agreed upon
$32 million. In addition, EPA is
negotiating with OMB on a five
year funding strategy which
would provide for stability in the
program over the next several
years.
Future funding will be pro-
vided to specific agencies to
solve specific problems. Priorities
identified for FY 79 funding are
nonpoint sources/water conser-
208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT MAP
-------
Proposed Public Participation Regulations
vation, facilities planning, urban
storm runoff and pretreatment.
With the exception of new
designations, to receive addi-
tional funds, an aroawide agency
must be "successrul" relative to
work undertaken and completed
to date. (i.e. the initial plan has
been certified by the State and
approved by EPA).
Of course the key to the 208
program is implementation. EPA
has determined that beginning in
FY 80 no funding will be pro-
vided unless some portion of the
plan is being implemented. D
LEGEND
EPA Rf QK>MAL BOUNDAfllU I THRU Z
AREAWDE X» PLANHINO tOUNOARIE*
APPROVED *» PLANS
MODEL IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT!
MURAL CLEAN WATER PROORAM AREAS
APPLICATION*
APPROVED
Proposed regulations for pub-
ic participation (40 CFR 25)
were published in the Federal
Register in August, 1978. The
regulations establish public par-
ticipation requirements for pro-
grams under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Resource Conser-
vation and Recovery Act, and
the Clean Water Act.
The new regulations will
replace Part 105 (Public Par-
ticipation in Water Pollution
Control) and Interim Final 249
(Public Participation in Solid
Waste Management.)
The scope of the activities
covered by 40 CFR 25 are:
development and implementa-
tion of plans, programs, con-
struction and other activities
supported with EPA grants to
State, interstate, regional and
local agencies
EPA rulemaking
EPA administration of permit
programs
Delegation of programs to
State and substate agencies and
administration of such programs
Development by EPA of major
informational materials for wide
public distribution
At a Deputy Assistant Admin-
istrator's discretion, development
of strategy and policy memoran-
da
Part 25 regulations cover these
major topics: "Public Informa-
tion," "Public Notification,"
"Public Consultation," "Public
Participation Work Plans" and
"Compliance." There are also
descriptions for "Responsiveness
Summaries" and "Public Partici-
pation Summaries," which will
be required only when specified
by individual programs.
Essentially, Public Information
would require that information
available to the public should
identify significant decisions,
alternative courses of action and
their implications. Also, informa-
tion should be accessible, avail-
able in advance of important
decisions and prepared in lay-
man's language.
Public Notification would re-
quire the development of a mail-
ing list of interested or affected
individuals and organizations and
notification when major deci-
sions are oemg made. Both
Continued to page 7
208 Planning and Ground Water Protection
Ground water may be out of
sight, but it is hardly out of
the minds of water quality man-
agement planners. Several 208
agencies have been tackling
ground water protection as their
highest priority.
Ground water needs protect-
ing for several reasons. First,
more than 100 million Americans
rely on underground sources to
supply their drinking water.
Ground water supplies roughly
23 percent of the total national
water use.
Second, ground water does
not readily cleanse itself of con-
taminants. Once polluted, the
slow-moving resource can re-
main contaminated for thou-
sands of years. Artificial flushing
is usually unfeasible because of
the large volumes involved.
Little attention has been ac-
corded ground water in the past.
Surface water problems, which
were more visible, attracted the
resources. But, now that 208
plans are being submitted, it is
apparent that planning agencies
are attacking their ground water
problems. Two examples stand
out.
»!»»« KXiii UK*
The Nassau-Suffolk (NY)
Regional Planning Board studied
the possible future insufficiencies
of the quantity and quality of
their ground water. Serious
decline of either parameter could
threaten the area's almost three
million inhabitants who depend
on the aquifers for their fresh
water supply.
The agency compiled hydro-
logic and geologic profiles,
studied land use, and identified
ground water contaminants.
(Water level declines would not
be sufficiently large to affect
availability, they concluded.) The
agency did pinpoint storm runoff
and other nonpoint sources as
principle introducers of con-
taminants.
The Planning Board recom-
mended programs to control the
nonpoint sources of pollution
and to promote water conserva-
tion. Sewer systems and other
structural solutions were second-
arily recommended.
The Ventura (CA) Regional
County Sanitation District
adopted a tripartite solution to
ease its problems with overdraft,
salt water intrusion and
mineralization.
The 208 agency determined
that short-term BMPs and water
conservation would help balance
draft and recharge. Intermediate-
term well construction into a
lower aquifer zone would ease
the burden on the overdrawn up-
per one. Only the long-term
structural solution, a water
qualitv pipeline and improved
diversion, would correct the
mineralization problem.
The Water Planning Division,
meanwhile, is pursuing ways to
coordinate 208 planning with
other environmental programs to
achieve more efficient ground
water protection. The State/EPA
Agreement is currently con-
sidered the best mechanism to
accomplish the integration.
At present, the Agreement
guidelines call for consolidation
of activities under such programs
as Construction Grants, Water
Supply, Solid Waste, and Water
Quality. By FY80, the focus will
be on coordinated problem solu-
tions rather than individual pro-
gram activities.
Relationships to EPA programs
other than those administered by
the Office of Water and Hazar-
dous Materials, and to other
Federal programs, should be
clarified in the FY80 Agreements.
-------
Revised WQM Regulations Out for Comment
P O A ,in September,
Cl /"\ published proposed
revisions to the regulations
governing the water quality
management program authorized
by §106, 208 and 303(e) of the
Clean Water Act of 1977. This
revision responds to the
President's initiative on con-
solidation of Federal require-
ments for State and local plan-
ning by combining Part 130; 131;
35.200 through 35.236; and
35.551 through 35.570 of Title 40
into one consolidated set of
regulations.
The proposed regulations
establish a new focus for contin-
uing planning and implementa-
tion, implement applicable provi-
sions of the 1977 Clean Water
Act and other new executive
orders and directives, and
resolve problems with portions
of the existing regulations based
on the experience of the last
several years.
For water quality management
under Section 208 of the Act,
the proposed regulations em-
phasize planning and implemen-
tation activities that follow devel-
opment of the initial plans. This
change in emphasis occurs
because the initial planning
phase (generally three years) is
approaching completion. To
avoid confusion, the old regula-
tions will continue to govern the
initial planning phase of existing
grantees, except in instances
specified in the regulations.
WQM planning conducted after
the initial phase, including plan
updates and revisions will be
governed by the new regula-
tions.
The State/EPA Agreement re-
quired by existing regulations
(§130.11 of this chapter) was
designed to establish the level of
detail and timing of State water
quality management plan pre-
paration and assure the orderly
integration of planning efforts
and control activities. The
original emphasis was on initial
plan preparation; the proposed
regulation now stresses the inte-
grative and coordinative aspects
of the Agreement, and imple-
mentation.
Beginning with the publication
of the proposed regulations, the
State/EPA Agreement becomes
the primary means to integrate
the planning, management, im-
plementation and evaluation of
programs under the Clean Water
Act; the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act; the Safe
Drinking Water Act; the Clean
Air Act; the Toxic Substances
Control Act; the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act; and other laws administered
by EPA. Since this subpart
governs only that portion of the
State/EPA Agreement relating to
the 106, 208 and 303(e) pro-
grams, other programs included
in a State/EPA Agreement will
be governed by the applicable
provisions of their respective
regulations found elsewhere in
Chapter 40. The responsibilities
of other programs regarding the
Agreement will be discussed in
their regulations and EPA guid-
ance on State/EPA Agreements.
The preliminary concept paper
for revisions to the regulations
was issued on May 4, 1978.
Many comments were received
and incorporated in the proposed
regulations. Readers are en-
couraged to offer comments on
the proposed regulations to
Program Development Branch,
(WH 554) U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460. Final regulations are ex-
pected to be promulgated in the
fall. D
Missouri Citizens Say Erosion Is
Major State Water Pollution Problem
Jefferson City MO, June 16
With 110 of Missouri's 114
citizen water quality committees
reporting, soil erosion was iden-
tified as the state's major non-
point source water pollution
problem. Some form of erosion
was listed as the most important
problem by 93.5% of the coun-
ties reporting.
The county committee reports
are a part of Missouri's Water
Quality Management Program
(208) which is a jointly funded
state/federal project under the
direction of the Division of En-
vironmental Quality, Missouri
Department of Natural Re-
sources. Authority for the pro-
gram originates from Public Law
92-500 (Section 208) passed by
Congress in 1972. Under the law,
the Department of Natural Re-
sources must write a state plan
for water pollution abatement by
early 1979.
The reports reflect the opin-
ions of about 2,100 county com-
mittee members, and other
interested citizens. County com-
mittees used newspaper articles,
radio and TV announcements,
and word-of-mouth communica-
tion to encourage citizens to of-
fer written or verbal comments
about water concerns. Many
counties used mini-question-
naires and suggestion boxes to
solicit input. Other question-
naires were completed by those
attending the 26 public meetings
conducted across the state last
March.
"We appreciate the excellent
guidance Missouri citizens have
given us through these county
reports," said Richard F. Rankin,
director, Water Pollution Control
Program, DEQ. "This listing of
water pollution concerns will
help us write a state water pollu-
tion abatement plan that is prac-
tical and suitable for most
citizens."
More than half of the reports
(57%) listed erosion from agri-
culture as their county's most
serious water pollution problem.
Another 8% of the reports plao-
ed erosion from construction in
their first priority position. On a
statewide basis, erosion from
construction ranked second and
erosion from county road was
third. Exactly 60% of the coun-
ties listed highway and county
roads erosion among their first
six priorities.
Half of the reporting commit-
tees listed solid waste disposal
and 42% listed septic tanks as a
problem among the first six
priority positions. One county,
Camden, only listed septic tanks
and solid waste disposal as
water pollution problems. Litter-
ing along streams and waterways
was listed by many counties,
especially in the Ozark regions.
Margaret Hiett, Texas county
committee secretary, offered a
prologue with her county report.
"There are no major problems
with nonpoint pollution in the
county," she wrote. The report
continued by listing minor prob-
lems, such as sediment and
littering.
"Texas county is typical of
many Ozark counties," Rankin
remarked. "The objective for
many Ozark counties will be to
maintain the water quality ex-
isting there now."
Reynolds county suggested an
increase in the fines levied
against those found guilty of
throwing trash along the rivers
and highways. This county com-
mittee also recommended that
users of jeeps and 4-wheel drive
vehicles be stopped from driving
up and down stream beds.
County committees will now
consider the best management
practices to eliminate or reduce
the water pollution problems
they have identified. A series of
public meetings will be held at 15
locations across the state be-
tween August 7 and 17 to
discuss how some of the non-
point source water pollution
problems can be controlled. A
second county committee report
suggesting the best management
practice, how each program can
be financed, decisions about
what sort of program is wanted,
and which agency should ad-
minister programs initiated is due
two weeks following each public
meeting. The last report is due at
the Department of Natural
Resources September 1. D
-------
Interagency Agreement USGS and EPA
An interagency agreement has
been proposed between the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
and EPA, according to Merna
Hurd, director of the Water Plan-
ning Division.
In an attempt to reduce the
amount of of duplicated services
within the Government, the GS
will collect data on stormwater
runoff.
The services GS will provide
include:
gaining an understanding of
the cause and effect relation-
ships of precipitation and storm-
water runoff
gaining an understanding of
the impact of urban stormwater
on receiving waters
determining cost effectiveness
of stormwater control techniques
assembling a data base suit-
able for testing, refinement and
development of computer-based
models of the urban runoff/pol-
lution process.
The two agencies will form an
advisory technical planning com-
mittee (ATPC). The committee
will provide technical advice on
GS stormwater gaging programs
in selected cities; data collection,
analysis, instrumentation and
processing; use of urban runoff
models; and developing a set of
urban hydrology monitors in
selected cities.
Also proposed is for the GS to
establish and maintain monitor-
ing stations for the support of
EPA sponsored nation-wide plan-
ning programs.
If EPA finds its needs are not
being met by GS, EPA has the
right, according to the inter-
agency agreement, to recom-
mend work scope changes.
These changes may include site,
location, type of equipment,
method of collection and method
of analysis.
The interagency agreement is
proposed for 5 years.
"The Small Business Adminis-
tration (SBA) has recently con-
cluded an agreement with the
Environmental Protection Agency
to provide information on the
economic impact of proposed
environmental regulations on
small firms," EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle said.
SBA will also keep EPA in-
formed on proposed legislation
designed to help small busi-
nesses meet environmental prob-
lems.
Administrator Costle added,
"EPA will make every effort to
give special attention to small
producers in certain industries
that could experience severe im-
pacts as a result of our regula-
tions. This will help open the
way for financial assistance to
the affected businesses." D
Urbanization Modeling Results Announced
The Southern New Jersey
Water Resources Study team
has now completed hydrologic
models for the Rancocas,
Cooper and Mantua watersheds.
Chosen on the basis of the Tri-
County PAC and TAG recom-
mendations, the watershed
models are designed to reflect
the growth projected to occur
through the year 2000. The basic
assumption of the models is that
they reflect only the fluvial
flooding, that is, the tidal effects
of the Delaware River were re-
moved from the models.
Five major steps were involved
in the attempt to assess the
potential hydrologic changes:
Identification of causative
factors, such as urbanization, .
growth and sewers.
Projections of where these
factors will occur within the
studied watersheds.
Identification of those
hydrologic parameters which will
be affected by each factor.
Relation of the magnitude of
the changes which will occur to
the hydrologic components in
the mathematical models.
Execution of the simulation
models to calculate the relative
changes in terms of hydro-
graphs, frequency of curves,
flows and stagedischarge rela-
tionship.
For purposes of the urbaniza-
tion models developed in the
study, the following assumptions
were made:
No additional development
would occur in the presently
defined 100-year floodplain.
The growth rates and pat-
terns projected as Future One
were those values determined by
the public during the year 2000
projections meetings and as
originally published by Tri-
County 208.
The growth patterns and
rates projected as the Maximum
Future were those revised values
used by Tri-County 208 of the
original year 2000 maximum
future, whichever was greater.
Initial results of the models for
those previously identified
damage centers indicate that ur-
banization, as forecast by the
year 2000 studies, would not
have a significant effect on the
flood levels expected for the
various probability storms. For
example, the 100-year flows for
the Rancocas at Lumberton in-
crease by 7.0 and 13.1 percent
for the two projected futures.
Future analysis will center
around development of the ex-
pected 10 and 100year flows
for all sub-areas in each water-
shed and development of a users
manual for the county planning
and engineering. D
Credit: U.S. Army'Corps of Engineers
Proposed Public Participation
Regs.
Continued from page 5
Public Information and Public
Notification subsections maintain
the existing requirements from
the old regulations.
"Public Consultation," means
an exchange of views between
government agencies and the
public. New Part 25 states that
consultation can be conducted
informally as well as by three for-
mal techniques. These are:
Public Hearings: Notice and
fact sheet must be sent 45 days
prior to date of hearing. Re-
quirements include a convenient
time and location and available
hearing records.
Public Meetings: Less formal
than hearings. Less* than 45 days
notice if reason stated in notice.
Advisory Groups: When re-
quired in individual program
regulations, the groups are in-
tended to augment other public
participation activities by pro-
viding a core group of informed
citizens who will make recom-
mendations to decision making
officials on important issues.
As stated in the proposed
regulations, a Public Participation
Work Element, or brief descrip-
tion of the projected public par-
ticipation activities, staff, budget
and schedule, must be included
in grant applications.
To gauge the effectiveness of
the public participation program
and provide public feedback,
Responsiveness Summaries and
Public Participation Summaries
can be required by individual
programs, These documents
outline the public's opinions and
the agencies' responses and
describe what measures were
taken by grantees to meet public
participation requirements.
Last, the proposed regulations
include compliance requirements
for grant programs. EPA will not
approve a grant without an ade-
quate public participation work
plan, and can impose other sanc-
tions on non-complying
grantees.
Specific applicability of these
regulations to 208 grantees is
covered by the proposed new
Water Quality Management
Regulations.
Both regulations are currently
in the public comment stage and
copies can be obtained from the
EPA Regional offices. D
-------
Implementation of Agricultural/206 Water Quality Management Plans
One of the main thrusts in
water quality management
planning has been that of im-
plementation. PL 92-500
specifically states:
"Sec. 101 (a)(5) it is national
policy that area wide waste treat-
ment management planning pro-
cesses be developed and im-
plemented to assure adequate
control of sources of pollutants
in each State, ..." (emphasis
added)
This emphasis on developing an
implementable 208 water quality
management plan has been car-
ried forth in EPA rules, regula-
tions, and guidance.
The Model Implementation Pro-
gram within EPA and USDA
catches this spirit of, "lets get
something done". A request to
identify "high priority" water
quality problems within the agri-
cultural sector was made of each
State through the State USDA
Coordinating Committees and
the Regional offices of EPA.
Together with local interests they
were to identify problems that
were severe enough that local
residents could easily see that
something had to done. More
than fifty (50) applications were
received and evaluated by State,
EPA and USDA programs and
research management staff. Out
of this evaluation, seven areas
were selected to develop model
implementation programs.
/ though only seven MIP areas
were selected for national
evaluation, a number of the pro-
posals are being acted upon
locally.
The enthusiam displayed in local
MIP areas reflect the impacts
that this program, and the sub-
sequent Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram, will have on rural water
quality management. Decisions
regarding acceptance of local
responsibilities have been made
in all projects. Local financial
support for these projects has
been agreed upon in all areas.
County, State, and Federal of-
fices have volunteered man-
power and money to meet these
projects' clean water goals.
For example, the Maple Creek
Watershed MIP area in Nebraska
has received support from four-
teen groups. These are:
1. EPA National office
$10,000
2. EPA Regional office
$118,400
3. EPA R&D CorvalHs lab -
$20,000
4. Nebraska Nature/ Resources
Commission Contract ad-
ministration
5. Agricultural Conservation Pro-
gram $375,769
6. Soil Conservation Service
A soil conservationist and soil
conservation technician have
been assigned to work exclusive-
ly within the MIP area.
7. Local Land Owners Man-
power and financial resources to
complete conservation treatment
for water quality purposes has
been volunteered.
8. Farmers Home Administration
Cooperation in providing
financial assistance to maximize
the beneficial impact of its pro-
gram on water quality.
9. Forest Service has pledged
its support and offered its ser-
vices in all areas that require
their expertise.
10. Economic and Statistical
Cooperative Service attitude
surveys of landowners have been
made and follow up surveys
planned.
11. Science and Education Ad-
ministration Federal Research
Initial selection, evaluation,
and monitoring of the site
selected.
12.. University of Nebraska
Lincoln/Cooperative Extension
Service Coordination of infor-
mation dissemination.
13. University of Nebraska
Lincoln/Experiment Station
Agreed to oversee the biological
monitoring.
14. Lower Elkhorn Natural
Resources District coordina-
tion to prepare the work plan
and start the monitoring pro-
gram.
This effort in Nebraska is not
unique. The other six MIP areas
have equal enthusiasm and sup-
port. These are:
Indiana Indiana Heartland area
where heavy sediment loads are
affecting water quality;
New York Delaware River,
West Branch watershed where
agriciijJ'iral and forest harvest
activities including many dairy
and feedlot operations have
caused serious water quality
problem;
Oklahoma Little Washita River
with typical south central
Oklahoma water pollution prob-
lems caused by sediment from
gullying cropland and county
roadsides, as well as oil and gas
developments;
South Carolina Broadway
Lake watershed east of Ander-
son City, where serious degrada-
tion of water quality stems from
sedimentation, agricultural
chemicals, and animal waste;
South Dakota Lake Herman,
a natural lake near Madison in
Lake County, a recreation lake
with water pollution problems
that including soil erosion and
sedimentation;
Washington Sulphur Creek,
Yakima County, whose chief
pollution problem is due to the
sedimentation, salts and
nutrients from irrigation return
flow.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL
95-217) also carries this spirit of
"lets get something done on the
land" Section 35 of this Act
authorizes funding to individual
land owners or operators for the
purpose of installing best
management practices (BMPs)
consistent with a 208 water
quality management plans. The
Secretary of Agriculture is to ad-
minister this program with the
concurrance of the EPA adminis-
trator. This program is called the
Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP).
Funding of the RCWP is still in
appropriation committees within
the U.S. Congress. The outlook
is promising for fiscal years 1979
and 1980.D
-DO
S3
0} n
; <.»
o
3 ss
o
o 7
2
5'
,,-om-n TJ
5111.31
------- |