EPA 910/9-92-028	Alaska
United States Region 10 Idaho
Environmental Protection 1200 Sixth Avenue Oregon
Agency 	Seattle WA 98101	Washington
Water Division	Watershed Section	September 1992
-------
SECTION 319 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT:
AN EVALUATION OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION IN REGION 10
By
Esther Bartfeld
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Watershed Section
Water Division
EPA Library Region IV
September 1992
EPA 910/9-92-028
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 		ii
ABSTRACT 	iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	iv
INTRODUCTION 	 1
I.	BACKGROUND	 3
A.	§319 Program 		 3
B.	§319(h) Grant Guidance 	 6
C.	§319 Grant Application and Award Process 	 8
II.	STATE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS	11
A.	Washington	11
B.	Oregon	13
C.	Idaho	15
D.	Alaska	16
III.	SELECTED §319 PROJECTS IN REGION 10	18
IV.	SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 	23
A.	Comments on the Region 10 §319 Program	23
B.	Characteristics of Successful Projects 	26
V.	RECOMMENDATIONS 	32
A.	Recommendations for the Region 10 §319 Program 	32
B.	Recommendations for Region 10 Program Management	35
VI.	CONCLUSION	38
APPENDIX 1: REGION 10 STATE NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS	39
APPENDIX 2: REGION 10 §319 PROJECT RATING SHEET 	40
APPENDIX 3: CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED §319 PROJECTS	41
APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF §319 PROJECTS IN REGION 10 STATES .... 53
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Elbert Moore, Region 10 Watershed Section Chief and project
sponsor, for envisioning this report and providing invaluable guidance, support, and expert
review throughout its development. Federal and state officials working to implement the
Region 10 §319 program also contributed important insights. I am grateful to Kahle
Jennings and Roger Wood, Nonpoint Source Coordinators for Washington and Oregon,
respectively, for accompanying me on site visits and providing valuable input. Drew Grant
(Alaska Nonpoint Source Coordinator), Don Martin (US EPA Idaho Operations Office), and
Donna Rodman (Idaho Nonpoint Source Coordinator) also provided constructive insights
regarding §319 program implementation, and reviewed earlier drafts. I greatly appreciate the
time spent with project officials for the Malheur County, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols,
TFW/Forest Practices Assistance, and Willapa Bay projects who patiently explained their
work and gave me a chance to observe §319 projects firsthand. Special thanks are also due
to the staff of EPA Region 10's Watershed Section for contributing ideas and reviewing
earlier drafts. I would also like to thank the National Network for Environmental
Management Studies program for making this work possible. It is my hope that the
information contained within this report will be useful to federal and state officials
responsible for §319 program implementation in Region 10.
Seattle, WA	Esther Bartfeld
September 1992
DISCLAIMER
This report was funded by the National Network for Environmental Management Studies
(NNEMS) program, which sponsors fellowships for graduate students to research EPA-
designated topics. This particular project was sponsored by Mr. Elbert Moore, Region 10
Watershed Section Chief. The report has been reviewed by the Region 10 Watershed Section
of the Water Division, and approved for copying and distribution. The views expressed in
this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other organizations named in this report.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
Nonpoint source pollution, long overlooked in federal water pollution regulation, has
now become a centerpiece of pollution control efforts. Congress added §319 — the nonpoint
source management programs section — to the Clean Water Act in the 1987 Amendments to
demonstrate federal commitment to nonpoint source control activities. Section 319(h) grant
money, provided by EPA to individual states, forms an integral part of the federal nonpoint
source program. EPA national and regional guidance give direction to the §319(h) grant
program. As an evolving federal program, §319 must carve out a niche for itself in relation
to ongoing statewide nonpoint source control efforts.
This paper provides an analysis of the §319 program and the effectiveness of §319(h)-
funded projects in protecting water quality in Region 10 states, which include Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. The report identifies characteristics of successful §319 projects,
reviews selected §319 projects, highlights several important issues surrounding the §319
program, and makes recommendations for program improvement.
iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nonpoint source pollution, long overlooked in federal water pollution regulation, has
now become a centerpiece of pollution control efforts. Because nonpoint source pollution ~
contaminated runoff associated with agricultural and urban activities and other diffuse sources
-- escaped the stringent regulations imposed on point sources over the last two decades, it is
now a principal cause of water quality impairment.
Congress added §319 — the nonpoint source management programs section ~ to the
Clean Water Act in the 1987 amendments in recognition of a need for greater federal
involvement in nonpoint source control activities. As the cornerstone of the federal nonpoint
source control strategy, §319 strives to focus states' nonpoint source control programs and
integrate nonpoint source pollution control into national water quality protection strategies.
Grant money provided by EPA to individual states forms an integral part of the §319
program. Since Congress first appropriated money for §319(h) grants in 1990, EPA has
funded over 80 projects totalling $7,795,202 in the Region 10 states, which include
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.
This report evaluates the §319(h) grant award process and the effectiveness of
§319(h)-funded projects in protecting water quality in Region 10. Nonpoint source projects
eligible for §319 funding span a wide spectrum of activities from on-the-ground
implementation projects to public education campaigns to staff positions that strengthen the
basic nonpoint source control structure within state and local agencies. With a diverse array
of projects, EPA and the states hope to demonstrate on-the-ground improvement in water
quality, increase public involvement and education regarding nonpoint source control
activities, and promote institutionalization of nonpoint source control actions.
Conclusions and recommendations in the report are drawn from interviews with EPA
staff, state nonpoint source coordinators, and individuals responsible for project
implementation at the local level. State nonpoint source coordinators expressed praise for
EPA's management of the §319 program, but also voiced concerns over certain aspects of
the program and offered suggestions to improve program management. Two primary issues
regarding the §319 program were expressed most frequently. First, a perceived tension
exists regarding the underlying philosophy of §319: is it intended to support state initiatives
or to advance EPA objectives carried out through the states? Second, most states face
shrinking budgets, which may preclude institutionalization of nonpoint source programs, one
of EPA's primary objectives for the §319 program. Declining state funds magnify the
importance of §319 funds. The report includes a discussion of these and other issues
surrounding the §319 program.
Case studies included in the report document selected §319 projects in Region 10 in
order to portray the characteristics of effective projects and the diversity of projects funded
with §319 money. A comprehensive project evaluation in its truest sense is premature at this
iv
-------
time because §319 projects did not receive funding until late 1990. Yet one can still identify
a set of characteristics that identify successful projects. These characteristics include local
support; clear problem identification and proposed solution; political feasibility; baseline
measurement and water quality objective; monitoring; environmental stewardship; agency
expertise; leveraging other resources; and integration of projects.
After reviewing the §319 program and individual projects, the report makes the
following recommendations to further enhance the §319 program in Region 10:
Recommendations for the Region 10 §319 Program:
•	Clarification of §319 philosophy: EPA and states will need to resolve the issue of §319
philosophy. A reasonable interpretation of the national guidance on base/competitive
allocations suggests that the base funds could be used to address the state's most pressing
problems, whereas the competitive portion could be more closely tailored to EPA's agenda.
•	Clarify method for allocation of competitive portion nf	Regional guidance
should describe more clearly the process by which EPA awards competitive grants, and
perhaps consider using a different name for this portion of funds. As suggested by the
national guidance, this may be an appropriate place to advance EPA's nonpoint source
control agenda.
•	Targeting §319 resources: EPA and states should continue to target §319 funds to high
priority areas and programs to obtain the most effective results from §319 expenditures. The
issue of §319 philosophy will undoubtedly arise as targeting strategies take shape.
•	Need fpr planning and development .support: Initial nonpoint source management
programs, developed as a prerequisite for §319(h) grants are not specific plans that can be
readily implemented. EPA may wish to consider making available a small portion of funds
that could be used for planning and program development in areas that would later be ideal
candidates for implementation grants. However, this approach risks reducing the money
available for program implementation, which is the statutory intent of §319.
•	Funding staff positions: Severe state budget cuts interfere with institutionalization of
nonpoint source control activities. EPA's objective of institutionalizing nonpoint source
programs can be furthered by continuing to ftind specific types of staff positions A rallying
cry from the states is "we need people." EPA may wish to specify the types of staff
positions eligible for short- and long-term §319 grants.
•	Increase length of time fpr project support: Because effective nonpoint source control
requires a long-term commitment, §319 s objective to provide initial start-up funds may not
support its objective to realize long-term gains in water quality improvement. EPA should
clarify the situations for which a state may seek long term support under §319 and develop
specific criteria for projects funded beyond two or three years.
v
-------
•	Funding Cycle: EPA should re-evaluate the §319(h) funding cycle in order to
accommodate projects, particularly agricultural ones, that operate on a calendar and not a
fiscal year. One option would be to accept proposals for work to begin at a later date (i.e.,
the next calendar year). This would provide project officers security in planning projects,
rather than forcing them to risk several months of work without guarantee of grant money.
•	Recognition of EPA as funding source: Projects that receive §319 money should credit
EPA as a funding source to heighten public awareness of EPA's role in nonpoint source
control activities.
•	Strengthen monitoring component: Many projects do not have a monitoring component,
making it difficult to identify water quality improvements. Although all projects cannot
include an extensive monitoring component, projects should include some type of monitoring
method, such as photodocumentation, to measure water quality improvements.
•	Project evaluation: Effective project evaluation is one of the most difficult tasks
confronting the §319 program. To develop a truly effective program, project evaluation
must move away from a focus solely on numbers and look instead at project impacts. EPA
should encourage states to share information about characteristics of successful and
unsuccessful projects in order avoid unnecessary mistakes in future §319 projects.
•	Ensuring long-term results: Successful nonpoint source control requires long-term
efforts. Projects should have some method of continuation and follow-up, even after §319
funding is no longer available. A project that attempts pollution prevention or restoration for
only a short period of time is unlikely to show long-lasting positive impacts.
Recommendations for Region 10 §319 Program Management
•	Statement of EPA's long-term goals: EPA should clearly articulate its long-term
objectives for the §319 program and regional nonpoint source control activities. State and
local officials responsible for individual project implementation expressed a need to know
EPA's long-term nonpoint source goals and objectives in order to help focus both the
individual projects and the types of projects submitted for §319 funding.
•	Increase site visits and contact with local communities: Site visits provide an important
link between EPA and the local communities responsible for project implementation. Like
the well-worn phrase so adequately states: "a picture is worth a thousand words." Site visits
reveal aspects of projects that may not come across in project proposals or quarterly reports.
EPA's Operations Offices in each state would be an ideal avenue to increase EPA contact
with individual projects, especially given limited travel dollars. In addition, EPA's new
watershed manger and coordinator should become involved in §319 projects.
vi
-------
•	Strengthen EPA/state partnership in project development: EPA should assist states in
the initial project development stage. By strengthening its partnership with the states, EPA
can review project ideas in their early stages to avoid prolonged development of projects not
likely to be funded. One option would be for states to submit rough ideas to EPA for
informal review before developing full proposals. States could also give presentations to
EPA prior to award decisions.
•	Start grant award process earlier: Both EPA and the States should begin the grant
award process at an earlier date. For the states, this means beginning the grant development
process earlier in the year so that projects can be formalized in the short time period between
target grant amount notification and annual work program completion.
•	Provide models for grant proposals: EPA should continue to provide examples of
outstanding §319 grant proposals. Development of a regional project tracking system will
help facilitate uniform work programs and standardize the process.
•	Increase regional information sharing: EPA should increase its role in regional
information sharing to facilitate communication between local and state agencies in the
region. In addition, EPA could distribute brief summaries of §319 projects within Region
10, including local project officers to contact for more detailed information. National project
information sharing would also be beneficial at a regional level. EPA may also wish to
promote projects that can be replicated in other areas of the region.
•	Enhance communications with other agencies to reduce duplication of efforts: EPA
should strengthen its communication with federal, state, and local agencies so that projects
funded under §319 supplement, instead of duplicate, ongoing efforts. EPA could also
coordinate greater information sharing between different agencies and groups, and
coordinating various nonpoint source programs.
•	Strengthen links between §319 and other EPA programs: As EPA implements its
watershed approach, §319 should become better integrated with programs such as the Clean
Lakes Program or pollution prevention initiatives. EPA should share readily with each
state's information on other EPA priorities in that state to help develop a cohesive and
integrated nonpoint source program.
Section 319 is an evolving federal program. As it evolves, it must carve out a niche
for itself in relation to ongoing statewide nonpoint source control efforts. Although the §319
program may not appear grand on the scale accorded other federal initiatives or even some
state initiatives, its existence is clearly a positive step forward in nonpoint source control
efforts. In addition to providing much-needed funds for nonpoint source control, §319 acts
as a catalyst to focus a state's nonpoint source program and form interagency partnerships.
With each passing year, EPA can learn from the past and refine the §319 program to better
suit its needs while accommodating the needs of the states.
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source pollution, long overlooked in federal water pollution regulation, has
now become a centerpiece of pollution control efforts. Because nonpoint source pollution -
contaminated runoff associated with agricultural and urban activities and other diffuse sources
- escaped the stringent regulations imposed on point sources over the last two decades, it is
now a principal cause of water quality impairment.
Nonpoint source control will be neither quick nor easy. It is as much a social and
political problem as a scientific one. Congress added §319 ~ the nonpoint source
management programs section - to the Clean Water Act in the 1987 Amendments in
recognition of a need for greater federal leadership to help focus state and local nonpoint
source control efforts.1 Section 319, which strengthened federal involvement in nonpoint
source control, strives to integrate nonpoint source pollution control into national water
quality protection strategies, and functions as the cornerstone of the federal nonpoint source
control strategy.
Grant money provided by EPA to individual states forms an integral part of the §319
program.2 Since fiscal year 1990, when Congress first appropriated federal funds for
§319(h), EPA Regional Offices have funded projects in accordance with national and regional
guidance that supplement states' ongoing nonpoint source management programs. EPA
recently completed its third cycle of grants awarded under §319, which will total $52.5
million nationwide and $2,715,532 for Region 10 states - Washington, Oregon, Idaho and
Alaska -- in fiscal year 1992. Section 319 alone cannot solve the nation's voluminous'
nonpoint source problems, but its presence demonstrates a federal commitment to assist in
finding a solution through strengthened federal, state, and local partnerships.
This report evaluates the §319(h) grant award process and the effectiveness of
§319(h)-funded projects in protecting water quality in Region 10. The report is designed to
draw attention to a variety of issues surrounding the §319 program, namely the role of §319
grants in relation to statewide nonpoint source control efforts, and attributes of successful
§319 projects. Together, these two interrelated purposes will help determine how EPA can
better allocate future §319 funds and improve program oversight. Because the first §319
projects did not receive funding until fiscal year 1990, and improvements in water quality
require a number of years to detect, most projects do not yet demonstrate measurable
improvements in water quality. Therefore, this report uses interim measures to evaluate the
projects and their consistency with national and regional guidance.
1§319, 33 U.S.C. §1329.
2§319(h), 33 U.S.C § 1329(h).
1
-------
Conclusions and recommendations are drawn from interviews with EPA staff, state
nonpoint source coordinators, and individuals responsible for project implementation at the
local level. Part I provides the background necessary to understand an evaluation of Region
10's §319 program: the goals and objectives of the §319 program, EPA guidance to states
applying for §319 grants, and EPA's §319 grant award and evaluation process. Part II
describes the nonpoint source control programs and opportunities in each of the Region 10
states — Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska ~ and their relationship to states' §319
nonpoint source management programs. In part III, case studies illustrate two projects
deemed successful in each state by state and local officials and EPA staff. These projects are
intended as a representative sampling of effective projects; they do not constitute the only
successful §319 projects. Part IV summarizes the findings on the §319 program and
individual projects. Finally, part V offers recommendations for the future direction of the
§319 program in Region 10.
This report, reviewed in conjunction with recommendations offered in EPA
Headquarters' recent review of states' implementation of §319,3 provides a picture of the
current state of federal involvement in nonpoint source control activities. Recommendations
based on these observations may supplement EPA guidance on §319 grant criteria and help
improve the §319 grant award process and nonpoint source control activities across Region
10, thereby helping EPA, state agencies, and other interested and affected groups improve
future use of §319 funds to achieve nonpoint source control objectives.
3U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Program Evaluation Division, State
Implementation of Nonpoint Source Programs (draft), July 24, 1992.
2
-------
I. BACKGROUND
Nonpoint sources of pollution contribute a substantial portion of water quality
problems nationwide.4 Because the Clean Water Act has focused on stringent regulation of
municipal and industrial point sources to curb pollutant discharges into the nation's waters,
the relative contribution of nonpoint source pollution to water quality degradation has
increased over the years.
Under the regulatory framework of the Clean Water Act, nonpoint source control is
largely voluntary, not regulatory as is point source control. As a result, local nonpoint
source regulation varies among states in both scope and types of controls required. Nonpoint
source pollution is diffuse and highly variable, dependent on climate, soils, and land use
practices. Effective control of nonpoint source pollution requires changes in land use
practices and changes in personal behavior that cause nonpoint source pollution. Controlling
nonpoint source pollution, therefore, requires a different set of solutions than point source
control. The lack of federal nonpoint source regulation reflects the federal government's
reluctance to mandate local land use regulation and the political difficulties associated with
doing so. While the impact from individual nonpoint sources may be small, the cumulative
impact from numerous unregulated activities can significantly degrade water quality.
Clearly, some type of nonpoint source control will be necessary to curb remaining
pollution problems. The following section describes the federal commitment to nonpoint
source control outlined in §319, the nonpoint source management programs section of the
Clean Water Act. A review of national and regional guidance highlights EPA's priorities for
awarding §319 grants. States rely on this guidance to tailor projects submitted for §319(h)
grant awards.
A. §319 Program
Federal involvement in nonpoint source control most frequently takes the form of
nonpoint source assessment, management, and grant award programs authorized in §319,
added to the Clean Water Act in the 1987 amendments. Section 319 is not the federal
government's first involvement in the nonpoint source arena, but it is the first effort focused
on implementation. As the federal government's primary agenda for involvement in nonpoint
source control, §319 promotes a watershed approach to nonpoint source control,5 and
outlines a two-step process that states must follow in order to qualify for federal grant
4U.S. EPA Office of Water, National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress, Washington,
DC (April 1992) (EPA 503/9-92/006). The report summarizes state-collected data, reported every two
years, on the quality of their rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and groundwater.
5§319(b)(4), 33 U.S.C. §1329(b)(4).
3
-------
money. First, states must complete a Nonpoint Source Assessment Report, which identifies
waters in the state that will require nonpoint source control to attain or maintain applicable
water standards, and identifies the nonpoint sources of pollution responsible for water quality
problems.6 States update this inventory every two years as part of §305(b) reports.7
Next, states develop a Nonpoint Source Management Program that outlines a four-
year watershed-based strategy to bring nonpoint sources of pollution under control.8 Based
on the findings of the Nonpoint Source Assessment, the Management Program forms the
broad framework for each state's §319 program, and includes an identification of programs
that achieve implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for categories of nonpoint
sources, as well as an implementation schedule for management programs.9 With an EPA-
approved management plan, states are eligible to receive federal financial assistance under
the §319(h) grant program for nonpoint source program implementation.10
In addition to §319, the 1987 amendments incorporated nonpoint source control into
the overall goals of the Clean Water Act:
It is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution
be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of
this Act to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.11
A strengthened federal mandate allowed EPA greater involvement in nonpoint source
control activities. However, EPA does not wield the same enforcement authority it does for
point source control to compel states to develop adequate nonpoint source control measures.
6§319(a), 33 U.S.C. §1329(a).
7§305(b), 33 U.S.C. §1315(b). These biennial reports contain an assessment of water quality in each
state. For each waterbody assessed, states provide information on the general causes and sources of
pollution, and whether waterbodies are fully supporting their designated uses.
8§319(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1329(b).
'Section 208 (33 U.S.C §1288), which required state and areawide agencies to identify water quality
problems related to point and nonpoint sources, formed the foundation for many nonpoint source
management programs.
10§319(h), 33 U.S.C. §1329(h). Agriculture cost-share programs authorized under §2080, 33 U.S.C.
§1288(j), also encourage nonpoint source control by providing federal funds and technical assistance for
agricultural nonpoint source control projects. The Department of Agriculture generally manages
agriculture cost-share programs. Soil and water conservation districts implement the programs at the local
level.
"§101 (a)(7), 33 U.S.C. §1251(a)(7).
4
-------
Section 319 requires only that states attempt to control nonpoint source pollution; it falls
short of requiring states to adopt a regulatory program.
Congress has not yet funded §319 to its authorized level. Although created in 1987
with $400 million authorized over four years,12 §319 did not actually exist as a federal gran't
program until 1990, when Congress appropriated the first funds for nonpoint source control
projects. Until that time, states developed Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management
programs, necessary prerequisites for §319 funds. To date, Congress has appropriated less
than half of the authorized funding for §319. The table below shows the histoiy of Region
10's §319(h) grant awards:
Table 1: Region 10 §319(h) Grant Awards
Fiscal
Year
Washington
Oregon
Idaho
Alaska
Total
1990
$ 980,621'3
$ 537,018
$1,040,995M
no §319 grants
awarded in
fiscal year 1990
$2,558,634
1991
$ 810,711
$ 625,450
$ 650,780
$ 434,09515
$2,521,036
1992
$ 834,000
$ 956,672
$ 457,950
$ 466,910
$2,715,532
Total
$2,625,332
$2,119,140
$2,149,725
$ 901,005
$7,795,202" |
Because of such limited funding, EPA must develop specific criteria and guidance for
projects eligible for §319 funding in order to attract projects that promote the water quality
protection objectives of EPA and the states most directly. In reality however the §319
program is much more than the EPA grant awards. Because each site's §319 grant requires
a 40 percent non-federal match, §319 effectively leverages additional money for nonpohit
source control. Possible sources of nonpoint source control funds include federal, state, and
12§319(j), 33 U.S.C. §13290).
"Grant award includes $100,000 special national recognition grant.
,4Grant award includes $250,000 special national recognition grant.
'"Total includes $47,000 awarded under §205(j)(5) for Alaska Water Watch in fiscal year 1990.
16In addition to the awards shown in this table, Region 10 awarded §319 funds to the Colville Tribe in
fiscal years 1991 and 1992 as part of a special §319 set-aside for tribal §319 grants.
5
-------
local agencies, as well as special grant programs. Federal grant programs may not be used
to meet the 40 percent match requirement for §319 grants.
B. §319{h) Grant Guidance
EPA guidance, both national and regional, gives direction to the §319(h) grant
program. Detailed guidance, designed to assist states implement effective projects, describes
federal objectives in awarding §319(h) grant money and the types of projects eligible for
§319 funding. Final program guidance issued in February 1991 is intended to shape the
§319 program at least until 1993.17 EPA's primary goal for the §319 program is to ensure
implementation of "effective, high quality programs that achieve the best possible results in
the national effort to prevent and abate nonpoint source pollution."18 Because of the
statutory focus on implementation,19 planning and development activities are not eligible for
§319 funding, with the exception of groundwater assessment programs.20
EPA has four broad objectives for §319 grants:
•	Support state activities that have the greatest potential to produce early,
demonstrable water quality results;
•	Encourage and reward effective performance;
•	Assist in building the long-term capacity of states and local governments to address
nonpoint source pollution problems; and
•	Encourage strong interagency coordination and public involvement.
Although regional EPA offices have primary responsibility for the §319 program
national g^ 'hapes «he program in some areas. National guidance descrites EPA '
priorities for 5319(h) grant awards. These priorities include activities that reduce ecological
and human health risks, as well as projects that comprehensively integrate existing progS
llpinal °Uit™e *e AWard and ManaSement of Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Grams
Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. Memorandum from LaJuana Wilcher, Assistant
Administrator, February 15, 1991.
lsId.
"§319(a)(l), 33 U.S.C. §1329 (a)(1).
*>%319 (h)(5)(D), 33 U.S.C. §1329 (h)(5)(D).
6
-------
to control nonpoint source pollution. National guidance also recommends funding projects
that help states achieve overall, balanced statewide nonpoint source management programs.
Beginning in fiscal year 1992, national §319 guidance directs regions to give priority
to effective and comprehensive watershed projects, which include some form of monitoring
component to evaluate project effectiveness. In addition, at least ten percent of each state's
grant should include priority groundwater activities. States prioritize groundwater objectives
based on risks to human health. Oregon, for example, places more emphasis on groundwater
protection projects than other Region 10 states, and divides §319 program responsibilities
between groundwater and surface water coordinators.
In awarding §319 grants, EPA considers the quality of a state's proposed activities,
its conformance with §319 guidance, and past performance administering §319 grants. Each
state must also provide a 40 percent non-federal match for §319 grant awards. Each region
must set aside at least five percent of its annual regional allocation to support one or more
intensive water quality monitoring projects, intended to provide credible documentation of
results from §319 projects.
Individual regions may build upon national guidance to devise specific priorities
governing use of §319 funds. For instance, Region 10 encourages states to submit projects
that address the use of biological assessments such as development of rapid biological
assessment protocols (RBPs) to evaluate project effectiveness. Specific Region 10 criteria
include: (1) clearly defined state nonpoint source priorities; (2) effective monitoring and
assessment; (3) comprehensive watershed protection, including groundwater; (4)
implementation of on-the-ground nonpoint source controls; (5) measures for evaluating
environmental results; and (6) a state's record of performance for previous §319 grant
awards.21 Region 10 also promotes an environmental stewardship initiative to facilitate
public involvement in nonpoint source control activities. Separate guidance helps states
include effective public involvement and education as part of their overall §319 program.22
In addition to the national and regional objectives and priorities outlined above,
national guidance now reflects a two-pronged approach for grant awards. Each region
receives its annual allocation in two equal portions: base and competitive award money.
Base funds are used to support the state's base nonpoint source control programs. Each
state's base funds are calculated from a complex planning targets formula that evaluates
population, cropland acreage, pasture, and rangeland, among other factors.
21Questions and Answers on Implementation Grants Under §,319 of the Clean Water Act, EPA Region
10 Water Division, January 30, 1992. See also Guidance on the Management of Nonpoint Source
Program Implementation Under %319(h) of the Clean Water Act, EPA Region 10 Water Division, January
25, 1991.	3
22Guidance on Building Environmental Stewardship Into Nonpoint Source Program Implementation
Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, EPA Region 10, Water Division, February 5, 1992.
7
-------
The competitive portion of the regional allocation, on the other hand, is intended to
support the most effective and innovative projects and program activities within the region.
According to national guidance, states may compete for these regional funds in addition to
their base program support. In reality, Region 10 attempts to award each state a portion of
the competitive pool approximately equal to its base program award.23 Region 10 uses the
same criteria, described above, to evaluate all §319(h) work programs, regardless of whether
the project falls under the base or competitive portion of the work program.
C. §319 Grant Application and Award Process
The process of awarding §319(h) funds is a long one. After Congress appropriates
funds for the upcoming fiscal year, the regional offices work with the states to develop
annual work programs, and award §319(h) grants the following August. The table below
outlines the §319 grant application schedule.
Table 2: Region 10 §319 Grant Award Schedule
Date |
1319 Activity
September/
October
Congress allocates §319 money for next fiscal
year.
October/
November
Final appropriations bill determines §319 budget
for fiscal year.
November/
December
EPA issues §319(h) grant guidance.
Base program planning targets and regional §319
money available by early January.
January/
February
States complete draft annual work program by
March 1.
March/April/May
EPA comments on states' draft work programs,
including preliminary determination of §319
grant award.
June
States submit final work programs to EPA.
July
EPA reviews states' final work programs and
awards §319 grants by August 30.
August
States receive §319 grants.
^Boundaries delineating base and competitive projects are not entirely clear. Both the "Summary of
Findings" and "Recommendations" sections of this report address this issue in more detail.
8
-------
State water pollution control agencies are the designated lead agencies eligible to
receive §319 grants. These agencies may, and frequently do, contract grant funds to
cooperating agencies. In each state, a nonpoint source coordinator oversees §319 grant
proposals and program implementation.24
State work programs describe §319 projects submitted annually for funding. Specific
criteria guide work program development, including adherence to the state's nonpoint source
management program, a clear description of quantifiable outputs and milestones for each
project, and an indication of funding sources for the required 40 percent non-federal match.
This match requirement applies to the state's overall §319 grant award, not to each individual
project.
Currently, work programs vary greatly among the states, differing in specificity and
types of projects submitted for funding. At a minimum, §319 proposals must clearly identify
the state's funding priorities. States must also attempt to rank waters identified in their
nonpoint source assessments in order to target §319 funds most effectively. Oregon has
developed a formal process for ranking its projects, outlining a set of criteria by which to
rate and rank projects. As the §319 grants application process becomes more competitive,
other Region 10 states will need to develop formal priority ranking and criteria for their
projects.
Work program development occurs in several stages. At the first level, state lead
agencies must develop projects that meet §319 guidance and evaluate outside projects for
conformity with §319 guidance. Several factors determine the projects ultimately submitted
to EPA for funding, including how well the project is conceived and its likelihood of
funding.
At the next level, EPA evaluates each state's work program based on ratings for the
following criteria:25
1)	Project-specific criteria to determine how a project will control nonpoint source
pollution, including achievable milestones and effective measures for evaluating
environmental results;
2)	Consistency with the state's nonpoint source assessment and management program;
3)	Consistency with regional §319 guidance for priority restoration projects; and
4)	Consistency with national §319 guidance for project expectations.
24Appendix 1 includes a list of nonpoint source coordinators in each of the Region 10 states.
25Appendix 2 includes a copy of Region 10's project rating sheet.
9
-------
By following specific rating criteria, EPA can focus the direction of §319 while
allowing states to retain primary control of individual projects. After receiving §319 grants,
states submit quarterly reports to keep EPA up-to-date on project implementation. As EPA
and the states learn to work within the §319 guidelines, the projects funded with §319
money, as well as the grant application and evaluation process, can become more effective.
10
-------
H. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
In an era of fiscal constraints, a state's nonpoint source program is all too often
shaped by the dictates of available funding sources. Section 319 funds only one component
of states' overall nonpoint source pollution control activities. Washington, Oregon, and
Idaho all have statewide initiatives that fund nonpoint source control projects. These
initiatives often equal or exceed the amount of money available through the §319 program.
Furthermore, these funds are one of many nonpoint source control programs within a state.
A complete picture of nonpoint source activities in each state is beyond the bounds of this
report, and is difficult to portray in any case. Multiple state agencies administer programs
that include nonpoint source components. For this reason, §319 projects cannot be viewed in
isolation or interpreted as an adequate representation of a state's overall nonpoint source
control program. However, this report reviews only §319 projects and the §319(h) grant
award process.
The following section describes the major nonpoint source funds in each of the
Region 10 states to illustrate other types of funding sources available for nonpoint source
control. Knowledge of the interplay between major state nonpoint source control funds and
§319 is crucial to understanding the types of projects contained within a state's §319 work
program. Guidelines for these funds may dictate the types of projects submitted for §319
funding. These programs may or may not reflect priorities designated in a state's nonpoint
point source management program. Where no specific grant program exists, an agency may
still obtain nonpoint source money from state general funds.
A. Washington
Centennial Clean Water Fund
Washington has one of the most ambitious water quality funds in the nation. The
Centennial Clean Water Fund (CCWF), established in 1986, provides financial assistance to
local governments, conservation districts, schools, citizen groups, and Tribes for water
quality protection efforts within Washington. Funded by a tax on tobacco products, and
administered by the Water Quality Financial Assistance Program of the Department of
Ecology, the CCWF generates $40 - 50 million each year for water quality control efforts
through 2021. The exact amount depends on annual legislative appropriation. All CCWF
awards must address a specific water quality goal, be carried out according to an approved
project plan, and be used for projects that benefit the public at large. A great deal of CCWF
resources support local level staff. Washington uses CCWF funds to provide the 40 percent
match requirement for its §319 funds.
The CCWF funds are awarded in five broad categories, with percentages of the total
annual appropriation specified in the legislation: marine water facilities (50 percent),
11
-------
groundwater (20 percent), freshwater lakes and rivers (10 percent), nonpoint source activities
(10 percent), and discretionary activities and facilities (10 percent). Nonpoint source control
projects may also receive funds from the discretionary category as well as the groundwater
protection category for projects that protect groundwater resources.
The annual funds available for nonpoint source control activities under the CCWF far
exceed those available through §319. For state fiscal year 1993, the CCWF will suoDort 130
projects totalling over $50 million. Nonpoint source control projects will receive over u. s
million.26 Yet §319 funds still play a vital role in Washington's nonpoint source control '
efforts. The CCWF guidelines preclude state agencies from using funds to hire staff to carrv
out state water quality goals and objectives because CCWF is designed to foster local
projects. This limitation on funding state staff positions imposed by CCWF drives
Washington's §319 project proposals. A large number of Washington's 6319 nroierK
support state staff members who coordinate local and regional nonpoint source JJL in
addition to carrying out activities that support nonpoint source control Wither sli o
money, these positions would not exist.	8
Another key distinction separates CCWF from §319 funds Th«» rrwc
an extensive public grant application and review process indnHim, o a ~ -i j ProSram has
process that evalua.es project based a number of'S.	seSlo^^"8
funding may not necessarily fall into the highest priorities identified by the
nonpoint source management program. In contrast to the public aDolicatinn* §
CCWF, §319 projects are initiated largely by the Washington Depmment "f
(Ecology) based on general priorities identified in Washington's nonnoim Ecol°gy
program. Thus, Ecology can target §319 funds more effectively thaS rru^ff "lanagement
priority areas and programs. Ecology accepts proposals from tocal	hlgh
agencies, reviewing them for consistency with §319 priorities^ «~ ! . feder£d
selecting those projects submitted as part of its §319 grant applicatkm ?n°meS before
Fund (5the State Revolving
loans for water quality protection efforts 27 Of th* i« L f Provides low-interest
financing for fis^l year 1992, eight	f	SRF
source pollution.28	^ **,325,000 will control nonpoint
Washington State Department of Ecology, Centennial Clean Water Fund Draft Project Priority List
FY93, June 1992.	J	}
C1 jr, u.s.c.	issrr::: rvr r
wastewater treatment plant construction and design.	° ° ties
12
-------
Strategy for Using §319 funds
In Washington, Ecology is the lead agency for the §319 program. Ecology develops
§319 projects for priorities identified in the state nonpoint source management program. Its
annual §319 work plan seeks to balance geographic priorities with nonpoint source program
priorities, such as dairy waste management, groundwater protection, and forest practices
activities under the Timber/ Fish/Wildlife (TFW) initiative. Washington's nonpoint source
management program, which represents a compilation of existing state programs, such as the
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, identifies these broad priority areas and
programs. Washington uses §319 funds to plug gaps in existing state programs and to
complement programs supported by CCWF.
Washington presents the clearest example of a §319 program influenced by the
constraints imposed by available funding sources. The CCWF essentially shapes the majority
of nonpoint source activities that occur in the state. Because CCWF guidelines are not based
on Washington's nonpoint source management program that guides §319 implementation,
statewide priorities may not be adequately supported through the CCWF projects. Strict
guidelines govern CCWF grant awards, but the program is still dependent upon the specific
proposals submitted.
Like other Region 10 states, Washington did not anticipate congressional
appropriations of §319 funds in fiscal year 1990. Its first round of §319 projects, pulled
together hastily, included many projects designed for a two- or three-year implementation
period. It will have more flexibility to design projects submitted for fiscal year 1993
funding, as most commitments from these early proposals will be complete. Washington will
continue to move toward watershed-based implementation projects.
In order to ensure continued eligibility for §319 funds, Washington is developing a
systematic approach to watershed and project prioritization. Such an approach will allow
Ecology to target nonpoint source control measures more effectively. Furthermore, it will
allow §319 to become a coordinating mechanism for statewide implementation objectives.
For fiscal year 1993 projects, watershed prioritization will drive work plan development and
will link §319 projects to statewide watershed priorities. Increased public awareness of the
§319 program will force Washington to prioritize between state-initiated and public-generated
projects when determining which projects to submit to EPA for §319 funding. Washington
will also develop guidance for groups planning to submit potential §319 projects.
B. Oregon
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
t iifft Washington, Oregon has a nonpoint source grant program open to the public at
large. The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) program, created in 1987,
13
-------
provides technical assistance and grant funds for projects that improve or enhance riparian
areas and associated uplands. The GWEB program relies on local groups and volunteers to
accomplish its objectives. In turn, these local groups rely on field-based representatives of
government agencies. GWEB grants are available to any public or private agency or
individual, provided the project meets GWEB funding criteria and increases public awareness
of the importance of watershed improvement.
Lottery proceeds support GWEB projects. Legislative authorization for GWEB has
ranged from $500,000 in the 1991-1993 biennium to $1 million in the 1989-1991 biennium.
A technical advisory committee reviews all projects, submitting rankings and comments to
the Board's voting members for grant awards. Voting members include members of the state
Boards of Environmental Quality, Forestry, Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, and Water
Resources.
Each year, Oregon dedicates a portion of its §319 funds to support GWEB projects
EPA places significant faith in the GWEB program by awarding Oregon a lump sum of
money to allocate, as needed, to GWEB projects. This arrangement is due to the fact that
GWEB shares similar goals with the §319 program. It is also due to the nature of the
GWEB grant award cycle in which final grant awards are not made until after EPA approves
states' final work programs. The GWEB §319 grant includes a grant condition that requires
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to submit selected projects to EPA for
approval. GWEB projects that have received §319 funding include individual instream
enhancement projects and watershed condition assessments for areas identified as having
serious nonpoint source pollution problems.
Strategy for Using §319 funds
In Oregon, DEQ is the designated lead agency for the §319 program. The state
Department of Agriculture is the designated management agency for agricultural nonpoint
source control efforts. DEQ relies on a cooperative effort between various agencies and
private organizations involved in nonpoint source control issues to develop and implement its
§319 work program. Interagency agreements reflect these partnerships. Prior to developing
project proposals, DEQ solicits comments and ideas for potential projects from numerous
agencies and organizations. In order to develop a balanced approach to its nonpoint source
control program, it identifies planning targets for the number of projects that fall into
statewide, water quality-limited basins, groundwater, and GWEB categories. The GWEB
program does not influence Oregon's §319 projects to the degree that the CCWF program
influences Washington's work program, largely because the GWEB program is much smaller
than CCWF.
Oregon's priority areas for targeting §319 funds include monitoring, evaluation,
implementation of action plans developed through interagency agreements, implementing
projects that help meet total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements in critical basins,
14
-------
and enhancing interagency coordination. DEQ has active relationships with virtually all state
and federal agencies engaged in nonpoint source control activities. Development of rapid
bioassessment protocols is another important priority, as these techniques represent a key
assessment and evaluation tool for watershed condition assessment.
Oregon has a well-developed set of evaluation criteria designed to rank each project —
both surface and groundwater ~ early in the planning process. These criteria include the
site's ranking in the State Clean Water Strategy and the severity of the nonpoint source
problem. For fiscal year 1993, citizen stewardship, erosion control, and riparian zone
management will become important priorities for §319 projects in Oregon.
C. Idaho
Idaho's Water Pollution Control Account (WPCA) provides funds for a variety of
nonpoint source-related water quality projects. The State Agricultural Water Quality
Program (SAWQP), administered by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division
of Environmental Quality, provides grants to local soil conservation districts for technical
assistance, information and education, project administration and cost-sharing for BMP
installation.29 During the past year, the state committed over $4 million in watershed
project awards through the agricultural cost share program. SAWQP cost-share funds
provide up to 75 percent of the BMP cost in eligible project areas where the land contributes
to the area's agricultural nonpoint source pollution problems. Landowners participating in
the program may receive up to $50,000 in cost share funds for the life of a project.
The SAWQP relies on voluntary farmer participation to achieve its objectives. The
cost share payments made under this program supplement other federal, state and local cost
share programs. Farmers applying for cost share funds work with local conservation districts
to develop a water quality plan that identifies BMPs to reduce agricultural nonpoint sources
of pollution, and includes a schedule for implementation. Landowners enter into a contract
with local soil conservation districts outlining their responsibility to apply their water quality
plan.
While agriculture is the primary focus of the WPCA, several other nonpoint source
control projects receive funding from this account. Two of these projects, groundwater
vulnerability mapping and water quality education for teachers, which are discussed later in
the report, began as §319 projects and are now funded through the WPCA. The WPCA
funds provide the 40 percent match for Idaho's §319 grants. In addition to the WPCA,
Idaho has three other state-funded nonpoint source initiatives: antidegradation, nutrient
management, and comprehensive groundwater quality.
''For program details, see Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental
Quality, and Idaho Department of Lands, Soil Conservation Commission, State Agricultural Water Qualitv
Program Handbook, June 1991.
15
-------
Strategy for Using §319 funds
The Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the lead agency for §319 funds.
The availability of §319 grant money bolstered Idaho's nonpoint source control program by
providing funds for project management, interagency coordination, and long-term, on-the-
ground results. The Idaho §319 program consists of monitoring, assessment, evaluation,
watershed projects, groundwater protection efforts, and environmental stewardship.
The availability of §319 money allowed Idaho to diversify its nonpoint source
program. Due to the large amount of state funds available for nonpoint source
implementation projects, Idaho uses §319 money primarily for project management, statewide
and interagency coordination, and other areas for which state funds are not available.
Interagency committees solicit project ideas and develop §319 proposals. Several projects
initially funded with §319 grants have now been incorporated into state programs and used as
part of the required 40 percent match for §319 grants.
D. Alaska
In Alaska, the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is the designated
lead agency for §319 funds. Although Alaska does not have a dedicated source of funding
for nonpoint source control as do the other Region 10 states, it successfully uses a variety of
funding sources to accomplish its nonpoint source control objectives. These funding sources
include state agency general funds such as those provided under the state Forest Practices
Act; local community and government funds; and other federal grants. Alaska is exploring
the possibility of using its State Revolving Loan Fund30 for nonpoint source control
activities to supplement money available through grant programs.
Strategy for Using $319 funds
Alaska's nonpoint source management program, developed by ADEC and other state
and federal agencies and interest groups, provides the foundation for its §319 program.
Several factors guide Alaska's direction for annual §319 work programs. Primarily, these
include the schedule of projects and tasks identified within different categories of the
nonpoint source strategy, and the priority list of §319 projects identified in the strategy.
Section 319 provides funds that are vital for Alaska to implement its nonpoint source
control strategy. In developing its annual §319 work program, Alaska uses working groups
set up for each source category. These groups prioritize projects within each category.
'"In Region 10, Washington uses its revolving loan fund to finance nonpoint source control projects.
See supra note 27.
16
-------
Alaska also gives priority ranking to projects located on its §305(b) list of impaired
waters.31
31 See supra note 7.
17
-------
m. SELECTED §319 PROJECTS IN REGION 10
Nonpoint source projects eligible for §319 funding span a wide spectrum of activities
from on-the-ground implementation projects to public education campaigns to staff positions
that strengthen the basic nonpoint source control structure within state and local agencies.
The following section documents some of these projects in order to illustrate the diversity of
projects funded with §319 money. With a diverse array of projects, EPA and the states hope
to demonstrate actual improvement in water quality, increase public involvement and
education regarding nonpoint source control activities, and promote institutionalization of
nonpoint source control actions.
A comprehensive project evaluation in its truest sense is premature at this time
Section 319 projects did not receive funding until late 1990, and many projects did not begin
formally until even later. Thus they do not yet demonstrate measurable improvements in
water quality. Furthermore, it is often difficult to document a definite link between a
specific nonpoint source control project and water quality improvement Projects that
involve best management practices (BMPs) generally rely on the assumption that designated
changes in land management practices will result in water quality improvements over the
long term. Some projects do not include a specific effectiveness monitoring component due
to the nature of the project, required expertise, and high expense involved. In addition
waterbodies receive multiple sources of pollution, which may not remain constant during the
life of a project.	6
Absent concrete data on water quality improvements, the best measures of project
effectiveness are application of BMPs, noticeable changes in behaviors, and increaLd public
awareness of the nonpoint source pollution problem. Measuring behavior change and public
awareness are subjective criteria, and may be more difficult to measure and defend than
water quality data. However, a subjective evaluation can serve several useful purposes As
a mid-course ^uaaon for the §319 program, it can identify a range of projects te help
accomplish §319 goals. It can also provide Region 10 states with a sampling of projects
conducted elsewhere in the region, thereby assisting in regional informal, sharfag Region
10 states conftont many similar nonpoint source pollution problems. While individual
Uw region6 ^ IeSS°"S that emerge ¦
18
-------
considered the following criteria:
o clarity of project goals and the relationship between water quality problem and type
of action needed to achieve objectives;
o progress in implementation and accomplishment of objectives;
o evidence of behavior change resulting from project implementation;
o inventory of baseline conditions against which to measure project success;
o level of state commitment, including ability to leverage other funds;
o potential for expansion to other areas, both nationally and statewide; and
o improvement in water quality.
The projects described below offer a representative sampling of successful projects-
they do not constitute the only successful §319 projects. Detailed case studies for these '
projects, which appear in Appendix 3, include an evaluation of project effectiveness and a
contact person who can provide more detailed information on an individual project.
Information for the case studies was gathered from state annual work programs, quarterly
reports, interviews with state and local officials and EPA staff, and site visits for the Oregon
and Washington projects.
In addition to the case studies, Appendix 4 provides a brief description of all §319
projects funded in each of the Region 10 states. This list, although not detailed, presents a
picture of the broad scope of Region 10's §319 program. State nonpoint source
coordinators, listed in Appendix 1, can provide more details on individual nonpoint source
control projects.
A. Washington
TFW/Forest Practices Assistance in Central Washington• Section 319 supports an Ecology
staff member in the Central Regional Office who reviews timber harvest applications,
participates in interagency site reviews of harvest applications in high priority areas, and
provides individual on-site follow-up. This project allows Ecology to provide expert water
qualify impact review and maintain a presence in the interagency, pre-harvest site reviews.
Throughout the basin, the interagency review teams have successfully incorporated BMPs
into over 100 forest practice applications. Public outreach campaigns help educate timber
operators and recreational users about potential water quality impairment resulting from their
activities.
19
-------
Willapa Bay Watershed (Dairy Waste Implementation): Ecology used §319 to re-open a
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) office in Pacific County ~ which includes the Willapa Bay
watershed - that had been closed for a number of years. The SCS staff member provides
various types of technical assistance to the county's dairy operators to improve the handling
of dairy waste.
Before SCS re-opened this office with §319 funds, technical assistance came from an
SCS office in an adjacent county and did not adequately meet farmers' needs. Due to the
importance of this position in accomplishing nonpoint source control objectives in the basin,
the CCWF, Washington's well-endowed fund for nonpoint source control, will fund the
position beginning in July 1993. The three years of seed money provided by §319 proved
sufficient for the state to obtain another funding source, thereby institutionalizing the project.
B. Oregon
Malheur County groundwater protection projects: Oregon uses §319 funds to support
multiple, inter-related groundwater protection projects in the Malheur Basin. Oregon State
University's Agriculture Experiment Station is leading the research efforts to develop
modified fertilizer applications and new irrigation practices that reduce nitrate contamination
of the groundwater. Section 319 funds some of these experiments, as well as a researcher
who oversees the work. A Water Quality Coordinator at the Malheur County Soil and Water
Conservation District coordinates and implements the effort to address the groundwater
contamination, providing a vital link between the Experiment Station research and the local
growers.
The Malheur projects represent an outstanding example of a locally driven, well-
coordinated nonpoint source control effort. The Experiment Station shares its results with
local growers through widely attended annual field days, during which they take growers on
tours of various experiment sites and explain the objectives and results of each experiment.
The Ontario Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA), an interagency cooperative effort designed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution in northern Malheur County, has received national
recognition for its environmental achievement.
Nonpoint Source Monitoring/Applying Rapid Bioassessment Protocols: Biological
monitoring is gaining increasing importance in gauging the health of ecosystems. With
biomonitoring, biological organisms - not chemical measurements ~ determine a stream's
environmental conditions. EPA has developed guidelines for using rapid bioassessment
protocols (RBPs) to assess the overall health of streams. Scientists at DEQ's lab are
calibrating RBPs to ecoregions within the state. In 1990 and 1991, the biomonitoring project
focused on method development. In 1992, the emphasis will shift to project effectiveness
monitoring and development of an ecoregion reference site database for the Coast Range.
20
-------
Oregon will use its RBP methodology as a tool to assess watershed conditions and to
measure the impacts of nonpoint source control projects that attempt to improve water
quality. In this manner, it integrates the work from this project into its overall §319
program.
C.Idaho
Project WET (Water Education for Teachers): Project WET is a statewide, interdisciplinary
water education program that provides educators with scientifically-based information to
incorporate into their K-12 curriculums. Administered through the Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute at the University of Idaho, Project WET presents workshops and seminars
that review educational strategies for teaching water quality awareness. Nonpoint source
learning modules provide an important emphasis on groundwater and surface water nonpoint
source pollution problems and issues.
By providing a forum to teach Idaho's teachers about water resources, Project WET
helps to build water education into curriculums at all grade levels. Launched as a statewide
pilot program, Project WET concepts will now be developed into a nationwide curriculum.
Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping: The groundwater vulnerability project will develop
maps that delineate aquifer characteristics, such as depth to water, recharge rates, and soil
types in order to determine groundwater vulnerability to contamination. These groundwater
vulnerability maps will be used to set priorities for groundwater management. Ultimately,
the results from the mapping project will allow DEQ to employ differential management
approaches based on relative vulnerability of different aquifers. Section 319 provided seed
money for the initial stages of the project. It is currently funded through the Water Pollution
Control Account and contracted out to various agencies to perform the technical work.
D. Alaska
Alaska Water Watch: Alaska Water Watch is an interagency public participation and
education network that promotes comprehensive stewardship of Alaska's aquatic resources.
Citizen volunteers carry out the program's objectives of water quality monitoring, pollution
prevention, and water quality restoration activities. Section §319 funds a program
coordinator who manages the Water Watch program, conducts monitoring training and
quality assurance sessions, and works to expand the number of communities with Water
Watch programs. The Alaska Water Watch label develops a uniform theme and name
recognition for numerous statewide citizen stewardship efforts. The Water Watch program
began as an ADEC effort to promote and expand citizen monitoring activities. Other
agencies are now joining ADEC as Water Watch partners.
21
-------
Best Management Practices Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring on the Tongass
National Forest: Section 319 supports an ADEC staff member who works closely with the
Forest Service to help develop and implement BMPs that effectively meet state water quality
standards. ADEC provides technical direction to the Forest Service BMP monitoring
program, and helps the Forest Service establish procedures for routine BMP implementation
monitoring. The project has greatly strengthened the working relationship between ADEC
and the Forest Service. Forest Service district rangers, timber planners, and engineers in
two of the three forests within the Tongass now actively cooperate with ADEC to implement
BMPs in timber sales.
22
-------
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The following section documents findings on the §319 program within Region 10.
Availability of state resources affects a state's use of §319 funds and its perceptions of the
§319 program. Each state operates its nonpoint source program under a different set of
constraints. Thus, opinions of §319 program implementation varied across the states. While
state nonpoint source coordinators expressed overall praise for EPA's management of the
§319 program and the open communication that has developed, they also voiced concerns
over certain aspects of the program and offered suggestions on ways to make the §319
program more user-friendly to the states. Those viewpoints, which are incorporated below,
helped shape many of the recommendations offered in the concluding section of this report.
A. Comments on the Region 10 §319 Program
Imnnrtance nf S319 funds: State budget cuts magnify the importance of §319 funds.
Oregon's Measure 5, designed to reign in state government spending, takes a greater toll on
state agencies each year. Water quality control programs, including nonpoint source
programs, are not immune from the budgetary ax. Within the next few years, central
programs'will likely be cut. In Washington, state agencies must prepare for budget cuts in
the next biennium ranging from 6 - 22 percent. Alaska, too, is facing shrinking budgets.
Thus an ambitious nonpoint source control plan may be hampered by lack of available
funding. Idaho is not facing as severe budgetary shortfalls as Washington and Oregon, but
relies on §319 to expand its nonpoint source control program beyond agricultural projects.
§319 PhilosoDhv: At present, the §319 program wrestles with a difficult tension regarding
its underlying philosophy. Are §319 grant awards intended to support state objectives or to
advance EPA objectives carried out through the states? This question does not have an easy
answer. Region 10 states vary in the degree to which they perceive this tension.
The Clean Water Act, itself, sends contradictory signals regarding the specific use of
§319 funds stating that the "Administrator [of EPA] shall make grants, subject to such terms
and conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate ... to [a] State for the purpose of
^sistag the state in implementing such management program.- This language can be
interpreted to support either viewpoint: that §319 is designed to expand a state's nonpoint
source agenda or that it is a vehicle for EPA to carry out its own agenda through the states.
Leeislative history sheds no more light on the issue." On one hand, it directs states
to set priorities for nonpoint source control action for categories of BMPs and watersheds.
32§319(h)(l), 33 U.S.C. 81329(h)(1).
33H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1004, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), reprinted, in Environmental Law Institute,
Environmental Law Reporter Clean Water Deskbook at p. 143. (Washington, DC, 1988).
23
-------
On the other hand, it instructs EPA to give priority to specific types of projects when
awarding §319 grants.
Nonpoint source control is typically left to the states, however, partly due to federal
reluctance to get involved in local land use issues. Because of this, §319 treads upon an area
typically dominated by the states. Section 319 grant money augments states' nonpoint source
control programs and increases the size of the pie available to tackle the daunting challenge
of nonpoint source pollution. As a grant program, §319 must outline requirements for
acceptable use of funds. It also must include constraints. Thus, §319 money walks a fine
line between federal and state leadership of nonpoint source control programs. The
confusion over the underlying philosophy of the §319 program affects the types of projects
that receive funding, because EPA may have different priorities than do the states. EPA has
been flexible in its administration of §319, but states still feel this tension.
Base/competitive allocation of funds: National guidance spells out a clear distinction
between the base and competitive portions of each region's §319 allocation. In reality the
base/competitive distinction is not so clear. National guidance adopted the base/competitive
split in order to encourage funding for top quality projects. Region 10's implementation of
the competitive portion does not necessarily weigh one state's projects against another
Instead, it tries to fund, as much as possible, projects submitted in each state's work
program. Fiscal year 1992 marked the first time EPA Region 10 completely used this
approach.
States appear to misperceive the process by which EPA awards competitive funds
For the time being, states generally include watershed projects in their competitive oortion
and programmatic targets m their base programs. However, the perceived distinction
between tase and competitive allotments makes strategizing difficult for states tryine to out
together the best possible work program. The difficulty lies in trying to determine twch
programs to put into base programs (which states perceive as more likely to be fundrfUnd
which projects to put into the competitive pool (which risk losing secure funding ThU
base/competitive split raises the discomfort level of the states by appearing to foster
competition where one state gains only at the expense of another.
InstlttitlQnallWHon Of nonpoint Mmire programs; Section 319 grants are desisned to
term commitment to nonpoint source control and help instimtoSTOn^nmura '°n8"
States ^ states
Thus, even if a state wants to institutionalize nonnnim a e suc'1 institutionalization.
nonpoint source program - it m^H^le^T "T* ^,S " ot its whole
pick up the §319 projects. J	to do so, as state funds will not be available to
24
-------
Although state agencies and state funds are not the only alternatives to
institutionalizing a nonpoint source program, adequate state-level funding is necessary to
maintain a broad perspective on nonpoint source control activities. The lack of statewide
resources may force local communities to find more money for nonpoint source control
activities, and reduce state-level involvement.
Putting aside budgetary shortfalls, §319 funds often fill a gap where no other funding
sources are available. Without §319 money, many projects would not exist. For instance,
Idaho has a well-developed agriculture pollution abatement program, but limited resources
for any other types of nonpoint source control activities. Thus, fiscal realities may interfere
with institutionalization of nonpoint source programs, one of EPA's primary objectives for
the §319 program.
Program continuation: Grants awarded under §319 generally occur on an annual basis.
State agencies may apply for funds to cover multiple years of a project, but such a strategy
requires a state to commit a large share of funds to fewer projects in a given year. Thus,
states generally opt to re-apply each year for multiple year projects. From a planning
perspective, this situation is difficult for the states. Most projects will take several years to
obtain satisfactory results. These long-term projects require long-term commitments.
Planning only for the short term may lack the quality necessary for long term results.
Furthermore, a project that requires multiple years probably will not yield quantifiable results
after one year.
The lack of certainty over program continuation permeates state agencies and local
project managers. One impact of short-term funding is a high turnover of project staff
positions. Because §319 has an annual grant application process, the §319 positions lack the
security of a permanent position. State agencies have difficulty implementing a program with
transient staff. Furthermore, state budget cuts make it unlikely that those positions will be
picked up by general fund money. This insecurity extends to continuation of entire projects.
EPA does not have control over all aspects of program continuation. The future of the §319
program hinges on annual congressional appropriations and continuation of the §319 program
upon reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. A long-term commitment of federal funds for
nonpoint source control is beyond the control of EPA alone, and will require changes in the
current Clean Water Act.
Funding cvcle- The timing of §319 grant awards raises two primary concerns. First is the
longdelayfrom proposal development to actual grant award. SMe^encta, *y »
proposal development in the fall in order to complete proposes by EPA s March deadline.
At alocal level; a community is likely to have drfficulty develops enthusiasmfor a project
for which they will not see the funds for almost a year. Sa»nd, grams received in August
or September are particularly difficult to adjuster for agnatordart
because the grants a* not synchronized wift the jawing seaamo.toto field
instance in Malheur County, Oregon, the Agriculture Experiment Station must use its own
mo^y for thefirst several months of the year, before they receive confirmation of project
25
-------
funding. In Alaska, §319 funds can arrive too late for the short field season. For local
agencies operating on a shoe-string budget, committed money is not the same as spendable
money.
State work program development: State lead agencies in Region 10 generally develop their
own projects for §319 grant awards, instead of using a public grant process like the Oregon's
GWEB program or Washington's CCWF program. This difference is partially due to the
availability of generous state-funded programs that have an extensive grant solicitation
process. More important, state lead agencies can more effectively target §319 funds to high
priority programs and regions when they retain control over the program. States have
limited resources to develop proposals, and view any money and time spent developing §319
projects as speculative. Thus, agencies are unlikely to reach out into communities to
generate new projects when they cannot be assured that such projects will receive funding.
While the lack of widespread public participation in work program development is
common among states, the methods of developing §319 grant proposals and soliciting project
ideas differ significantly. In Oregon, DEQ relies primarily on agreements with other state
agencies, whereas Washington uses a large portion of its §319 funds for programs within
Ecology. Idaho and Alaska use interagency committees to develop their §319 project
proposals. With more groups becoming aware of §319 funds, states anticipate additional
unsolicited project proposals in the future. An increase in outside proposals will require
states to develop a more formal procedure for project ranking and work program
development.
Regardless of the exact process used to develop work programs, EPA expects projects
submitted for §319 funding to be ready to begin when grant money becomes available.
Although staff positions take time to fill, agencies should be ready to begin the hiring process
immediately upon award notification. In the early stages of the §319 program, several
projects did not begin until almost one year after the grant award. Because a state's annual
§319 grant award is based, in part, on its past performance, delaying projects will only
detract from the next year's grant.
B. Characteristics of Successful Projects
Project evaluation is a difficult task due to the nature of nonpoint source pollution and
the variety of methods employed to tackle the problem. Broad categories of §319 projects
include on-the-ground implementation, public education, and program coordination. Within
these categories, projects may focus on prevention, remediation, education, or enforcement.
Projects may be divided further by geographic scope: statewide, watershed, or groundwater
protection. Most §319 projects do not fit neatly into one specific category, but include
aspects of several categories.
26
-------
Because of the wide range of projects eligible for §319 funding, no uniform list of
conditions will guarantee a successful project. Furthermore, at the technical level, due to the
site-specific nature of nonpoint source pollution, technologies and land use alterations
employed to control nonpoint source pollution may not have the same effect across different
basins. Thus, multiple characteristics should be evaluated at the state level prior to initial
project submission, and by EPA when awarding §319 grants.
In addition to the diversity of projects funded with §319, the long time period
frequently required to achieve measurable improvement in water quality creates a dilemma
regarding a need to document water quality improvements, while at the same time
recognizing constraints involved in long-term projects. When a project may require several
years to yield measurable results, how can EPA and the state agencies determine if it is
proceeding according to projections? To a large degree, the answer to this question depends
on the reputation of the agency conducting the project and best professional judgement of
EPA and state agency staff.
Given these constraints on formal project evaluation, one can still identify
characteristics of successful projects. Each project's success depends on a unique set of
circumstances. Yet close attention to several underlying characteristics can help increase a
project's success. Many of the projects reviewed for this report exhibit several of the
conditions described below.34 At the end of this list, Table 3 shows how the projects
selected for this report incorporate these characteristics.
Local support: For all the projects, local recognition of the nonpoint source pollution
problem and support of project objectives are perhaps the most vital components. Successful
projects rely on a dedicated set of individuals who recognize a problem and develop the
groundswell of support necessary to ensure a successful project. At the local level, people
feel that federal mandates usually come with inadequate resources. If a local community
perceives a project as merely another government imposed program, the project is not likely
to succeed.
Locally-driven programs empower the local community to solve problems. For
instance, in Washington's Upper Yakima watershed, timber industry recognizes its
contribution to the heavy sediment loads and, in the region encompassed by the Resource
Management Plan, is working cooperatively with other groups to help reduce their impact.
In Malheur County, Oregon, local support is particularly evident, perhaps because the
problem (nitrates in groundwater) is close to home. Most of the growers recognize their
contribution to the problem and are quite interested in the research conducted at the
agriculture experiment station. However, a potential problem that plagues this and other
nonpoint source control projects is the long lag time between changed practices and
34This list is not in priority order.
27
-------
noticeable water quality improvements. In this case, new farming practices will not result in
immediate improvements in groundwater quality.
Clear problem identification and proposed solution: Projects need to be well-defined in
terms of proposed accomplishments. A well conceived plan with well defined goals will be
easier to implement. Without clear objectives, it is difficult to document achievement.
Developing very specific, targeted projects can help accomplish this objective. For instance,
Alaska developed its BMP implementation monitoring project in Tongass National Forest in
recognition of a need to establish routine BMP implementation in forest management
activities.
Political feasibility: Nonpoint source pollution problems may be politically difficult to
remedy. Thus, state agencies must give careful consideration to the political climate in the
area of the proposed project. A project that appears viable on paper may not be feasible
without political support. A friendly political climate is closely tied to the need for local
support. A state agency may also feel political pressure to submit a particular project that
may not be a top priority.
Baseline measurements and water quality objectives: The presence of a baseline
measurement and a water quality objective are two closely related parameters. A baseline
measurement indicates the present water quality, whereas a water quality objective is the
environmental goal that shapes a nonpoint source control project. Where possible, projects
should have a quantifiable water quality baseline and objective against which to measure
project success. For instance, as part of the Yakima Resource Management Plan, the results
of a sediment study that documented high levels of sediment in a number of streams drives
the harvest review process.
Mrmitnring: EPA national and regional guidance recognize the importance of monitoring
nonpoint source control projects. Monitoring takes two forms. First, implementation
monitoring refers to monitoring the installation of BMPs and other activities designed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution. BMPs may not be fully or properly implemented, due to
lack of institutional commitment or inadequate resources. Second, effectiveness monitoring
refers to the evaluation of the effectiveness of those BMPs. The site-specific nature of
nonpoint source pollution makes it difficult to forecast accurately the degree of control
achieved from each project. Oregon's RBP project is developing the tools necessary to
evaluate the health of streams, and to measure the effectiveness of nonpoint source control
actions.
Environmental Stewardship: EPA recognizes the vital role of public involvement and
education in nonpoint source control, and requires each §319 project to include a strong
environmental stewardship component.35 Environmental stewardship, a recognition that
3SSee supra note 22 for Region 10 guidance on environmental stewardship.
-------
long-term solutions to water quality problems will require increased public awareness,
understanding, and ownership of the problems and solutions, varies widely among projects.
Examples of environmental stewardship components include citizen monitoring programs and
development and distribution of informational materials. Alaska's Water Watch program
effectively demonstrates several types of environmental stewardship activities. Another form
of stewardship is community information sharing, like the field days incorporated into the
Malheur County projects, which enable the Experiment Station to share research results with
local growers. Ultimately, the success of environmental stewardship efforts will be measured
by changed attitudes and behaviors that help reduce nonpoint sources of pollution.
Agency credibility and expertise: State environmental quality agencies are the designated
lead agencies for receipt of §319 funds. Most of these agencies pass through a significant
portion of their §319 grants to various state and local agencies, such as local conservation
districts responsible for actual project implementation. These agencies must posses the
necessary expertise to carry out the projects and maintain important links to the local
community. Problem identification and prioritization are crucial elements to nonpoint source
control plans, but successful implementation is what ultimately makes an effective project.
In each state, interagency agreements and partnerships help direct nonpoint source control
funds to the agencies best suited for particular projects.
Leveraging other resources: States must provide a 40 percent match for their §319 grants.
Matching funds must come from non-federal sources. The match requirement effectively
requires states to use §319 funds to leverage additional resources for nonpoint source control.
For some projects, §319 provides the entire funding. For others, §319 joins forces with
other funding sources to make possible a stronger project.
Integration of projects: Several states use §319 money to fund multiple projects that are
closely interrelated. By tying projects together, a state can develop a more comprehensive
approach to nonpoint source pollution control. For example, one of Oregon's major projects
involves refining rapid bioassessment protocols for the region, while other stream restoration
projects funded jointly by §319 and GWEB incorporate RBPs for monitoring water quality
improvements. In addition, Oregon funds multiple projects in Malheur County that
collectively work to reduce nitrate levels in the groundwater.
Often, §319 projects are part of a broader nonpoint source control effort. For
example, the results of Idaho's groundwater vulnerability mapping project will be used to
develop statewide groundwater management strategies. Washington's WiUapa Bay dairy
waste implementation project is one of numerous nonpoint source control activities in the
watershed.
29
-------
Table 3: Successful Characteristics of Selected §319 Projects
Project
Characteristics
Washington
TFW/Forest
Practices
Assistance
Washington
Willapa Bay Dairy
Waste
Implementation
Oreeon
Malheur
County
Projects
Oreeon
Rapid
Biaassessment
Protocals
Local Support
timber
companies work
with local
community
many, though not all,
dairy operators in the
watershed cooperate
local
community
committed to
cleaning up its
groundwater
(N/A — research
project)
Clear problem
identification
sediment studies
document
nonpoint source
problems in the
watershed
dairy waste
contributes to fecal
coliform
contamination in the
bay
nitrate
contaminated
groundwater
detected in
wells
RBPs need to be
tailored to
individual
ecoregions
Political feasibility
affected
landowners
actively
participate
several government
agencies involved in
nonpoint source
control projects
local agencies
involved in
research and
information
sharing
(N/A - research
project)
Baseline
measurement/water
quality objective
sediment study
provides
necessary data
dairy management
practices contribute to
water quality
degradation
groundwater
contamination
found in county
wells
research methods
will measure
nonpoint source
impacts
Monitoring
component
sediment levels
monitored
county-wide
monitoring (not
associated with this
project)
research
monitors soil
nitrate levels
developing tools to
monitor stream
health
Environmental
Stewardship
component
outreach to local
community
education and
outreach to dairy
operators in county
public outreach
through SWCD
and annual field
days
N/A - research
project
Agency expertise
Ecology staff
member
SCS staff member
multiple
agencies
involved
DEQ staff
members
Integration of
projects
closely related to
statewide T/F/W
efforts
part of county-wide
nonpoint source
control efforts
multiple,
interrelated
§319 projects
RBP techniques
used to monitor
results of §319
mitigation projects
Leverage other funds
jointly funded
will be funded by
CCWF
multiple
funding sources
jointly funded
30
-------
Table 3 cont'd:
Project
Characteristics
Idaho
Project WET
Idaho
Groundwater
Vulnerability
Mapping
Alaska
Alaska Water
Watch
Alaska
BMP Monitoring
in Tongass
National Forest
Local Support
(statewide
education effort)
N/A — research effort
active citizen
participation in
numerous
projects
cooperation
between ADEC
and Forest Service
Clear problem
identification
teachers need to
learn about
nonpoint source
pollution
need to assess relative
vulnerability of
aquifers
individual
projects
identify specific
problems
need to
institutionalize
BMPs into forest
management
practices
Political feasibility
schools generally
welcome Project
WET curriculum
N/A — research effort
interagency
cooperative
agreements
interagency
agreements
Baseline
measurement/water
quality objective
N/A - general
education project
research provides
tools to assess
relative contamination
individual
projects address
specific
problems
incorporate
monitoring into
forestry practices
Monitoring
component
N/A
project provides
mechanisms for data
management that can
assist future projects
individual
projects include
monitoring
incorporate
implementation
monitoring into
forest management
Environmental
Stewardship
component
education project
mass sampling events
identify status of
groundwater
widespread
citizen
participation in
projects
increased level of
awareness of need
for BMPs
Agency expertise
project
contracted to
university
project contracted to
university
interagency
agreements
ADEC staff
Integration of
projects
statewide public
education effort
research results will
affect groundwater
management
decisions
unify numerous
individual
projects
part of Alaska's
Forest Practices
work plan
Leverage other funds
project is now
state-funded
project is now state-
funded
other state
agencies
provide funding
jointly funded by
§319 and general
fund
31
-------
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 319 is an evolving federal program. As it evolves, it must carve out a niche
for itself in relation to ongoing statewide nonpoint source control efforts. One constant
theme emerged from discussions with state nonpoint source coordinators: no matter what its
size, §319 money is vital to carrying out state nonpoint source control objectives. It
channels money to projects not likely to be funded in its absence. The following
recommendations, derived from numerous interviews and document reviews, can further
enhance the §319 program.36
A. Recommendations for the Region 10 §319 Program
•	riarifiratinn of §319 philosophy: EPA and states will need to resolve the important issue
of whose priorities ~ EPA's or states' ~ guide the types of projects funded through §319.
This is no easy task. At present, statutory language does not provide a clear indication of
§319's underlying philosophy, although a re-authorized Clean Water Act may address this
issue. Resolving the issue of the nature and philosophy of §319 should come from a joint
effort between EPA and the states. One way to resolve the issue may be through the existing
base and competitive allocations. A reasonable interpretation of the national guidance on
base/competitive allocations suggests that the base funds could be used to address the state's
most pressing problems, whereas the competitive portion could be more closely tailored to
EPA's agenda. This approach would allow EPA to set programmatic and regional priorities
while allowing states flexibility to tailor their individual programs.
•	Clarify method for allocation of competitive portion of grants: Closely related to the
issue of the underlying philosophy of the §319 program is the base/competitive division of a
state's §319 grant award. A strong misperception exists between EPA and the states
regarding the allocation of the competitive portion of the regional §319 allocation. National
guidance recommends interstate competition for these funds. However, Region 10 only
compares projects between states in a limited fashion. According to Region 10 guidance,
EPA uses the same criteria to evaluate competitive projects as base programs. Yet states
view the competitive portion as tenuous due to the lack of an exact dollar figure attached to
this portion. Regional guidance should describe more clearly the actual process by which .
Region 10 awards competitive grants, and perhaps consider using a different name for this
portion of funds. As suggested by the national guidance, this may be an appropriate place to
advance EPA's nonpoint source control agenda by identifying types of projects likely to be
funded with the competitive portion of §319 money. If EPA puts forth its agenda through
the competitive allocation, states will need leeway to design projects funded under the base
portion of their grant.
36This list is not in priority order.
32
-------
•	Targeting §319 resources: EPA and states should continue to target §319 funds to high
priority areas and programs to obtain the most effective results from §319 expenditures.
Geographic and programmatic priorities such as public education or development of Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols, may not be tied to a specific site, but represent a broader approach
to developing and enhancing a state's fundamental toolkit to address nonpoint source
pollution issues. Section 319 funds may be used more effectively if they are combined with
other nonpoint source control projects in a given area. EPA and states will need to refine
methods used to target §319 funds. The issue of §319 philosophy will undoubtedly arise as
targeting strategies take shape.
•	Need for planning and development support: Lack of planning and development up
front is problematic. Initial nonpoint source management programs, developed as the basis
for §319 implementation, represent broad program areas. For the most part, these plans are
quite general, allowing wide latitude in the types of projects eligible for §319 funds. The
lack of specificity makes the plans difficult to implement, as they were not designed as site
specific programs to be readily implemented. By now, they may also be out of date. Many
states developed plans under §20837, but these, too, are largely out of date. Ironically,
when §208 funds were available for planning, little money was available for implementation.
Now, several years later, implementation money is available under §319, but little planning
money is available. For now, states are more likely to look for projects that have already
started moving, even though they may have been initiated with a different motive.
Although Congress designed the §319 program to focus on implementation, EPA may
wish to consider making available a small portion of funds that could be used for planning
and program development in areas that would later be ideal candidates for implementation
grants. Small planning grants could be made by the state agency to local communities that
have recognized a nonpoint source problem, but have not yet identified the extent of the
problem, other interested parties, or potential funding sources. Any funding made available
for planning should involve the local community in the planning process in order to foster
ownership of the program. However, dedicating a portion of §319 funds to planning risks
reducing the money available for program implementation, which is the statutory intent of
§319. Demonstration projects available with §319 funds may provide the necessary catalyst
for additional nonpoint source control activities. Money available through the Clean Lakes
program,38 provides another option available to help with planning and development.
•	Funding Staff positions: Severe state budget cuts interfere with institutionalization of
nonpoint source control activities. EPA can further its objective of institutionalization by
continuing to fund specific types of staff positions with §319 grants. A rallying cry from the
states is "we need people." Many projects require staff to spearhead a specific effort or to
carry out nonpoint source control objectives. For instance, Washington's use of §319 funds
37§2Q8, 33 U.S.C. §1288. See supra note 9.
M§314, 33 U.S.C. §1324. The Clean Lakes program provides funds for lake water quality studies.
33
-------
to support a staff member in Ecology's Central Regional Office maintains a state presence in
forest practices negotiations in the upper Yakima basin. Without §319 funds, this position
would not exist, and Ecology would not have a role in forest management decisions in the
basin.
EPA may wish to clarify the types of staff positions eligible for short- and long-term
§319 grants. EPA's reluctance to fund general coordination staff positions at the state level
stems from a requirement to focus §319 funds on projects with identifiable milestones and to
build collaborative initiatives for nonpoint source programs. Thus positions that primarily
involve ongoing facilitation and coordination are not likely to receive long-term (three years
or longer) §319 support. Projects that hire staff to implement basin-specific projects are
likely to receive continued funding.
•	Tnrrpasp length of time for project support: Because effective nonpoint source control
requires a long-term commitment, §319's objective to provide initial start-up funds may not
support its objective to realize long-term gains in water quality improvement. Frequently
§319 provides the only funding available. EPA should clarify the situations for which a state
may seek long term support under §319. EPA could develop specific criteria for projects
funded beyond two or three years. Projects funded over a number of years may face greater
pressure to document environmental results to justify continued funding.
•	Funding Cvcle: EPA should re-evaluate the §319 funding cycle in order to better
accommodate projects that rely on a field or growing season, and are more closely tied to a
calendar year rather than a fiscal year. One option would be to accept proposals designed
for work to begin at a later date (i.e., the next calendar year). This would provide project
managers security in planning projects, rather than forcing them to risk several months of
work without guarantee of grant money. Most soil and water conservation districts, as one
example, operate with very little cash reserves, and find it difficult to support projects before
funds become available. Larger organizations will not face this problem so severely.
Regional guidance may need to be clarified to accommodate projects that will not officially
begin until several months after the grant award.
•	Recognition of EPA as funding source for §319 projects. Projects that receive §319
money should credit EPA as a funding source. This will help bolster public awareness of
EPA's involvement in nonpoint source control projects, and communicate EPA's role in the
partnerships necessary to control nonpoint source pollution. For instance, EPA is not listed
on a plaque identifying agencies that contributed to a GWEB-initiated public education
project in Oregon, which EPA helped fund through a §319 grant. By recommending that
projects acknowledge EPA as a funding source, EPA can heighten public awareness of its
role in nonpoint source control activities. This role may not be well known, as §319 is a
relatively new program.
•	Strengthen monitoring component: Many projects do not have an effectiveness
monitoring component, making it difficult to identify water quality improvements. Obviously
34
-------
all projects cannot include an extensive monitoring component, but projects should include
some type of monitoring method, such as photodocumentation, to measure water quality
improvements. For instance, both Oregon and Idaho use §319 funds to refine RBPs in their
regions. In Oregon, restoration projects funded jointly with §319 and GWEB funds use
RBPs to evaluate project effectiveness.
•	Project evaluation: As stated earlier, effective project evaluation is one of the most
difficult tasks confronting the §319 program. To develop a truly effective program, project
evaluation must move away from a focus solely on numbers and look instead at the results of
the projects. EPA should encourage states to share information about characteristics of
successful and unsuccessful projects in order to avoid unnecessary mistakes in future §319
projects. While the success ~ or lack of success — of certain projects will be highly site-
and project-specific, many project experiences will generate information that can be shared
among the Region 10 states.
•	Ensuring lony-term results: Successful nonpoint source control requires long term
efforts and commitments. Projects should have some method of continuation and follow-up,
even after §319 funds are no longer available. A project that attempts pollution prevention
or restoration for only a short period of time is unlikely to show long-lasting positive
impacts.
Ensuring long-term results from nonpoint source control efforts is not possible with
§319 alone. Ultimately, the Clean Water Act will need to be amended to commit solid,
long-term funding for planning, implementation, and assessment efforts, and to make
nonpoint source controls enforceable through citizen suits or other provisions. These
revisions will be necessary to make nonpoint sources equal partners with point sources.
B. Recommendations for Region 10 Program Management
•	Statement of inng-term goals. At both the state and local level, officials
responsible for individual project implementation expressed a need to know EPA's long-term
nonpoint source goals and objectives in order to focus both the individual projects and the
types of projects submitted for §319 funding. EPA should clearly articulate its long-term
objectives for the §319 program and regional nonpoint source control activities. A long-term
plan being developed by EPA's watershed section should help address some of these
concerns.
•	Increase sty* visits and contact with local communities: Without exception, the people
responsible for actual project implementation at the local level expressed an interest in
greater EPA contact through site visits. Like the well-worn phrase so adequately states: "a
picture is worth a thousand words." Site visits reveal aspects of projects that may not come
across in project proposals or quarterly reports. They also serve to highlight implementation
barriers that are not readily understood from an office perspective. Unfortunately, a limited
35
-------
travel budget precludes numerous visits. But where possible, EPA should increase site visits.
At the local level, primary contact occurs with the state agencies responsible for immediate
oversight. EPA seems to be a more distant player, but project managers are anxious to have
EPA observe their work firsthand. EPA's Operations Offices in each state provide one
avenue to pursue this recommendation, especially given limited travel dollars. At present,
only the Idaho Operations office has a staff member dedicated to nonpoint source issues.
•	Strengthen EPA/state partnership in project development: Due to the short timeframe
from congressional §319 appropriation to proposal deadlines, EPA should assist states in the
initial project development stage. By strengthening its partnership with the states, EPA can
review grant ideas in their early stages to avoid prolonged development of projects not likely
to be funded. By working more closely with EPA in the early stages, states would have a
better idea about the projects likely to be funded, and have time to tailor projects to suit
funding guidelines. One option would be for states to submit preliminary ideas to EPA for
informal review before developing full proposals. This approach may help give states a bit
more advance notice for the next years' awards. After project proposals are more fully
developed, states could give presentations to EPA prior to award decisions. Presentations
may convey project objectives more effectively and provide an opportunity for face-to-face
discussion about unresolved issues. In addition, presentations would help bring a region-
wide perspective to the §319 program.
•	Start grant award process earlier: Both EPA and the States should begin the grant
award process at an earlier date. For the states, this means beginning the grant development
process earlier in the year so that projects can be formalized in the short time period between
target grant amount notification and annual work program completion. For EPA, this means
working closely with the states in the early stages of project development. States' annual
work programs undergo many reviews before the final package is complete. Thus the
earlier the process starts, the earlier EPA can award grants. The congressional budget
timeframe imposes some limits on the planning process, but states can begin to develop their
work programs based on their previous year's §319 grant amount, and then revise it
accordingly when final congressional appropriation occurs.
•	Provide models fpr grant proposgfr: EPA should continue to provide examples of
outstanding grant proposals. As a model for the fiscal year 1992 grants EPA provided
Region 10 stales with a copy of Oregon's fiscal year 1991 work prograii. Development of a
regional project tracking system will help facilitate uniform work programs and standardize
the process.
•	Increase regional information sharing: Many areas within Region 10 face similar
problems, and projects underway in one area may be beneficial to other ^ Should
increase us role in regional information sharing to facilitate communication between local L
information and technology sharing that occurs at EPA's annual workshops EPA mav also
wash to promote projects that can be replicated in other areas of the region' KegtaT
36
-------
information sharing sessions would help fulfill this recommendation. But like additional site
visits, limited travel money may foreclose this option. In the alternative, EPA could
distribute brief summaries of §319 projects within Region 10, including local project
managers to contact for more detailed information. National project information sharing
would also be beneficial at a regional level. For instance, EPA Region 7 supported an Iowa
nitrogen management program quite similar to Oregon's Malheur County nitrogen
management projects.39
At another level, EPA may wish to encourage projects to expand their reach beyond
the immediate project area. For instance, in the area encompassed by the Yakima Resource
Management Plan, timber industries willingly modify some of their practices in response to
pre-harvest review, but Ecology does not know if the companies adopt these modifications
elsewhere in the region.
• Fnhanrp rnmm.iniffltioiis with other agencies to reduce duplication of efforts: Many
agencies, at the federal, state, and local level, are involved in nonpoint source control
projects.' EPA and state agencies should strengthen their communication with these agencies
so that projects funded under §319 supplement, instead of duplicate, ongoing efforts. EPA
should also coordinate greater information sharing throughout the region, tying together
information from different agencies, Tribes, and other groups working on nonpoint source
issues.
» Strengthen Unfa	""» »nd "tller EPA ""f8 EPA cunratly operates
several programs that relate closely to nonpoint source control activities. As EPA
implements its watershed approach, §319 should become better integrated with programs
such as the Clean T Program or pollution prevention initiatives. EPA should also share
readily with each state information on other EPA priorities in that state to help develop a
cohesive and integrated nonpoint source control program. In addition, EPA's new watershed
manager and coordinator should become involved in §319 projects. Section 319 projects
should also be integrated with states' §303(d) lists that identify water quality-limited
waters40 This list sets in motion the regulatory process for water quality restoration. As
EPA develops its watershed approach, such linkages will be crucial to painting a complete
picture of existing problems and ongoing control efforts, and to target §319 funds most
effectively.
'"•Iowa Corn Producers Cut Nitrogen Use in a Big Way," News-Notes, vol.19, p. 18. EPA Office of
Water, March 1992.
"^(d); 33 U.S.C. §1313(d).
37
-------
VI. CONCLUSION
The §319 program may not appear grand on the scale accorded other federal
initiatives. It may not even compare in magnitude to statewide nonpoint source control
initiatives. Yet its existence is clearly a positive step forward in nonpoint source control
efforts. In addition to providing much-needed funds for nonpoint source control, §319 acts
as a catalyst to focus a state's nonpoint source program and form interagency partnerships.
The recommendations included in this report are intended to address issues raised by states
throughout the information-gathering stage of the report. Some of these recommendations
will be easier to implement than others.
Nonpoint source pollution problems cannot be controlled through short term fixes.
Control efforts will require patience and persistence, venturing into new areas, involving
interagency cooperation, and citizen action. In today's era of environmental consciousness,
we have inherited the results of yesterday's poor practices. To move forward, we cannot
lament the past, but must seek new methods for the future that focus on water quality
restoration and protection efforts, public education, and other means of nonpoint source
pollution control. Secure long-term funding will be necessary to ultimately realize this goal.
Awareness is the key to change, particularly for nonpoint source pollution. Section
319 seeks to foster that awareness through a strong emphasis on the environmental
stewardship aspect of §319 projects. Changed behavior is not a direct measure of water
quality improvement, but it is a step in the right direction. Furthermore, by taking
advantage of research that demonstrates better management practices, EPA can demonstrate a
commitment to pollution prevention and environmental restoration.
Learning by doing is a hallmark of any government program. Such is the case with
implementation of the §319 program and individual nonpoint source control projects. With
each passing year, EPA can learn from the past and refine the §319 program to better suit its
needs while accommodating the needs of the states. By keeping what works and improving
what does not, EPA can help the §319 program continue to evolve as an effective component
of nonpoint source control initiatives.
38
-------
APPENDIX 1: REGION 10 STATE NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
State nonpoint source coordinators develop annual §319 work programs, oversee §319
project implementation, and coordinate general nonpoint source control activities statewide.
Following is a list of nonpoint source coordinators who manage §319 program
implementation in Region 10:
Washington:
Kahle Jennings
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 438-7528
Oregon:
Roger Wood
Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-6893 (surface water projects)
Ivan Camacho (503) 229-5088 (groundwater projects)
Idaho:
Donna Rodman
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 N. Hilton
Boise, ID 83720
(208) 334-5860
Alaska:
Drew Grant
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Quality
410 Willoughby Ave
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
(907) 465-5304
39
-------
APPENDIX 2: REGION 10 §319 PROJECT RATING SHEET
PROJECT TITLE:	 STATE:	
1.	Work program specific criteria [0 - 40 points]	
A.	Clear demonstration of how project controls NPS pollution
B.	Effective monitoring and assessment for evaluating environmental results
C.	Comprehensive watershed protection
D.	On-the-ground implementation
E.	Defined, achievable milestones and products
F.	Protection of critical aquatic resources
G.	Inclusion of measures for evaluating environmental results
2.	Consistency with state's NPS assessment and management program [0 - 25 points]	
A.	Process and priority setting for target watersheds
B.	Involvement of interested and affected publics in work program development
C.	Multiple funding sources for project
D.	Continuation of successful §319(h) project
3.	Consistency with regional §319 guidance [0 - 20 points]	
A.	Protect or restore riparian areas
B.	Protect or restore wellhead protection areas
C.	Protect or restore wetlands
D.	Protect coastal waters
E.	Constructed wetlands demonstration
E. Environmental stewardship
4.	Consistency with national §319 guidance [0-15 points]	
A.	Controls difficult and serious problems including, but not limited to mining
B.	Implements innovative methods or practices for NPS control
C.	Implements groundwater protection controls for NPS
D.	Controls interstate NPS problems
E.	Addresses additional national priorities
F.	Focuses on a priority watershed or groundwater area
G.	Demonstrates long-term commitment to building institutionalized NPS control
programs
Comments:
Overall Rating:	
Review Team Member:			 Date:
40
-------
APPENDIX 3: CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED §319 PROJECTS
A. Washington §319 Projects
TFW/Forest Practices Assistance in Central Washington
Contact: Charlie McKinney, TFW Specialist, Department of Ecology Central
Regional Office, (509) 575-2397
Problem: Decades of forest harvesting have significantly degraded water quality in the
Upper Yakima River Basin in central Washington. In 1989, an unlikely mix of traditional
adversaries ~ large timber companies, small landowners, state and federal resource
management agencies, concerned citizens, environmental groups, and the Yakima Indian
Nation ~ developed a basinwide Resource Management Plan (RMP) that embraces water
quality issues in forest practices. The resource management plan identified heavy sediment
loads as the greatest threat to water quality. Heavy sediment loads in the streams, which
result from erosion caused by various forest practices, impair several beneficial uses
including fish reproduction and survival, domestic and agricultural diversions, and recreation.
A stream sediment monitoring project initiated in 1990 assessed fine sediment levels in
spawning gravels in eighteen streams in the Upper Yakima Basin. The results of this
monitoring form the cornerstone of the basin's water quality protection strategies.
Project Description: §319 supports a Department of Ecology (Ecology) staff member in the
Central Regional Office who reviews timber harvest applications, participates in interagency
site reviews of harvest applications in high priority areas, and provides individual on-site
follow-up. The staff member also engages in water quality education and outreach to
landowners and serves as a water quality advocate in a cooperative Resource Management
Plan in the upper watershed of the Yakima River Basin.
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992.
Comments on Project Ffyfeetiveness: This project allows Ecology to provide expert water
quality impact review and maintain a presence in the interagency, pre-harvest site reviews.
The project allows Ecology to emphasize watershed protection while at the same time
advancing goals and objectives of the statewide Timber, Fish, and Wildlife agreement,
adopted in 1986 to promote a consensus-based approach to forestry issues. It is also an
example of how Ecology uses §319 funds to plug a gap in its existing nonpoint source
control program. Forestry issues are a pressing concern, but CCWF restrictions on hiring
state level staff members preclude Ecology from funding this position with CCWF funds.
The consensus-based approach used to evaluate potential water quality impairments
from harvest applications appears to be working well in the area. Timber industry
cooperation stems in part from sediment studies that document a specific water quality
problem and help show a direct link between harvest practices and water quality impairment.
41
-------
Best management practices (BMPs) recommended for individual harvest sites include
increasing the number of trees left standing on the site, riparian zones that may be far larger
than those required by statewide forest practices regulations, wetland protection, and other
efforts designed to mitigate sediment loading from a harvest site. Throughout the basin, the
interagency review teams have successfully incorporated BMPs into over 100 forest practice
applications.
Monitoring efforts throughout the basin will measure the effectiveness of remedial
action plans and BMPs developed to protect water quality. In addition, Ecology conducts
public outreach campaigns to educate timber operators and recreational users on the effects
of fine sediment in streams, use of a wetlands rating system, the relationship of water rights
to forest practices, and mitigating erosion from forest roads.
To date, most recommendations have involved relatively minor modifications to a
harvest application that, while increasing the cost of the harvest, did not drastically alter the
yield. It is not clear if timber companies can make up differences in lost yield in other areas
that do not have a management plan. Ideally, recommendations for reducing water quality
impacts should be incorporated into companies' forest practices elsewhere in the state and
region. However, this is difficult, if not impossible to measure.
As harvest applications reach into more sensitive areas of the Yakima basin, a pre-
harvest review team will undoubtedly recommend more severe measures, possibly
recommending that no harvest occur on a given site. The effectiveness of the consensus-
based approach to resource management decision-making will be truly tested when, more
stringent restrictions are imposed on harvest applications. In addition, unregulated grazing
activities may threaten more stringent timber harvest restrictions. The RMP only addresses
forestry practices in the basin, and is backed up by a state Forest Practices Act and
regulations. No equivalent regulations exist for grazing activities. In the upper Yakima
Basin, grazing land is intermixed with the forest. If pre-harvest review teams recommend
restrictions on timber cutting, the timber industry may press for concessions from the grazing
industry.
Wtilapa Bay Watershed (Dairy Waste Implementation)
Contact: Thomas Hedt, USDA Soil Conservation Service (206) 875-9424
Problem: Willapa Bay, located in the southwest corner of Washington, is the second largest
estuary in the state and home to one of the most pristine and productive estuaries on the
West Coast. Half of Washington's commercial shellfish production occurs here. The
surrounding watershed, which also supports a sizable timber industry, drains into this major
oyster producing area. Recently, contamination from high fecal coliform levels resulted in a
reclassification of one of the commercial shellfish beds to a restricted status. Livestock
wastes from the surrounding dairies, together with failing, on-site sewage treatment systems,
contribute to the fecal coliform contamination. Exceptionally high annual rainfall in the area
42
-------
— over 80 inches annually — increases the nonpoint source pollution problem. Threats to the
shellfish beds launched widespread community and agency efforts to develop local water
quality protection policies.
Project Description: Ecology used §319 funds to re-open a Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
office in Pacific County — which includes the Willapa Bay watershed — that had been closed
for a number of years. The SCS staff member provides a variety of assistance to the
county's dairy operators to improve the handling of dairy waste from commercial dairy and
livestock operations in the Willapa Bay watershed. Assistance takes the form of
conservation planning, technical design of manure collection systems, and water quality
education.
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992.
Comments on Project Effectiveness: This project provides a good example of the
institutionalization objective visualized for the §319 program. The SCS staff member
supported with §319 funds plays a vital role in the watershed's nonpoint source control
efforts by working with dairy operators to develop conservation plans that improve handling
and management of dairy waste. Manure containment systems help prevent contaminated
runoff from reaching the bay.
Due to the importance of this position, the CCWF — Washington's well-endowed fund
for nonpoint source control — has taken over funding the position, with a four-year grant
beginning in July 1993. The three years of seed money provided by §319 proved sufficient
for the state to obtain another type of support. Without the initial impetus from §319, the
project would not have been started. A four-year grant is among the most secure funding
available in a time of fiscal constraints. This multi year commitment will help
institutionalize nonpoint source control and advance Washington's dairy waste management
priorities.
Although livestock waste contributes only a portion of the nonpoint source pollution
in Willapa Bay, it is a portion that can be minimized. Farm conservation plans play an
integral role in reducing dairy waste problems. Tangible water quality improvements from
this project are difficult to measure in the short term, primarily because no direct monitoring
is associated with this project. Instead, the state relies on the county's ongoing monitoring
efforts to reveal long-term improvements in water quality.
One indicator of the effectiveness of public outreach efforts is the change in
landowner behavior that results from increased public awareness of the problem. Farmers
need assistance to develop waste management systems that minimize manure-contaminated
runoff. Before the Pacific County SCS office re-opened with §319 money, this technical
assistance came from an SCS office in an adjacent county and did not adequately meet
farmers' needs. Now, SCS has contacted almost all of the 17 dairies in the watershed. To
43
-------
date, three dairies have a manure management system in place. The SCS goal is to develop
systems for three dairies each year.
Numbers alone do not tell the whole story. The limiting factor is the high cost
involved in installing manure management systems, which can exceed $50,000. The
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) provides cost-share money, up to
75 percent of project cost, but Pacific County has only enough cost-share money to cover
two or three projects per year. SCS also relies on positive information from dairy operators
that have manure management systems in place. Like all nonpoint source control projects,
the local community is more willing to participate if recommendations come from peers
rather than from the government. Eventually, farmers will need to install manure
management systems to comply with a general NPDES permit for dairies that is being
developed for Washington.
B. Oregon §319 Projects
Malheur Experiment Station Best Management Practices Research and Development
Program.
Contact: Clinton Shock, Agricultural Experiment Station Director, Oregon State
University (503) 889-2174
Malheur County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Water Quality Coordinator
Contact: Kit Kamo, Water Quality Coordinator, Malheur County SWCD
(503) 889-2588
Efficiency of Nitrogen Recovery for Groundwater Protection
Contact: John Miller, Associate Professor, Agricultural Experiment Station,
(503) 889-2174
Problem: Along the Idaho border, Oregon's forested hills give way to the rolling plains of
Malheur County. Irrigation transforms the arid landscape into one of Oregon's most
productive agricultural regions, but decades of intensely managed agriculture have taken a
toll on the region. Agricultural practices ~ primarily heavy fertilizer and chemical
application ~ that have made Malheur County one of the nation's leading onion producers
have, over the years, contaminated the shallow aquifer underlying the Malheur plains.
Oregon DEQ found nitrate concentrations that exceeded EPA's maximum contaminant level
in many private wells. Nitrogen fertilizers like ammonium and urea break down into
nitrates, which pose a health risk, primarily to infants. Well sampling also detected
metabolites of the herbicide Dacthal, but not at levels exceeding EPA's standard. DEQ
designated the Malheur Basin a groundwater management area under Oregon's Groundwater
44
-------
Management Act41. This designation confers special attention on the area and enables state
agencies to focus resources on nonpoint source problems contributing to groundwater
contamination.
Project Description: Oregon uses §319 funds to support multiple, inter-related projects in
the Malheur Basin. Oregon State University's Agriculture Experiment Station is leading the
research efforts. With grants from EPA and other sources, researchers are testing fertilizer
rate and timing applications and new irrigation practices designed to reduce groundwater
contamination. The SWCD Water Quality Coordinator coordinates and implements the effort
to address the groundwater contamination, providing a vital link between the Experiment
Station research and the local growers. The Nitrogen Recovery experiment is one portion of
the Experiment Station's research that is designed to test the ability of sugar beets and small
grains to recover subsoil nitrates.
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992.
Comments on Protect Effectiveness: The Malheur projects represent an outstanding
example of a locally driven nonpoint source control effort. Confronted with a problem
created by their livelihood for generations, residents banded together to develop solutions.
At the research level, the Agricultural Experiment Station grows wheat, onions, and sugar
beets under various conditions to determine the effects of lower nitrogen loading, crop
rotation, and lower water use. Comparable yield and quality are the primary objectives.
Growers will only adopt a new practice if it does not sacrifice crop quality or yield.
The Experiment Station also conducts annual field days for the local growers as its
primary public education effort. Experiment Station researchers take growers on tours of the
various experiment sites, explaining the objectives and results of each experiment. Most of
the growers in the region are extremely supportive of the research. But more important,
many growers are beginning to experiment with new techniques on their own farms. A true
indicator of the success of this research and extensive public outreach efforts will be the
number of growers that ultimately incorporate the research results into their own practices.
In addition to the research and information sharing conducted by the Experiment
Station, several local agencies play a vital role involving local growers in the effort to reduce
groundwater contamination and providing information on cost-share opportunities for various
BMPs. The SWCD Water Quality Coordinator, funded by §319, bridges the gap between
research efforts and the local community. Public outreach include publishing a weekly
column called "Ag Hotline" in the local papa: and offering free nitrate testing at the county
fair. The Ontario Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA), an interagency cooperative effort designed
to reduce nonpoint source pollution from nitrates, sediments and pesticides in northern
Malheur County, recently received a "Certificate of Environment^ Achievement" from the
41Oregon Groundwater Protection Act of 1989, HB 3515, Section 36.
-------
Renew America program,42 and will be listed in the 1992 Environmental Success Index, a
directory of environmental projects.
Nonpoint Source Monitoring/Applying Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
Contact: Rick Hafele, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, (503) 229-5983
Problem: Biological monitoring is gaining increasing importance in gauging the health of
ecosystems. With biomonitoring, biological organisms - not chemical measurements -
determine a stream's environmental conditions. Biomonitoring involves both field and
laboratory work to assess various organisms' responses to their surroundings. EPA has
developed guidelines for using rapid bioassessment protocols (RBPs) to assess the overall
health of streams. Due to the variability of landscapes, waterbodies, and terrain, RBPs need
to be tailored to individual regions.
Project Description: Oregon recognized the importance of developing RBPs to work in the
Northwest. Protocols for field work are adapted from EPA's protocols, but must be refined
at different sites. DEQ scientists are calibrating RBPs to ecoregions within the state. Once
methods are worked out, the process will be less labor intensive to apply, and DEQ will try
to spread its methods to other agencies. In 1990 and 1991, the project focused on method
development. In 1992, the emphasis will shift to project effectiveness monitoring and
development of an ecoregion reference site data base for the Coast Range.
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992.
Comments on Project Effertivpn^«;- Oregon is pioneering many new approaches in RBP
development. By developing tools to assess streams based on characteristics affected by
nonpoint source pollution, the project serves two primary purposes. First, it can identify a
set of characteristics for healthy streams, which can be used as a comparison for degraded
water bodies. This information can help agencies make more educated natural resource
decisions. Next, these assessment techniques can be used to measure how well nonpoint
source control projects improve water quality. This will help indicate whether or not BMP*
work as expected. RBPs will eventually form the basis for biological water quality standards
that will be used to determine water quality impairments from nonpoint source pollution.
At regional workshops, Oregon shares its new techniques with other state agencies in
the region working to develop RBPs. One problem faced by this and other RBP proS is
the lack of suitable sites to serve as reference sites. The impacts of widespread 4eine aid
other acttvittes may reach into even the most remote regions of the state. Thus reSere
have a difficult time locating streams in their natural condition. When good refe^S stes
nRenew America is a national campaign to identify and recognize successful environmental programs
that can serve as models for meeting environmental challenges.
46
-------
are found, multiple agencies try to accomplish their work at these sites. DEQ is trying to
serve as the lead agency in RBP development and coordinate RBP work at other state
agencies.
In addition to developing an important research and monitoring tool, Oregon will use
its RBP methodology to measure the impacts of nonpoint source control projects designed to
improve water quality. For instance, several restoration projects, funded jointly by §319 and
GWEB, will incorporate RBPs to monitor project effectiveness. Eventually, DEQ hopes to
use RBPs to conduct widespread monitoring throughout the state.
C. Idaho §319 Projects
Project WET (Water Education for Teachers)
Contact: Dottie Shuman, Project WET Idaho Coordinator, Idaho Water Resources
Research Institute, University of Idaho (208) 885-6429
Problem: Manv teachers are not familiar with nonpoint source pollution and other water
quality issues. Workshops and seminars for teachers introduce them to water quality
problems and provide teaching aids that they can incorporate into school curriculums.
Project Degfrjptimr Project WET is a statewide, interdisciplinary water education program
that provides educators with current, scientifically-based information to incorporate into their
K-12 curriculums. Administered through the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute at the
University of Idaho, Project WET presents workshops and seminars that cover the basic
Project WET curriculum, teaching educators strategies for teaching water quality awareness
and water resources appreciation. Workshops cover water properties, groundwater concepts,
surface water point and nonpoint source pollution, water treatment, and conservation.
Nonpoint source learning modules provide an important emphasis on groundwater and
surface water nonpoint source pollution problems and issues.
Status: Funded in fiscal year 1990 and continued as a state-funded program.
-immrnt- HI mi-	Project
as an internl Dart of its comprehensive water quality education program. It has developed a
number of nonpoint source surfece and groundwater teaching modules to facilitate toching
water resources appreciation. Teaching aids include a Groundwater How Model, Liquid
Treasure History Trunk, Water Quality Testing Trunk, and a Water Use Simulator.
Workshops trata teachers in application of these modules. Project WET's flexible workshops
can accommodate new ideas contributed by participating teachers.
Pmiect WET rr-""" its workshops throughout Idaho, promoting them through the
Vmrrfinatms in the different school districts. Only teachers who receive Project
^	modules, which can be easily transported to individua!
47
-------
schools for special projects. All Project WET workshops offer one graduate credit from the
University of Idaho College of Education, which may be applied to the re-certification
requirement for Idaho teachers. Project WET workshops are available to teachers, SCS
staff, 4-H leaders and others that work with students.
By providing a forum to teach Idaho's teachers about water resources, Project WET
helps to build water education into curriculums at all grade levels. Launched as a statewide
pilot program, Project WET concepts will now be developed into a nationwide curriculum.
In addition to demonstrating a successful environmental education program, Project
WET also illustrates a program that moved from §319 funding into state funding. For fiscal
year 1992, Project WET will be state-funded and used to help meet Idaho's 40 percent match
requirement for §319 grants.
Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping
Contact: Gerry Winter, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (208) 334-5860;
Mary McGown, Idaho Water Resource Research Institute (208) 334-5860
Prnhipm: Idaho identified 11 priority aquifers in its nonpoint source management program.
Some of these are among the highest yielding aquifers in the world, and comprise an
extremely important resource for domestic, agricultural, industrial, and other uses. Nonpoint
sources of pollution from agriculture, forestry, mining and numerous other sources can
contaminate groundwater. Groundwater vulnerability mapping can identify the areas most
threatened by contamination, thereby enabling the state to target its groundwater protection
resources.
Prniftct Description: The groundwater vulnerability project involves development of maps
that delineate aquifer characteristics, such as depth to water, recharge rates, and soil type,
that are used to determine groundwater vulnerability to contamination. Superimposing these
different data layers indicates relative vulnerability ratings for different areas. Groundwater
vulnerability maps will be used to set statewide priorities for monitoring and groundwater
management.
Status: Funded in fiscal year 1990 and continued as a state-funded program.
Comments on Project Effectiveness: Groundwater vulnerability mapping is an important
tool in groundwater protection strategies. Section 319 provided seed money for the initial
stages of the project. It is currently funded through the Water Pollution Control Account and
contracted out to various agencies to perform the technical work.
The groundwater vulnerability mapping project provides the basis for prioritizing state
and federal programs for sensitive aquifers. Initially, the project concentrated on the Snake
48
-------
River Plain. Vulnerability maps developed for the Snake River Plain will now be verified
against sample data to determine the accuracy of the rating system.
From the Snake River Plain, the mapping work is being extended to major
intermountain valleys including the Rathdrum Prairie, Birch Creek, and other areas. Several
changes will need to made as the research techniques cover different areas. For instance,
recharge calculations for the Snake River Plain factor in irrigation, but in the northern part
of the state dryland farming is commonplace. Thus, recharge rates used in irrigated areas
will need to be modified to accommodate only natural recharge rates in dryland farming
areas.
Ultimately, the results from the mapping project will allow DEQ to employ
differential management approaches based on relative vulnerability of different aquifers. The
results of this research will also be used to implement the state's groundwater plan and will
serve as a tool for aquifer protection.
In addition to developing a primary tool for resource management decisions, the
project incorporates environmental stewardship activities that compliment the technical basis
of the program. Through mass groundwater sampling events across the state, DEQ and the
Farm Bureau collected and tested rural domestic well samples for nitrate contamination.
Mass sampling provides a service to rural communities and provides data to DEQ and other
agencies concerned with groundwater resources.
D. Alaska §319 Projects
Alaska Water Watch
Contact: Bill Janes, Program Coordinator, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, (907) 465-5307
Problem- Water duality protection efforts require a joint effort between governmental
programs and citizen initiated activities. Alaska Water Watch is designed to provide a
coordinating link for ongoing citizen stewardship efforts and to expand similar programs to
new communities. Citizen stewardship of water resources provides an important complement
to governmental water quality protection efforts.
8319 nroiect' Alaska Water Watch is an interagency public participation and education
ne^ork that promotes comprehensive stewardship of Alaska's aquatic resources. Citizen
volunteers carry out the program's objectives of water quality monitoring, pollution
prevention, and water quality restoration activities. Section §319 funds a program
coordinator who manages the Water Watch program, conducts monitoring training and
quality assurance sessions, and works to expand the number of communities with Water
Watch programs.
49
-------
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1990, 1991, 1992.
Comments on Project Effectiveness: Alaska Water Watch, initiated by §319 funds,
incorporates a multi-faceted approach that links government agencies and citizen monitoring
in this unique stewardship program. Essentially an umbrella program for a diverse mix of
activities, Alaska Water Watch includes projects that take many shapes. Water Watch is
primarily a statewide citizen steward program that actively involves the public to protect
aquatic resources. A network of citizen stewards throughout the state undertakes monitoring
projects and works to enhance community waterbodies.
Four central themes guide the Water Watch program: (1) data collection and
monitoring; (2) aquatic education; (3) pollution prevention; and (4) restoration activities.
Projects that meet Alaska Water Watch criteria may participate as cooperating projects. By
using the Water Watch label, the program successfully integrates several independent citizen
steward programs throughout the state. The Alaska Water Watch label develops a uniform
theme and name recognition for numerous statewide citizen stewardship efforts.
Alaska Water Watch activities have expanded dramatically since the program first
began in 1990. Schools and community groups are the primary focus of Alaska Water
Watch. Initiatives now include groundwater models, stream water quality studies, habitat
assessment and watershed assessment efforts. Data collection and monitoring form the core
of Water Watch activities. A database developed from citizen monitoring data will be
available to groups participating in Alaska Water Watch and will supplement professional
water quality databases. Monitoring data can help assess nonpoint source pollution problems
and identify trends in water quality.
The Water Watch program began as an ADEC effort to promote and expand citizen
monitoring activities. Other agencies are now joining ADEC as Water Watch partners.
Agency participation in Water Watch requires a commitment to initiate and support public
involvement, develop a group of volunteers to lead projects, follow standard methodology in
data collection, and develop programs compatible with school curricula. Currently Alaska
Water Watch activities concentrate on urban nonpoint source problems. In the future the
program may reach into other areas such as rural nonpoint source problems and drinking
water concerns.	r
In addition to numerous public involvement activities, Alaska Water Watch
administers pass-through grants for water quality restoration efforts, such as streambank
revegetation and shoreline stabilization. As Alaska Water Watch programs become more
commonplace, and more agencies lend their expertise to the program; Water Watch Svities
will have even more far-reaching effects.	acuviues
50
-------
BMP Monitoring in Tongass National Forest
Contact: Jim Ferguson, Forest Practices Program Coordinator (Southeast Region),
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, (907) 465-5365
Prnhipnr The Tongass National Forest is a remote forest spreading throughout southeast
Alaska. Decades-old timber sale contracts, designed to maintain high yields, govern
management decisions made on the forest. These contracts, written before BMPs and forest
practices regulations were commonplace, essentially divided the forest between two large
timber companies and did not take into consideration the potentially adverse water quality
impacts caused by timber harvest practices. The 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act helped
factor water quality issues into harvest practices. However, nonpoint source pollution is still
a relatively new concern in Alaska, and does not receive the broader support of some of the
more traditional environmental programs.
§319 project: Alaska DEC (ADEC) combined §319 money with state funds to develop and
implement a Tongass National Forest BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring
program. The project is one of four parts of Alaska's Forest Practices workplan, outlined in
its Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy. In this project, ADEC provides technical
direction to the Forest Service BMP monitoring program, and helps the Forest Service
establish procedures for routine BMP implementation monitoring.
Status: Funded in fiscal years 1991, 1992.
rnmmpnta nn	Fffcrtiveness: This project has greatly strengthened the working
relationship between ADEC and the Forest Service, which has primary responsibility for
meeting state water quality standards for all activities on Forest Service lands that may affect
water quality Traditionally, the Forest Service has not recognized other agencies'
authorities over fisheries and water quality standards in the Tongass. Now, a growing
awareness of the water quality problems caused by unregulated loggmg has generated a clash
between past attitudes and current management tools.
Prior to this project, the Forest Service managed the Tongass primarily to meet
timber harvest obligations to the two powerful timber companies that have long-term timber
sale contracts on the forest. However, several recent events have given water quality issues
a growing voice in forest management decisions. First the Tongass Timber Reform Act
includes provisions that direct the Forest Service to apply BMPs in timber harvest
applications. For instance, the Act requires 100-foot stteamside buffers on aU an^romous
fish streams. Second, §319 requires states to identify best management practices that reduce
pollutant loadings from categories of nonpoint sources,43 and identify programs that will
43§319(b)(l)(A), 33 U.S.C. 81329(b)(1)(A).
51
-------
achieve BMP implementation.44 Armed with some form of regulatory back-up, ADEC has
worked to institutionalize BMP implementation and monitoring into routine Forest Service
activities.
As part of this project, ADEC completed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
the Forest Service regarding its obligation to promote BMP implementation and effectiveness
monitoring on the Tongass. This MOA helped institutionalize BMP implementation
monitoring, and greatly increased rapport between ADEC and the Forest Service.
The §319 grant provides travel money to supplement a state-funded position. Travel
is a vital component of this position. The Forest Practices program coordinator is the only
ADEC staff member assigned to monitor timber harvest and road construction activities on
the 17 million-acre forest, which the Forest Service manages as three separate forests.
Increasing public awareness of the need for BMPs requires the program coordinator to
conduct numerous meetings with Forest Service staff throughout this remote and expansive
area.
What began as an upward struggle, is taking shape as a major breakthrough in Forest
Service attitudes toward the importance of water quality issues. ADEC has observed
noticeable improvement of Forest Service awareness and promotion of BMPs. Forest
Service district rangers, timber planners, and engineers in two of the three forests within the
Tongass now actively cooperate with ADEC to implement BMPs in timber sales.
The Forest Service recognized the importance of the BMP implementation project by
awarding its Stewardship First award to ADEC's Forest Practices Program Coordinator.
This award recognizes important contributions in land stewardship, and represents one of the
few times the Forest Service presented the award to someone outside the agency.
Section 319 provided the impetus for ADEC to become intimately involved with
forestry issues in Alaska. With BMP development gradually becoming institutionalized
within the Forest Service, ADEC will begin to develop a BMP effectiveness monitoring
program, although limited funding currently exists for monitoring. ADEC will use its
success with the current project to help make BMP effectiveness monitoring an integral part
of Forest Service activities.
44§319(b)(l)(B), 33 U.S.C §1329(b)(l)(B).
52
-------
APPENDIX 4: DESCRIPTIONS OF §319 PROJECTS IN REGION 10 STATES
Within Region 10, §319 funds a wide variety of projects under the umbrella of
nonpoint source control activities. Since Congress first appropriated money for §319(h)
grants in 1990, EPA has funded over 80 projects totalling $7,795,202 in the Region 10
states.
The tables that follow describe all projects funded by §319 in Region 10 since the
initial round of §319 grants in fiscal year 1990.45 As revealed by the tables, each state uses
§319 money differently. But each uses §319 grants to broaden the scope of its nonpoint
source control programs.
The project descriptions are intentionally brief, intended to provide only a sampling of
the type of work made possible by §319 funds. For each §319 project, states submit a
detailed work plan that describes the project and outlines specific tasks and objectives. These
tasks form the basis for quarterly status reports submitted to EPA.
45Grants to the Colville Tribe are not included.
53
-------
Washington §319 Projects
TITLE |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Watershed Planning and Implementation In
Yakima River Basin/Moxee Sub-basin
Demonstration Project40
Fund demonstration project that implements irrigated agriculture BMPs in
a selected sub-basin of lower the Yakima River Basin; provide technical
planning and design assistance, educational workshops, BMP
demonstrations, technology transfer and cost-sharing for BMP
implementation on irrigated hops fields, orchards, and hay fields. Project
designed to reduce erosion and tailwater quantity from furrow irrigated
crops.
1990
Dairy Enforcement in Puget Sound
Staff position in Northwest Regional Office to improve complaint
response resolution; provide regulatory backup for successful nonpoint
source control program for dairy operations in King, Snohomish, Skagit
and Whatcom counties.
1990
1991
1992
Aquifer Vulnerability
Develop preliminary, site-specific method to determine groundwater
vulnerability for specific site or activity; investigate applicability of area-
based groundwater susceptibility models; prepare statewide map using
methodology developed for pilot areas.
1990
1991
Dairy Waste Management Follow-up
Individual on-farm follow-up with dairy operators in targeted area of
Puget Sound; encourage proper management of existing dairy waste
facilities; update dairy conservation management plans and evaluate
success of farm plans written to protect water quality.
1990
1991
1992
Whatcom County Annual Waste Management
Control water pollution from commercial dairy production through
implementation of local initiatives; organize dairy operators to effectively
address local nonpoint source concerns; evaluate and develop
recommendations on education, permits, fines, regulations, and minimum
voluntary standards.
1990
1991
^Monitoring effort is listed as a separate §319 project.
-------
TITLE |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Willapa Bay Watershed Technical Assistance
(case study included in report)
Improve handling and management of dairy and livestock waste; hire SCS
staff member to provide technical assistance, education, and technology
transfer focused on improving dairy waste management and reducing
impact to water quality.
1990
1991
1992
Nonpoint Source Statewide Education Project
Implement education program to address surface and groundwater
priorities and problems; publish and distribute materials; identify nonpoint
source educational role of Ecology.
1990
NPDES Permits for Dairies
Coordinate permit development and implementation, including drafting
permit, conducting public workshops, and initial implementation (general
permit for dairy farms throughout state to meet federal definition of
confined animal feeding operations.
1990
TFW Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and
Research (CMER)
Design and conduct technical studies to evaluate the effectiveness of forest
practices BMPs for stream water temperature protection, herbicide and
insecticide application, and sediment control; develop recommendations
for changes to BMPs as necessary.
1990
1991
1992
TFW Forest Practices Assistance in Central
Washington
(case study included in report)
Support planning and monitoring activities associated with development of
Resource Management Plan in Upper Yakima River Watershed; review
forest practices; provide technical assistance in support of forest practices
implementation within central region, including participation in TFW site
reviews, timber harvest application reviews, onsite follow-up and outreach
to forest landowners.
1990
1991
1992
TFW Forest Practices Support at Ecology's
Southwest Regional Office
Participate in TFW interdisciplinary teams, assist in evaluation and
coordination of forest practices, provide follow-up with landowners,
ensure compliance with Forest Practices Act; develop and implement
resource management plans and informational watershed plan.
1990
1991
Conservation District Water Quality Program
Enhancement
Strengthen ability of local conservation districts to carry out water quality
programs; increase coordination between local water quality
implementation projects and statewide water quality programs, enhance
local participation in waterbody assessment process.
1990
1991
1992
-------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Puget Sound Pesticide Guidelines Manual
Develop pesticide management guidelines and reference document for
certified pesticide applicators.
1990
Evaluate Groundwater BMPS for Eastern
Washington Irrigated Agriculture
Evaluate surface water BMPs for irrigated agriculture east of the Cascades
for effectiveness in protecting groundwater; identify BMPs to specifically
protect groundwater; update BMP manual for irrigated agriculture.
1990
1991
1992
Timber Harvest/Agriculture Field Inspector
Eastern Washington
¦
Respond to water quality problems in Palouse River Basin; assist
landowners in solving problems; improve nonpoint source program
targeted towards small, private forest owners; enhance forest BMPs for
non-industrial forest landowners.
1990
1991
Monitoring Yakima Demonstration Project
Implement monitoring program to document water quality improvements
in Yakima demonstration project; evaluate effectiveness of BMP
implementation in Moxee sub-basin.
1990
1991
1992
Coordinating Groundwater Vulnerability with
Wellhead Protection and Groundwater
Management Areas
I
Increase protection of groundwater from nonpoint source pollution by
ensuring consistency between Ground Water Management Area Plans,
Wellhead Protection Areas and state groundwater quality policies,
guidance, and rules; verify accuracy of hydrologic susceptibility
assessments; increase resolution of statewide groundwater vulnerability
map.
1991
1992
Wellhead Protection Program with Washington
Department of Health
Involve local community in development of wellhead protection program;
provide link between local governments and individual facilities; maintain
database of potential sources of nonpoint source pollution for outreach and
technical assistance program.
1991
Chehalis River Basin TMDL study
Investigate fecal coliform contamination and dissolved oxygen depletion to
establish TMDL for fecal coliform in Chehalis and Black Rivers. Funds
support nonpoint source TMDL component.
1991
1992
Washington Conservation Corps Surface Water
Action Team
Implement nonpoint source mitigation projects to curtail water degradation
and increase public awareness of BMP benefits; SWAT team will be used
to install on-the-ground projects that correct nonpoint sources of pollution.
1991
1992
-------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Sub-Regional Mapping of Coast Range Ecosystem
Develop rapid bioassessment capability for tracking changes in water
quality. Pilot project to produce sub-regional maps of Coast Range
ecosystem (coordinated with Oregon).
1991
National Monitoring Project
Monitoring to determine effectiveness of BMP implementation, education,
and enforcement carried out under a special state-funded implementation
project in a defined watershed where shellfish production is a major
beneficial use
1991
Water Quality Stewardship in Eastern
Washington
Ground and surface water quality educational programs for the general
public and agricultural community designed to instill a stewardship ethic
that will support voluntary implementation of nonpoint source pollution
prevention practices or nonpoint source pollution controls to reduce
pollution.
1990
1992
Puget Sound: Accelerated Watershed
Management Plan Implementation (4 projects)
Implement water quality elements of existing state-approved watershed
management plans in this nationally significant estuary. Projects will
stabilize and restore riparian zone habitat; establish a demonstration non-
commercial farm; enhance and protect an existing wetland; and fund
establishment of a local shellfish protection district.
1992
TFW Special Project (Pysht Fish Habitat
Enhancement)
Demonstration project to re-establish anadromous fish habitat through
placement of large woody debris, and develop natural sources of large
woody debris from along the stream corridor for long-term habitat
stability.
1992
For more information on §319 projects in Washington, contact Kahle Jennings, Washington Nonpoint Source Coordinator, (206) 438-7528
-------
Oregon §319 Projects
TITLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Water Quality Coordinator, Oregon
Department of Agriculture
Provide coordination for individual §319 project implementation; monitor
and evaluate project achievement and identify program needs; implement
agriculture-related activities for Tualatin TMDL Program.
1990
1991
1992
Malheur County Experiment Station BMP
Research and Development
(case study included in report)
Hire coordinator and provide funding for series of BMP development and
demonstration projects; design alternative fertilizer and irrigation
management experiments and demonstration projects.47
1990
1991
1992
Cull Onion Disposal BMPs
Demonstration, field evaluation, and monitoring of BMP effectiveness.
1990
Malheur SWCD Coordinator
(part of Malheur case study included in report)
Coordinate local involvement in planned and ongoing water quality
projects; assist local growers design farm management plans using BMPs in
accordance with Northern Malheur County Groundwater Management Plan.
1990
1991
1992
Nonpoint Source Monitoring/Applying Rapid
Reassessment Protocols
(case study included in report)
Collect useful information on beneficial use support levels; calibrate RBP to
one or more ecoregions; develop monitoring strategy; begin to use RBP to
assess nonpoint source-related impacts on beneficial uses in forested
watersheds; update and verify 1988 statewide nonpoint source assessment;
1992 focus is project effectiveness monitoring and developing ecoregion
reference site database for Coast Range.
1990
1991
1992
Efficiency of Nitrogen Recovery for
Groundwater Protection
(part of Malheur case study included in report)
Field experiments and demonstration of BMPs to protect groundwater in
Malheur County; determine ability of sugar beets and small grains to
recover subsoil nitrates and improve N fertilization efficiency; develop
guidelines to utilize these crops to extract top and subsoil nitrates.
1990
Improved Farm Management Practices for
l&rtHizier and Irrigation Scheduling
(pan of Malheur case study included in report)
Develop BMPs to provide groundwater protection during onion cultivation
in north Malheur County; complete field experiments to monitor nitrate
levels.
1990
¦"Research conducted through this position is related to other §319(h)-funded groundwater projects in MaJheur County.
-------

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Malheur County/SCS BMP Field Monitoring
and Farm Plan Evaluation
BMP application, monitoring, and demonstration; public education; hire
SCS groundwater specialist.
1990
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
(GWEB) projects
Grant funds various GWEB in-stream enhancement projects or statewide
watershed condition assessments for areas identified in statewide nonpoint
source assessment as having serious nonpoint source pollution problems.
1990
1991
1992
Stormwater Demonstration Pollution Reduction
Assist in construction of demonstration project to pretreat urban stormwater
before it enters Fanno Creek, a Tualatin River tributary. Project utilizes
constructed wetland and other BMPs that will be monitored for
effectiveness.
199148
Oregon Forest Practices Rule Effectiveness
Study, Phase 1
Investigate and measure how representative regulated forest harvest
operations are changing the vegetative characteristics and associated stream
pool depths of forest riparian areas across the state.
1991
Volunteer Coordinator for Nonpoint Source
Program, Groundwater Section, DEQ
Hire a coordinator to organize and encourage volunteer efforts related to
groundwater.
1991
1992
Sub-Region Maps
Develop rapid bioassessment capability for tracking changes in water
quality. Pilot project to produce sub-regional maps of Coast Range
ecosystem (coordinated with Washington).
1991
Coastal Zone Management Act Demonstration
Project
Implementation of forestry BMPs in coastal basin forests.
1992
Soil Moisture and Fertility in Lower Umatilla
Basin
Evaluate soil nitrate levels after fertilization and irrigation to develop
strategies to improve nutrient utilization and reduce leaching.
1992
Irrigation Scheduling for Drip-Irrigated,
Polyethylene-Mulched Vegetable Production
Develop BMPs vegetable crop production in arid environment to optimize
water and fertilizer uptake; increase water use efficiency for irrigated crop
production and reduce groundwater contamination from fertilizer leaching.
1992
Lane County Groundwater Monitoring j
Develop and demonstrate cost-effective method to address public concern
regarding groundwater contamination from agricultural sources.
1992
48This project was never initiated. Funds will be redirected.
-------
TITLE |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
National Watershed Monitoring Program in
Grande Ronde Basin
Intensive monitoring work that is part of long-term watershed monitoring
program to assess biological communities and physical and chemical factors
that affect them; determine reaction of fish and macroinvertebrate
communities to habitat restoration work and new management practices.
1992
Grande Ronde Watershed Implementation
Implement BMPs to protect water quality in areas monitored by the
National Monitoring project.
1992
Nonpoint Source Implementation and
Monitoring Network Coordinator
Establish coordinated statewide network to assess aquatic resource
conditions, identify and locate causes of nonpoint source problems,
organize public/private efforts to control nonpoint source problems and
rehabilitate aquatic resources.
1992
Compost Filtration of Surface Runoff
Construct four leaf compost filtration facilities to reduce pollutants in
surface water runoff from industrial, agricultural, and suburban sources;
analyze effectiveness of this technique.
1992
Small Farm Animal Waste Handling
i
Inventory small non-commercial animal enterprises along selected creeks;
identify waste handling procedures; calculate potential nonpoint source
loads; identify elements of practical and affordable system of waste
handling.
1992
Soil Bioengineering Workbook and Workshop
Produce workbook and provide training in basic soil bioengineering
techniques for land managers in Oregon.
1992
HUA Effectiveness Monitoring
First year of multi-year project to collect and evaluate water quality data in
small sub-area of Dairy-McKay Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) in Tualatin
Basin.
1992
For more information about §319 projects in Oregon, contact Roger Wood, Oregon Nonpoint Source Coordinator, (503) 229-6893.
-------
Idaho §319 Projects
TITLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Program Management/Implementation
Implement nonpoint source controls with land management agencies and
private landowners; bring federal lands into compliance with state nonpoint
source management program (federal facility compliance (§313) and federal
consistency (§319)); develop and institutionalize watershed priorities; provide
administrative support for technical staff implementing §319 work programs.
1990
1991
1992
Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation
Nonpoint source pollution monitoring and program evaluation.
Implementation of feedback loop for water quality standards and nonpoint
source controls; implement nonpoint source coordinated monitoring program
on selected Stream Segments of Concern through interagency participation.
1990
1991
1992
Groundwater Vulnerability Mapping
(case study included in report)
Assess and map relative vulnerability to contamination of Idaho's high priority
aquifers; extend regional mapping; begin pilot project vulnerability mapping
for land use/contaminant loading potential layer.
1990
1991
Agricultural Program Management and
Enhancement
Implement revised Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan focused on high
priority agricultural pollution sources including grazing practices on federal
lands; update, revise, and develop BMPs for agriculture; coordinate watershed
approach to management; incorporate monitoring and evaluation into
agricultural watershed projects to implement nonpoint source feedback loop.
1990
199149
Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater
Develop statewide management strategy for prevention of groundwater
contamination by agricultural chemicals.
1990
1991
1992
Confined Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFO)
Improve design and monitoring of CAFO facilities to reduce cumulative
impacts on groundwater.
1990
1991
49This project was state-funded. Section 319 funds were redistributed to other §319 projects.
-------
TITLE |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Riparian Area Nonpoint Source Controls
Accelerate acceptance and application of effective and practical livestock
grazing management systems for riparian areas in state agriculture water
quality program; demonstrate effectiveness of new and emerging technologies
in riparian area management; select and monitor two demonstration areas.
1990
1991
Road Inventory and Stabilization
Identify poorly located and unstable forest roads in stream corridors and
establish priorities for relocation.
199050
Big Sand Creek Demonstration Project
High profile forest road restoration pilot project using paired watershed
approach for streams severely impaired by forest haul roads.
199151
Forest Land Soil Erosion Hazard and Stream '
Mapping
Compile soils information and develop useable maps locating Class I streams
and high erosion hazard soils on state and private lands.
1990
Mining - BMP Technology Transfer and
Evaluation
Educate and inform industry and other agencies on BMPs for controlling
sediment and runoff from mining operations; track compliance and
effectiveness of BMPs.
1990
1991
Local Working Committee Workshops
Familiarize participants with basics of water quality and fishery protection.
1990
Environmental Education (Project WET)
(case study included in report)
Facilitate and promote awareness, appreciation and knowledge of Idaho's
water resources through development of classroom teaching aids.
1990
Adopt-A-Stream
Provide cost-share funds to local entities for water quality restoration,
enhancement, and volunteer monitoring programs.
1990
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM)
Apply CRM process on selected high priority streams to assist in application
of nonpoint source controls.
199052
"This project was never initiated.
5,This project was never initiated.
S2Tlus project was never initiated.
Funds were redirected to other §319 projects.
Funds were redirected to other §319 projects.
Funds were redirected to other §319 projects.
-------
TITLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Groundwater Monitoring - Minidoka and
Cassia Counties
Collect pesticide and nitrate data to characterize groundwater and verify
vulnerability maps.
1990
1991
1992
Nonpoint Source Metals Contamination of
Surface Waters in Coeur D'Alene Basin
Develop comprehensive database from existing records to provide locations of
mine and smelting spoils, mine drainage sites, and determine water quality of
| Coeur d'Alene basin.
1991
1992
Forest Audit
Interdisciplinary teams conduct onsite evaluations of randomly selected forest
practices to determine if land management agencies are using BMPs, and if
designated BMPs provide adequate water quality protection.
1991
Forestry Practices
Revise Forest Practices Water Quality Management Plan; develop and
coordinate statewide training program for forest practice operators.
1991
Geotechnical Training and Forest
Development Design Assistance
Provide training and technical assistance to state foresters and private timber
landowners; develop geotechnical handbook of engineering principles for road
construction.
1992
For more information on §319 projects in Idaho, contact Donna Rodman, Idaho Nonpoint Source Coordinator, (208) 334-5860.
-------
Alaska §319 Projects
TOTE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
VEAR
Alaska Water Watch
(case study included in report)
Implementation of statewide, interagency water quality stewardship program;
maintain and improve water quality through citizen stewardship of surface
water and groundwater systems; focus on water quality monitoring, pollution
prevention, and water quality restoration activities with volunteer network of
citizen "stewards;" provide pass-through grants for water quality restoration.
1990s3
1991
1992
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Position in
Northern Regional Office
Implement Alaska's nonpoint source pollution strategy in interior Alaska and
the North Slope; conduct review and inspections of forest practices; provide
technical assistance and education; respond to nonpoint source pollution
complaints.
1991
1992
Forest Practices Training Workshops on
Forest Practices Act
Conduct a series of workshops for Alaska's resource agencies (ADEC,
Department of Fish and Game, and Department of Natural Resources) to
provide training for agency staff on requirements of 1990 Forest Resources
and Practices Act.
1991
Operator Education Workshops and BMP
Handbooks
Conduct a series of workshops for timber operators and the public to explain
Forest Resources and Practices Act; develop BMP handbooks and regulation
handbook for field staff and timber operators.
1991
Effectiveness of state BMPfc in meeting water
quality standards
Evaluate effectiveness of state BMPs in meeting state water quality standards;
determine if BMPs are being implemented and if they adequately protect
water quality.
1991
BMP Implementation Monitoring on Tongass
National Forest
(case study included in report)
Develop BMP implementation program for Tongass National Forest; provide
technical direction to Forest Service to monitor implementation and
effectiveness of timber harvest and road construction BMPs.
1991
1992
sIn fiscal year 1990, the project was funded as part of Alaska's §2050(5) grant.
-------
TITLE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Protection of Drinking Water Supplies
Develop wellhead protection areas to protect public drinking water supplies;
provide grants to municipalities to identify diffuse sources near public
drinking water aquifers; develop local groundwater protection ordinances.
1991
Statewide Nonpoint Source Public Outreach
and Information Program
Develop and implement a statewide nonpoint source public outreach and
information program integrating surface water and groundwater protection.
1991
Oil and Gas Development Project
Develop a consistent set of design and installation standards for cross
drainage structures for fish stream crossings on the North Slope.
1991
Pass-Tlirough Grants for Improved
Stormwater Control
Provide local water quality grants for improved stormwater control to sustain
statewide community grant program.
1991
Water Quality Monitoring of Eyak Lake in
Cordova
Monitor and assess water quality in Eyak Lake in Cordova.
1991
Water Quality Monitoring of Selected Placer
Mining Streams
Provide initial quantification of effects on turbidity for selected drainage
system to confirm whether current mining practices attain water quality
standards for turbidity; develop automated, continuous data collection for
reliable, long-term water quality monitoring.
1991
Water Quality Monitoring in Delta-Clearwater
Watershed
Evaluate effects of pesticide runoff and domestic sewage disposal in Delta-
Clearwater River.
1991
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Coordinator/Program Manager
ADEC staff member to fully implement Alaska's nonpoint source pollution
control program and §319 projects; supervise Alaska Water Watch
coordinator and Forest Practices coordinator
1992
Best Management Practices Implementation
and Effectiveness Monitoring on Chugach
National Forest
Initial cooperative venture with Forest Service to implement Chugach portion
of Alaska Regional Water Quality Management Plan
1992
-------
TITLE |
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
YEAR
Alaska Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping
Program
Begin process of statewide aquifer vulnerability mapping using interagency
work group
1992
ADEC Pollution Prevention Program
Institutionalize pollution prevention tasks into work plans; expand traditional
approaches to nonpoint source control
1992
Abandoned Placer Mine Site Reclamation
Reclamation of abandoned placer mine site and development of water quality
and hydrologic monitoring
1992
Development of Systems for Composting Dog
Waste in Interior Alaska
Develop systems for processing animal waste on-site to produce organize
fertilizer and soil amendment
1992
Restoration of Water Quality and Fish Habitat
in Timber Harvest-Impaired Streams in |
Cooperative interagency project to conduct long-term, watershed-level
evaluation of effectiveness of methods to restore water quality and
anadromous fish habitat in streams impaired by timber harvest activities
1992
BMP Effectiveness Monitoring in Lake
Florence Watershed, Admiralty Island
Monitor effects of forest harvest activities on stream water quality and
downstream beneficial uses within the Lake Florence watershed in order to
validate efficacy of Alaska's forest practices BMPs
1992
Validation of Rapid Bioassessment Techniques
on Prince of Wales Island
Evaluate EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use as screening procedures
to identify stream impairment and requirement for further and more rigorous
investigation into degree and sources of impact.
1992
For more information on §319 projects in Alaska, contact Drew Grant, Alaska Nonpoint Source Coordinator, (907) 465-5304.
-------