A National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act
Section 319 Program
November 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
-------
November 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. Base 319 Funding Summary
2. Staffing Summary
3. State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution
4. Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives
5. Key NPS Partnerships (including MOAs/MOUs)
6. Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs (Beyond 319 grants and
match)
7. Coordination with USDA
8. Use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund for NPS
9. Current Program Implementation
a. State Nonpoint Source Management Program Plans
b. Section 319 Grant Expenditure Rates
c. Satisfactory Progress Determinations
10. State Processes for Solicitation. Prioritization and Selection of 319 Projects
Appendices
Appendix A: Determination of TMDLs Primarily Impacted by NPS (May 2011)
Appendix B: Watershed Based Plan Review: Final Report (July 2011)
o Appendix B-l: List of Watershed Based Plans Reviewed
o Appendix B-2: Best Component Examples from Watershed Plans
Appendix C: Potential Recommendations from the EPA/State Water Division Director
Workgroup Regarding Section 319 NPS Program Improvements
Appendix D: Water Quality Priority Goal FY2012-2013
-------
November 2011
Executive Summary
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading source of water quality impairment in the United States.
It is the primary source of impairment in over 33,000 waters - roughly three-quarters of all impaired
waters for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) have been calculated. It is also the dominant
source of pollutants responsible for impairment of many of our nation's most significant waterbodies,
such as the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. The vast majority of our nation's impaired waters
have no possibility of being restored unless the nonpoint sources are effectively remediated. Moreover,
unless they are more effectively addressed as population and demands on the land increase, the
number of NPS-impaired waters will continue to grow.
Through this study, EPA developed a detailed understanding of the ways that states utilize the Clean
Water Act (CWA) section 319 funding to implement successful state NPS programs. Beginning in 1999,
when Congress nearly doubled 319 funding levels to $200 million, EPA has directed states to devote
approximately one-half of the funds (referred to as "base"319 funds) to implement broad solutions to
states' NPS pollution problems and one-half (referred to as "incremental" 319 funds) to solve local
water quality problems utilizing a watershed-based planning and implementation approach. A primary
goal of this study was to gain a detailed, fact-based understanding of how states have used their base
and incremental 319 funding. EPA's conclusion is that, overall, these complementary approaches are
critical to helping states restore NPS-impaired waters, as well as protect healthy waters from future
impairment.
Watershed projects, the mainstay of the national NPS program over the last decade, enable states to
restore NPS-impaired waterbodies, thus providing significant benefits to surrounding communities that
use those waterbodies. These projects also demonstrate restoration practices that can be adopted and
implemented by partner stakeholders, including local, state, and federal agencies. To date, efforts by
state 319 programs and their partners have led to the remediation and removal of 355 waterbodies
from states' Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. An overview of each of
these "Section 319 Success Stories" is available at www.epa.gov/nps/success/.
While the watershed-based planning and implementation approach has allowed state nonpoint source
agencies to effectively and cost-efficiently identify and "target" NPS problem areas, it is not sufficient,
taken alone, to expeditiously restore our nation's NPS-impaired waters. While the national NPS
program has succeeded in delisting 355 waterbodies over the last six years, this represents only about
1% of the universe of NPS-impaired waterbodies. It is thus apparent that effective statewide programs
and other base 319-funded activities will be critical to achieving more expedited success in restoring
NPS-impaired waters, as well as protecting healthy, unimpaired waters. For this reason, a major focus of
this national program evaluation was to improve understanding of how states currently utilize their base
319 funds to achieve program goals.
1
-------
November 2011
This study revealed a great richness and diversity among states' 319 programs. EPA found that a few
states (e.g., California, North Carolina, and Wisconsin) possess and utilize broad-based regulatory
authorities to support their programs, while a significantly greater number utilize regulatory approaches
to address specific NPS areas, such as agriculture (more than 20 states, focusing particularly on animal
feeding operations and nutrient management); forestry (20 states); and protection of riparian areas,
shorelines and wetlands (10 states). At the same time, states use their 319 funding, along with state
match (and, in many states, significant funds beyond the required 40% match), to implement statewide,
non-regulatory programs that promote implementation on a widespread basis (e.g., promote broad use
of nutrient management or low impact development techniques). These programs rely on and help
develop and strengthen key NPS partnerships with federal and state agencies, conservation districts,
and non-governmental groups to leverage interagency participation and funding to address NPS
program priorities. These statewide approaches are key to making significant progress in remediating
the tens of thousands of NPS-impaired waters.
Importantly, this study also identified opportunities for 319 program improvement. Over the past two
years EPA has conducted a detailed review of a sample of state watershed-based plans, and has
identified many watershed-based plans that provide a strong foundation for implementing successful
watershed-based projects. However, some lack critical data analysis elements and reveal a need for
additional technical training for watershed plan developers. EPA is planning to provide additional
training in the coming year. See Appendix B (Watershed based Plan Review: Final Report (July 2011)) for
more information, including EPA's recommendations for improving watershed planning.
EPA's national evaluation of the 319 program identified a number of opportunities for improving state
NPS programs, including:
1. 28 states have not upgraded their NPS management program plans since 1999-2000. As a result,
these plans do not adequately reflect all of the innovations of the past decade, including
watershed-based planning and low impact development. Though not required under Section
319, upgrading program plans will help state NPS programs develop program goals/milestones,
identify program priorities, and, in turn, will improve states' abilities to work effectively with
partners in addressing statewide NPS priorities.
2. Some states' grant work plans and annual reports provide insufficient detail regarding the
specific activities that will be or have been performed, thus making it difficult to gauge program
success in implementing statewide programs and identify opportunities for improvement.
Improving the level of detail contained in these grant documents and enhancing the rigor of the
annual satisfactory progress determination process required by Section 319 will help ensure that
state programs are achieving maximum effectiveness. In addition, it will be beneficial to
establish processes that ensure that states expend their 319 funds within a reasonable time or,
if that does not occur, that the funds are competed and reallocated.
2
-------
November 2011
3. While many state 319 programs currently work with the local, state (including state revolving
loan funds under the Clean Water Act), and federal partners (such as the U.S. Department of
Agriculture) to leverage additional program authorities and resources to help address nonpoint
source pollution, there continues to be a great gap between the need and what is currently
available to successfully implement these programs. EPA and states should work with all
partners to promote improved processes, collaborative efforts, and incentives that can result in
greater leveraging of funds and resources to address NPS program priorities.
To address these opportunities for improvement, a workgroup of EPA and State Water Division Directors
developed a set of potential recommendations for improving the effectiveness of the 319 program (see
Appendix C: Potential Recommendations from the EPA/State Water Division Director Workgroup Re.
Section 319 NPS Program Improvements). EPA intends to work closely and collaboratively with the
states and other partners to strengthen its implementation of the Section 319 program and to refine our
collective efforts to restore and protect our Nation's waters.
3
-------
November 2011
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) is the leading source of water quality impairment in the United States.
For example, more than 33,000 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) (76% of all TMDLs) address waters
that are primarily impaired by nonpoint source pollution (see the 2-page "TMDL Study/' Appendix A to
this report). Indeed, nonpoint source pollution is the dominant cause of many of our nation's most
significant water quality problems, such as the hypoxic (oxygen-depleted) zone in the Gulf of Mexico or
the nutrient-impaired waters of the Chesapeake Bay (see the pie charts on page 4 below). Put simply,
the vast majority of our nation's impaired waters have no possibility of being restored unless the
nonpoint sources affecting those waters are effectively remediated. Moreover, unless nonpoint sources
are more effectively addressed, we will continue to see the number of impaired waters grow over time.
State reports that list each impaired waterbody under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
indicate that more than 33,000 waterbodies have been identified in TMDLs as being primarily impaired
by nonpoint source pollution. Our national efforts to remediate these waterbodies have resulted, in the
past six years, in remediating 354 waterbodies so that they are no longer impaired (see
www.epa.gov/nps/success). At this rate (approximately 60 remediated waterbodies per year), it would
take more than 500 years to remediate all impaired waters - assuming that the tide can be stemmed to
prevent any new impairments. Indeed, additional waters have continued to be added to the impaired
waters list at a significant rate, indicating the critical need to protect healthy watersheds as well as
restore those that have already been impaired.
It is thus clear that the success of our nation's overall effort to remediate impaired waters and protect
healthy waters depends greatly on implementing a national nonpoint source program that is as effective
as possible. It will require the devotion and leveraging of resources and the use of program tools and
authorities by a broad array of federal, state, and local agencies; non-profit groups; and private citizens.
It falls to the state nonpoint source agencies to implement programs that are as effective as possible,
by:
Continuing to demonstrate by example how to effectively implement watershed projects
that will achieve water quality standards, and
Growing and strengthening state-wide programs to achieve more widespread
implementation of actions that are necessary to more effectively and efficiently "restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters,"
which is the national water quality objective set forth in section 101(a) of the CWA.
Note: This report did not review territories' 319 programs given that territories receive relatively little 319 funds.
For similar reasons, the report did not review tribal 319 programs but does maintain a website with considerable
information on tribal 319 programs at http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/tribal/index.cfm.
4
-------
November 2011
Current Impact of Nonpoint Source Pollution on Water Quality
Impairments in Rivers and Streams
The most recent national report on the state of the nation's water quality is the National Water Quality
Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle, available at
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/305b/2004report index.cfm. Figure A-l of that report
lists the leading sources of impairments to rivers and streams as follows:
Figure A-l: Top 10 sources of impairment in assessed rivers and streams
Agriculture
H y d rom od ificati on
Unknown/Unspecified
Habitat Alteration
Natural/Wildlife
Municipal Discharges/Sewage
Unspecified Nonpoint Source
Atmospheric Deposition
Resource Extraction
Urban Run off,'Storm water
I 1 1 1
25 30 35 40 45
Percent of Impaired Stream Miles Affected
Note: Percents do not add up to 100% because more than one source may irrpair a waterbody.
Miles
94,182
61.748
48,957
42.752
39,120
35,301
34,556
27,522
22,691
22,559
As indicated, nonpoint source pollution dominates the sources of impairment. Among the top 10
sources of impairment in assessed rivers and streams, only one point-source category (municipal
discharges/sewage) is ranked in the top ten (number 6), while Urban Runoff, which is comprised of a mix
of point and nonpoint sources, ranks as number 10. Agriculture is by far the leading source of
impairment and, together with hydromodification and habitat alteration, these nonpoint source
categories are responsible for the significant majority of all impairments of rivers and streams
nationwide. (It is notable that hydromodification and habitat alteration are frequently the result of
agricultural activities, such as irrigation withdrawals and return flows, and farming or grazing in riparian
areas.)
5
-------
November 2011
Impairments in Lakes
Figure A-2 of the National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2004 Reporting Cycle, similarly
lists the leading sources of impairments to lakes as follows:
Figure A-2: Top 10 sources of impairment in assessed lakes, ponds, and reservoirs
Acres
Atmospheric Deposition
Unknown/Unspecified
Agricultu re
Natural/Wildlife
Hydromodification
Urban Runoff/Stormwater
Municipal Discharges/Sewage
Legacy1 Histories I Pollutants
Resource Extraction
Unspecified Nonpoint Source
2,009,363
1,988,598
1,670,513
1,256,542
1,248,432
701,024
583,211
521,250
490,638
485,585
0 5 10 15 70
Percent of Impaired Lake Acres Affected
Note: Percents do not add up to 100% because more than one source may impa r a watertoody.
Again, nonpoint source pollution is the most significant source of impairments in assessed lakes, ponds,
and reservoirs. Point sources again include only two categories (urban runoff/storm water and municipal
discharges/sewage), which are, respectively, the 6th and 7th most significant categories in the list. Apart
from atmospheric deposition, which is largely controlled through air quality programs, the leading
known/specified sources of impairments are again agriculture and other NPS categories.
Impairments in Coastal Waters
Nonpoint source pollution is also a leading contributor to the degradation of some of the most
significant coastal waters in the United States. The most prominent example is the contribution of
nutrients from an area comprising approximately one-half of the contiguous United States to the
Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. Nutrients from this vast watershed have contributed to the
creation of the extensive hypoxic zone in the Gulf; approximately 80% of those nutrients derive from
agricultural sources in the watershed, as indicated in Figure A-3. Similarly, excess nutrients have resulted
in significant water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, and this nutrient over-enrichment is caused
primarily by nonpoint source pollution, most notably agriculture (crops and livestock) (Figure A-3).
6
-------
November 2011
Figure A-3: Relative Nutrient Source Contributions
Gulf of Mexico
Natural
4%
Livestock
Urban
stormwater
31% i
Municipal 7
wastewater
21ฐ^> I
sources
52%
Urban^^^
stormwater
I 11%^^
Municipal
wastewater
25%
Phosphorus
Urban and
population-
related
sources
12%
Livestock
37%
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Natural
8%
Crops
43%
Urban and
population-
related
sources
9%
Urban and
population-
related
sources
36%
Livestock
26%
Deposition
21%
Natural
3%
Atmospheric
Deposition
21%
Urban and
population
related
Livestock
26%
Chesapeake Bay
Sources of data in the pie charts:
1. USGS. 2008. Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River
Basin: Sources of Nutrients Delivered to the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/primary_sources.html. Accessed July, 2009.
2. Chesapeake Bay Program. 2009. 2009 State of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/EC_2009_stateofprogram.pdf. Accessed July, 2009.
Contribution of Nonpoint Sources to Total Maximum Daily Loads
In April 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed a randomized statistically valid
number of TMDLs catalogued in the Assessment and Total Maximum and Daily Load Tracking and
Implementation System (ATTAINS) to assess the proportion of waterbodies impacted primarily by
nonpoint sources. Based on this review, EPA estimated that 33,820 TMDLs, amounting to 76% of all
TMDLs were primarily impacted by nonpoint source pollution. See Appendix A: Determination of TMDLs
Primarily Impacted by NPS (May 2011).
The review was conducted as follows: Using the American Research Group online sample size calculator,
it was determined that 96 TMDLs would provide a statistically valid sample size for the population
(44,500 TMDLs were conducted and entered into ATTAINS as of April 14, 2011) that would meet a 10%
7
-------
November 2011
margin of error and 95% confidence interval. Using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software, a
"randomizer" function was applied to the data; this gave EPA the ability to pull a completely random
selection of 96 TMDLs. Each TMDL document was reviewed to determine whether the impairment was
due primarily to nonpoint sources or point sources. This was accomplished by verifying that the total
load allocation to nonpoint sources exceeded 50% of all of a TMDL's allocations, either by calculations
provided or statements in the TMDL document to that effect.
The study determined that 73 of the 96 TMDLs were primarily impacted by nonpoint sources, and only
23 TMDLs were primarily impacted by point sources. Only several TMDLs were exclusively impacted by
point sources. Based on these findings, it was determined that approximately 76% of the TMDLs were
primarily impacted by nonpoint sources. Furthermore, by extrapolating this percentage to the total
number of TMDLs in ATTAINS as of April 14, 2011, EPA estimates that 33,820 TMDLs are primarily
impacted by nonpoint sources. Since additional section 303(d)-listed waterbodies do not yet have
TMDLs developed for them, it is expected that the 33,820 number will grow substantially in the coming
years as more TMDLs are developed for these section 303(d)-listed waters.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys
Another indication of the adverse consequences of nonpoint source pollution is provided by the
National Aquatic Resource Surveys ("NARS") that have been conducted in recent years by EPA in
partnership with states and tribes. Often referred to as probability-based surveys, these studies report
on core indicators of water condition using standardized field and laboratory methods. The surveys
include a national quality assurance program and are designed to yield unbiased, statistically
representative estimates of the condition of the water resources assessed. Studies have been completed
for wadeable streams and for lakes (see www.epa.gov/aquaticsurvevs).
The NARS have found that 42% of the nation's stream miles and 22% of the nation's lakes are in poor
condition. Of the stressors assessed in the surveys, nitrogen and phosphorus are the most pervasive in
the nation's wadeable streams, with more than 200,000 stream miles showing high concentrations for
each stressor. Significantly, the NARS have shown that nitrogen concentrations increase with an increase
in the percent of agriculture. The NARS also report that an estimated four million lake acres showed high
concentration of phosphorus and 1.9 million acres showed high concentrations of nitrogen. Streams and
lakes with high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus were about two times more likely to have poor
biological health.
Current Status of and Future Threats to Healthy Watersheds
The opening sentence of the CWA, in section 101(a), states: "The objective of this Act is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Thus, in addition to
focusing on addressing the impairments caused by nonpoint source pollution, the nonpoint source
program must implement programs and practices that maintain water quality by preventing the
degradation of water that is currently healthy.
8
-------
November 2011
Keeping healthy watersheds healthy has proven to be a major challenge. The number of waterbodies
listed as impaired has continually grown, both as a function of better information about impairments
and of the continuing degradation and impairment of formerly healthy waters.
In addition to the continued growth of the impaired waters list, other factors have been studied and
reported on which provide a broader understanding of the continuing challenges that EPA and states
face in maintaining good water quality. The following reports, among many others, are indicative of the
ongoing degradation of many waterbodies and aquatic habitats in recent years:
Over the last 50 years, coastal and freshwater wetlands have declined; surface water and
groundwater withdrawals have increased by 46%; and non-native fish have established
themselves in many watersheds (The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, Heinz Center, 2008).
Fifty-three percent of estuarine areas, and 27% of streams in the lower 48 states, are at high or
very high risk of current habitat degradation (Through a Fish's Eye: The Status offish Habitats in
the United States, National Fish Habitat Board, 2010).
Nearly 40% of fish in North American freshwater streams, rivers, and lakes are found to be
vulnerable, threatened, or endangered, nearly twice as many as were included on the imperiled
list from a similar survey conducted in 1989 (Conservation Status of Imperiled North American
Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes. Fisheries, Jelks et al.. 2008).
About 90% of freshwater species listed as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable on
the 2004 IUCN Red List are threatened by human-induced habitat loss or degradation, and 71%
of freshwater fish extinctions are attributable at least in part to habitat alteration (Unlocking the
potential of protected areas for freshwaters, Abell, Robin, J. David Allan, Bernhard Lehner, in
Biological Conservation, 134: 48-62, 2007).
Thus, while state nonpoint source programs must continue their efforts to remediate impaired waters, it
is imperative that they provide leadership in the struggle to protect those waterbodies that remain
healthy but may be at risk. This is important not only for the sake of the health of these waterbodies
themselves, but also because of the significant functions they provide, such as providing refugia for
adjacent impaired waters by supporting fish, macroinvertebrates and aquatic plants that once inhabited
those impaired waters but no longer do in sufficient numbers to sustain healthy populations. As
remediation activities in impaired waters make the return of such biological assets more likely, the
refugia are able to supply those assets, thereby helping to restore full functionality to the entire
watershed.
A Brief Review of the Nonpoint Source Program: History, Trends and Status
History of NPS Program
Prior to 1987, nonpoint source pollution received relatively little attention from the water quality
community as well as from the public. Motivated by major disasters such as the Cuyahoga River (in
Cleveland, Ohio) catching fire, concerns regarding toxic pollution of all types, and widespread
eutrophication problems, all levels of government were properly focused on the immense demands of
9
-------
November 2011
controlling point source pollution from untreated or inadequately treated sewage and from discharges
by a wide range of industries. The CWA, as enacted in 1972, established a regulatory permit system for
all point sources, while leaving nonpoint source pollution unregulated. Furthermore, the 1972 CWA did
not provide any funds for nonpoint source control. The same situation continued through the passage of
the 1977 amendments to the CWA.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, significant progress was made in reducing water pollution as industrial
dischargers complied with the CWA's regulatory requirements and installed the best practicable
technology followed several years later with the best available technology economically achievable, and
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) similarly complied with regulatory requirements and installed
secondary treatment (with the assistance of a large federal grants program that provided at least $60
billion dollars between 1972 and 1987 for the construction of publicly owned treatment works, which in
turn was more than matched by state and local funds)1. Throughout this period, EPA did not implement
a national nonpoint source program and did not provide any funds to states to implement nonpoint
source programs - and very few states implemented nonpoint source programs on their own.
However, by the mid-1980s, it became increasingly apparent that even as point source pollution was
being significantly abated, the preponderant remaining sources of water quality impairment - nonpoint
sources - would continue to cause water quality impairment unless they were properly controlled as
well. For example, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) issued a report highlighting this issue, America's Clean Water: The States' Nonpoint Source
Assessment 1985, which catalogued in great detail the extensive water quality impairments in each state
that were caused by nonpoint sources.
Similarly in January 1985, a Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task Force issued the Final report on
the Federal/State/Local Nonpoint Source Task Force and Recommended National Nonpoint Source Policy,
which included the following conclusions on page 2:
"In response to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
(ASIWPCA) Nonpoint Source Pollution Survey (February 1984), 78% of the states indicated that
the magnitude of current NPS pollution problems was greater than or equal to that of point
source problems."
All but one of the 38 states responding to a 1983 survey by the North American Lake
Management Society indicated that nonpoint sources seriously affect lake water quality within
their states, and more than two-thirds indicated that at least half of their lakes were being
adversely affected by NPS pollution.
1 Of course, many POTWs face remaining challenges to meeting water quality standards for pollutants like
nutrients.
10
-------
November 2011
"The 1982 National Fisheries Survey conducted jointly by EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service found that NPS pollution adversely affects fish populations in 38% of the nation's waters
and is a major concern in 19%. Agricultural sources are the most widespread NPS problems and
affect 29% of all waters."
Indeed, by 1990, the states reported that agriculture was by far the leading source of impairment in
river miles (60%) and that agriculture (57%) and hydrologic/habitat modification (40%) were the leading
sources of impaired lake acres ("National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress").
In response to the increased recognition of the significance of NPS pollution as the emerging leader of
water quality impairment in the United States, Congress enacted section 319 of the CWA in 1987.
Section 319 called on states to develop nonpoint source assessments and management programs, and
Congress began to provide funding to help states implement these programs in 1990.
In the first decade of the national NPS program, funding for state programs was very modest, beginning
at about $38 million in 1990 and rising to $105 million by 1998. These funds were enough to enable
states to begin educating the public about NPS pollution; provide training, technology transfer and
technical assistance; and implement demonstration projects to demonstrate techniques that could be
effective in controlling NPS pollution. The funding levels were generally not sufficient to enable states to
implement broader watershed-scale projects that could result in remediation of impaired waters.
However, by working with other federal agencies, states, local government, conservation districts,
watershed groups, and other partners, states were able to achieve water quality improvement in a
modest number of waterbodies. States' initial progress in achieving some of these modest successes
were documented in three section 319 Success Stories documents (see "Links to Legacy Success Stories"
at bottom of www.epa.gov/nps/success/).
Recent Developments in the Nonpoint Source Program
By the late 1990s, EPA, states, and Congress recognized that the section 319 funding levels would need
to be increased in order to achieve water quality improvement at the watershed level. In 1999, Congress
increased section 319 funding to $200 million, and EPA determined that one-half of that funding should
be focused upon remediating impaired waters. Coupled with that, EPA required all states to upgrade
their nonpoint source management programs in order to be eligible to receive their share of what EPA
termed "the incremental funding" (i.e., the additional $100 million).
In 2001, EPA published supplemental guidance for FY 2002 in which it required for the first time that
states must focus the incremental $100 million on developing and implementing watershed-based plans
to remediate impaired waters. EPA repeated this in further supplemental guidance the next year. On
October 23, 2003, EPA published an entirely new set of section 319 program and grants guidelines
which, among other things, made permanent the requirement to focus the incremental funds on
developing and implementing watershed-based plans to remediate impaired waters. These watershed-
based plans were specifically defined in the guidelines to include nine components designed to focus on
11
-------
November 2011
assembling necessary information to characterize the sources of the problems and to provide a basis for
successful implementation. Those guidelines remain in effect today. In addition, in September 2001, EPA
published guidance that established a requirement that states report on the load reductions that they
achieve in watershed projects with regard to sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus (see
www.epa.gov/nps/Section319/grts.html#AttachmentC).
Throughout the past decade, states have continued to implement their "base" NPS programs with at
least $100 million (reaching a maximum of $137-138 million in 2001-2003). This has enabled them to
implement the full set of program components envisioned in section 319(b)(2)(B): "programs (including,
as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to achieve the
implementation of the best management practices by the categories, subcategories, and particular
nonpoint sources designated...." These funds have enabled the states to develop and implement both
broad programs and demonstration projects to promote the implementation of controls on animal
feeding operations; nutrient management planning; low impact development; stream restoration; and
many other critical aspects of nonpoint source control. They also provided funds to enable the states to
work with federal, state, local, private sector groups and watershed groups to gain cooperation and to
leverage dollars, authorities, and other resources to solve or prevent nonpoint source pollution
problems. These funds also provide critical support for state staff to conduct project planning and
selection, monitoring, and building of partnerships that are critical to ensure successful implementation
of watershed-based plans.
The "incremental" $100 million, which states were required to spend on restoring impaired waters,
enabled and encouraged states to address water quality problems at the watershed scale instead of
focusing only on small projects. In 2005, EPA established an ambitious national program commitment to
remediate primarily NPS-impaired waterbodies so that they would meet water quality standards. In
2005, EPA chose goals of remediating 250 waterbodies by 2008 and 700 by 2012. These goals were not
based on prior experience by EPA or any other federal or state agency of remediating significant
numbers of waterbodies. EPA's experience has borne out that states are able, with $100 million per
year (in concert with base funds that support staff efforts as mentioned above) plus the effective
utilization of partnerships with other agencies, non-profit groups and citizens, to remediate about 60
waterbodies per year.
To publicly track and document the states' progress in remediating primarily NPS-impaired waters, EPA
created the web site, "Section 319 Nonpoint Source Success Stories" at www.epa.gov/nps/success/. For
each primarily NPS-impaired waterbody that achieves water quality standards, EPA publishes a two-
page "Success Story" that describes the water quality problem and its causes/sources, the practices
implemented to solve the problem, the results, and the partners and funding sources who contributed
to the solution. As of September 6, 2011, 354 waterbodies have been remediated. These range from
large watershed projects that required many millions of dollars, many partners, and 10-20 years of
12
-------
November 2011
planning and implementation, to relatively small and inexpensive projects that focused on solving one or
two problems that had caused a water quality problem in a small tributary.
While this success is notable, it must be kept in mind that more than 40,000 primarily NPS-impaired
waterbodies (including those with TMDLs) have been listed by states under section 303(d). Thus, the
successful remediation of 354 waterbodies during the past 6 years has only addressed less than 1% of all
primarily NPS-impaired waters. This indicates that at the current pace of waterbody remediation, it will
take about 700 years to achieve full restoration of currently-impaired waterbodies. Moreover, this does
not even address the likelihood of still more waters being listed in the future as the result of new and/or
continued activities that cause NPS pollution. This suggests, among other things, that the watershed-
by-watershed approach, even if improved and enhanced, will need to be supplemented by broader
"wholesale" approaches to reduce and prevent nonpoint source pollution as expeditiously as possible.
EPA and the states are currently taking several steps to address water quality impairments and threats
with more wholesale approaches.
a. Regulating Point Sources that had been Excluded from Point Source Regulatory
Requirements: EPA has taken some steps, and has initiated a process to take additional steps, to
regulate certain categories of point source activity that in the past had been treated as if they
are nonpoint sources. In particular, pursuant to Congress' direction in section 402(p) of the
CWA, EPA now addresses some aspects of stormwater through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) point source regulatory program. To the extent that it has done so
and may expand that program in the future, it is providing an alternative means that may more
rapidly address some urban runoff problems that heretofore have been addressed under the
NPS program. It must be noted, however, that unless/until all significant stormwater-caused
impairments and threats are regulated under the NPDES program, they will continue to need to
be addressed through the nonpoint source program.
b. Implementing State-Wide Programs: As indicated in several chapters of this report, many
states are engaging in one or more activities on a broad scale that are intended to make more
rapid progress in remediating sources of nonpoint source pollution. Examples discussed in the
following chapters include:
1. Funding innovative technologies (e.g., low impact development and stream
restoration techniques) or innovative programs (e.g., inspection programs, with or
without an enforceable component).
2. Regulatory programs that can be brought to bear with respect to a broad array of
nonpoint sources (e.g., California's Porter-Cologne act, which has been used to
regulate irrigated agriculture, grazing operations, and forestry activities) or
13
-------
November 2011
particular sectors of concern (e.g., forest management laws and nutrient
management laws).
3. Substantial state funding programs, significant use of State Revolving Fund funding
support, or cooperation with other state or federal agencies.
These programs, projects, authorities, and funds enable these states to leverage other resources
and tools to enhance their nonpoint source programs' abilities to make progress. However, it
must be understood that a broad set of economic and social factors has a highly significant
impact on each state's ability and willingness to enact regulatory authority or commit large
amounts of state funds to address water quality beyond the program and funding requirements
of section 319 (e.g., the requirement for a 40% state match).
c. Protecting Healthy Watersheds: EPA, building on significant efforts by the states, has in the
past three years established and begun to implement a Healthy Watersheds Initiative that is
designed to increase focus on the protection of healthy waters and their watersheds so that
they do not become impaired and need to be addressed through more expensive remediation
approaches (see www.epa.gov/healthvwatersheds). Prevention of waterbody impairment by
NPS pollution is generally much less expensive than remediating a waterbody that has already
been impaired by NPS pollution. Given the enormity of the task and expense of remediating
40,000 section 303(d)-listed waters, it is imperative that EPA and the states maximize the use of
more cost-effective approaches that can reduce the pace and number of new section 303(d)
listings in the future. The Healthy Watersheds Initiative is designed to help EPA, states, and our
partners do just that.
Many states are now developing green infrastructure programs, instream ecological flow
standards, and other tools to help protect healthy watersheds (e.g., Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Washington, Michigan, Tennessee - see the draft document, Identifying and
Protecting Healthy Watersheds,
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/upload/chapter5 033111 final low.pdf). These
programs provide frameworks for protecting waterbodies from development and other
activities that may otherwise cause a significant amount of water pollution that could be very
expensive to remediate. This preventive approach can protect those waterbodies that are most
important to protect at a fraction of the cost of remediating them at a later time.
The Way Forward for NPS Pollution Control in the United States
It is clear from the above summary that the challenges facing the national NPS program are enormous.
With no federal regulatory authority and only relatively modest federal funding (and with
correspondingly limited regulatory authorities and modest funding sources in most states), the national
14
-------
November 2011
NPS program is faced with the highly challenging task of remediating 76% of all impaired waterbodies in
the United States as well as preventing new impairments. This document summarizes the current state
of our national efforts to control nonpoint source pollution and offers recommendations regarding how
to improve our current efforts.
There have been numerous studies and articles published since the inception of the nonpoint source
program regarding the issue of legislative authority that would strengthen the national effort to control
NPS pollution. This study, however, does not address potential legislative changes to the program.
Rather, it is limited to evaluating current implementation efforts and potential program improvements
in the context of existing authorities and funding sources.
Appended to this document are two Appendices, C and D, which contain two draft documents that are
not discussed in this report but which have been developed concurrently with the report. Appendix C
contains draft recommendations developed by a senior management group of EPA and State program
directors; these draft recommendations were developed based upon a review of the information
contained in the NPS Study and will be considered for action in FY12 and 13. Appendix D contains a
draft metric for tracking state progress in developing program improvements through the upgrading of
their NPS management programs.
15
-------
November 2011
Chapter 1: Base 319 Funding Summary
Section 319 base funds are those funds that are used by states generally to implement all aspects of
their nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control programs, which are described in the Clean Water Act
(CWA) section 319(b)(2)(B) to include:
An identification of programs (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,
technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation practices by the
categories, subcategories, and particular nonpoint sources designated under [the preceding
paragraph].
These funds are used in conjunction with state funds and other contributing sources to provide staffing
and support to manage and implement the entire state Nonpoint Source Management Program,
including all of the activities listed above. In particular, base funded activities include projects that
identify and address nonpoint source problems and threats generally across the state; address particular
regions or watersheds of the state; or demonstrate technologies, processes, or programs that, if
successful, can be replicated across the state. Pursuant to EPA's program and grants guidelines, states
may use a portion of these funds (up to 20%) to develop NPS Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and
watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans in the absence of or
prior to the completion of TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans that focus on the protection of
threatened waters, source water, or other high-priority unimpaired waters; and conduct other NPS
monitoring and program assessment/development activities. Furthermore, under sections 319(b)(2)(F)
and (k), states work to assure the consistency of federal financial assistance programs and federal
development projects with their NPS programs.
The information included in this chapter of the report, Base 319 Funding Summary, is focused on
presenting a quantitative break-down of how states are utilizing their base 319 grants. This information
provides an overview of base-funded programs and an introduction to the report chapters that follow,
each of which addresses an important aspect of state NPS program activities that rely in whole or in
part on base funds. Refer to other chapters for important findings about the scope of state program
efforts to implement statewide programs and regulations, coordinate with key partners, leverage state
and federal funds for NPS activities, and coordinate with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
program.
Generally, states rely heavily on base 319 funds to support planning and prioritization of NPS Program
activities. For example, many states rely on 319-funded staff or contract positions to engage with
potential grant applicants at the local level about watershed-based plan development and
implementation, state NPS program funding priorities, and how to apply for 319 funding. Base funding
also provides support for implementation of long-term programs and projects to address NPS issues,
including significant statewide programs that provide wholesale solutions to local water quality
16
-------
November 2011
concerns. Many examples are provided below and elsewhere in this report (see, e.g., Chapter 4:
Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives of this report).
To better understand how base funds are utilized, EPA evaluated base funding expenditures according
to the following categories: 1) state NPS program staff; 2) other state or local staff; 3) TMDL
development; 4) TMDL implementation plan development; 5) watershed-based plan development; 6)
water quality project implementation (e.g., installing best management practices (BMPs)); 7) monitoring
and assessment; 8) education/outreach/technical assistance; 9) NPS management program updates; 10)
indirect costs; and 11) other.
For purposes of this study, EPA developed a set of statistics and identified example projects based on
how states used or plan to use Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) base funding allocations. State projects
vary over time so this summary "snapshot" may not represent states' utilization of base 319 funds in the
past with perfect accuracy.
EPA referred to the following documents to obtain this information:
State NPS Program annual reports;
State NPS Program work plans;
State reporting in EPA's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS); and
Correspondence with EPA regional and state NPS program staff.
In reviewing such state NPS program documents for this study, EPA faced challenges in finding a
consistent, reliable source of information on how state NPS programs used FY10 base 319 funding. In
general, this study identified varied approaches used in state NPS program reporting, specifically
pertaining to how base 319 funding is spent. Some states provide two annual work plans: one for base,
and one for incremental. Others develop a single NPS program work plan, which sometimes lacks detail
on the funding source (base/incremental) used to support projects. Still further, some states that
receive section 319 funding through a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) do not prepare staffing and
support work plans or similar documentation with details about 319-funded staff activities. These
differences regarding the level of detail provided in work plans creates a challenge in aggregating and
presenting national data. As a result, all of the summary data in this chapter is a reflection of the best
available data from all states, and therefore does not capture the full range of activities supported with
the base program. For additional discussion of sources of information about state programs, see Chapter
9: Current Program Implementation.
17
-------
November 2011
Figure 1-1: Amount of FY10 Base Funds Allocated Towards Various Project Categories2
H State N PS Program staff (41.5%)
ฆ Education/Outreach (including tech asst) (16.7%)
U WQproject implementation (e.g., installing BMPs)
fi Indirect Costs (9.8%)
H Monitoring/Assessment (7.3%)
St Other State or Local Staff (6.8%)
y Other (3.4%)
U WBP development (2.2%)
UTMDLdevelopment (1.8%)
M NPS management program plan updates (.3%)
u TMDL IP development (.3%)
Approximately 41.5% of base 319 funding supports state NPS program staff. State NPS program
work plans regularly describe these activities as those that support the "core program," including:
grant project administration, grant project management and technical assistance, and oversight of
statewide programs/activities. Most states specified that 319-funded staff are involved in activities
such as TMDL development, watershed-based plan development, education and information
projects, etc.; however, many 319 work plans do not provide itemized funding amounts for the
various activities (i.e., all funding for those activities is captured under NPS program staff). As a
result, the extent to which EPA was able to determine the percent of base funding committed to the
specific categories below was limited by variability in state reporting methods. Thus, the
percentages reported below are skewed lower than is the case for states that expend full-time
equivalent (FTE) salary on these categories of activities. For more information on NPS program staff
activities, see Chapter 2: Staffing Summary, in states that have regulatory authorities to control NPS
pollution (documented in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution), base
319 funds have often been used to support the development of these authorities as well as to apply
these authorities to bring about watershed-specific successes. Some of these successes are
highlighted in the state-specific examples below.
Approximately 9.8% of base 319 funding is spent on water quality project implementation (e.g.,
installing BMPs). These types of projects include demonstration projects (such as nutrient
management, innovative onsite treatment system technology, low impact development (LID) and
green infrastructure), innovative nutrient reduction practices, acid mine restoration projects, and
Information from three states (Alaska, Arkansas, and New York) was not included in the following base 319
funding summary statistics due to an inability to categorize how FY10 base 319 funds were spent (for example, a
state was unable to distinguish between base and incremental funding amounts allocated to various activities).
18
-------
November 2011
installation of BMPs or river restoration projects in threatened water bodies. The chief purpose of
these demonstration projects is to demonstrate the efficacy and significance of particular practices
that have not yet passed into common usage. For example, prior to 2000, LID practices had not been
implemented outside of a few counties. Beginning at that time, states began to use section 319
grants to fund LID projects in many jurisdictions; many millions of dollars were invested in such
projects. To a very significant extent, as the result of this investment, LID technology has been
shown to be effective at reducing stormwater impacts in a cost-effective manner and is increasingly
being considered the technology of choice by many state and local governments as well by an
increasing number of developers. Similar advances in technology and utilization have occurred with
respect to abandoned mine reclamation, physical restoration of streams, and nutrient management.
Examples of state-specific base-funded water quality projects include:
o California - CWA section 319 base funded activities played key roles in the restoration of 64
of the 78 river miles that California has either delisted or recommended for delisting from
the state's section 303(d) impaired waterbodies list. These activities are documented on
EPA's section 319 NPS Success Stories website for Big Meadow Creek and Upper Truckee
River, which relied on implementing the regulatory authorities of California's Porter-Cologne
Act (described in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution) to
effectively address grazing impacts, and for the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, which used
Porter-Cologne's authorities to regulate diazinon as a waste discharge from irrigated lands.
Base 319 funds are used to provide the staff needed to apply the broad powers under
Porter-Cologne to regulate NPS discharges. In the case of the Sacramento and Feather
Rivers, this authority resulted in regulations prohibiting the application of diazinon within 48
hours of a forecasted storm or when soils are saturated. Base 319 funds were also used to
support ongoing planning and outreach/education efforts of the Sacramento River
Watershed Program.
o North Carolina - CWA section 319 base and incremental funds played a central role in the
restoration of river segments throughout the 5,630 square mile Neuse River Basin, as well as
the restoration of impaired waters across the 5,571 square mile Tar-Pamlico River Basin
(both efforts are documented on EPA's 319 Success Stories website). Specifically, 319 base-
funded staff has worked to develop and implement Nutrient Strategy Rules (described in
Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution), which provide a significant
regulatory approach to reduce nonpoint sources of nutrient loading in these and several
other large river basins throughout the state. Base and incremental 319 funds are used to
support the development of nutrient strategies, specifically to: conduct applied research to
quantify the sources and effects of nutrient loading; survey agricultural producers; manage
stakeholder processes; conduct watershed modeling; develop model ordinances; etc.
Incremental 319 funds worked hand-in-hand to apply these rules strategically on a project-
by-project basis.
19
-------
November 2011
o Virginia relied on base 319 funds to restore 17 miles along Muddy Creek and Lower Dry
Creek in the intensively farmed Shenandoah Valley, which had very high levels of bacteria,
nitrate, phosphorus and sediment. Successes have largely been the result of partnerships
between the Shenandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation District (SVSWCD), Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality,
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Rockingham County Farm Bureau, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service. In addition to these agency
partners, the watershed's Old Order Mennonite community played a significant role in the
project's success. The community took the initiative to voluntarily implement extensive
BMPs such as stream exclusions, loose housing barns, and numerous manure storage units
once they were made aware of the problems. Religious beliefs preclude the community
from accepting any financial assistance to implement BMPs. Community members refused
any cost share assistance and assumed complete financial responsibility for 8.3 of the 10
miles of livestock exclusion fencing installed throughout the watershed. Since 2002, more
than $500,000 in section 319 funding has supported two full-time SVSWCD staff, who
provide technical assistance to the Mennonite community and others in the project area.
This support has been leveraged to generate nearly $839,000 in cost share funds to
implement agricultural and residential BMPs, as well as $130,000 in USDA Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds to install BMPs throughout these watersheds (see
EPA's Success Stories website for more information).
o In Utah, base funding supported an erosion control demonstration project on rural road
design and reclamation that will be used as a model for how rural road design can prevent
water quality impacts and also help to implement a TMDL with significant reductions in
sediment and phosphorus loads to the Calder Reservoir. The project over its lifetime will
restore critically eroded land and substandard dirt roads to minimize their impact on water
quality through sedimentation and phosphorous loading.
o Wyoming base funds were used to support efforts to address water quality concerns in a
river that is not listed as impaired but is at risk due to river shortening and related
streambank erosion. Phase II & III of the Laramie River Restoration Project will mitigate bank
erosion and improve aquatic habitat by installing treatments at 45 sites, encompassing
approximately 10,000 linear feet in 3.6 miles of stream.
o Texas' Commission on Environmental Quality is funding the Lower Rio Grande Valley Low
Impact Development Implementation and Education project with FY10 base and incremental
319 funding. The project provides funding for several municipalities in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley to design, construct and maintain structures and facilities using LID stormwater
management practices. A key component of the project is to provide education/outreach
and training to the general public and land development professionals. The project will also
create opportunities to assess the costs, functionality, and water quality benefits of LID
practices.
20
-------
November 2011
o Florida - Base funds were used to support the Walton County Oakwood Hills Subdivision
Unpaved Road/Stream Crossing Stabilization Initiative, which implemented stormwater
runoff BMPs to mitigate environmental impacts associated with unpaved roads. A number
of BMPs were implemented, including the paving of road surfaces, stabilization of roadside
shoulders and swales for the treatment and conveyance of stormwater runoff, and
stabilization at stream crossing locations. The Three Rivers Resource Conservation and
Development Council, Inc. (a project partner) uses the site as a demonstration area to train
other local governments in northwest Florida about unpaved road/stream crossing BMPs.
On average, states commit approximately 16.7% of their base 319 funding to education/outreach
activities. These activities include public education events, technical assistance on 319(h) water
quality projects, research and development projects, etc. (see Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs
and Initiatives for more detailed information about state education/outreach activities). A few
examples include:
o Virginia provides base 319 funds for an Agricultural Incentives Program Manager to manage
various agricultural BMP incentive programs, including Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost
share Program and Agricultural BMP Tax Credit Program, administered through Virginia's
Water Quality Improvement Fund (see Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding
for State NPS Programs for more information on this fund.) The Virginia Agricultural BMP
Cost share Program is administered by the Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation (DCR) to improve water quality by encouraging voluntary installation of
agricultural BMPs to meet Virginia's NPS pollution control water quality objectives. For more
than 20 years DCR has maintained oversight and direction of the local agricultural cost share
programs carried out by Virginia's 47 soil and water conservation districts. In addition to
broad support for program implementation, districts have the lead responsibility for
technical assistance related to TMDL implementation efforts. The State General funds that
are provided to districts for staff and ongoing operations serve as the primary match for the
section 319 grant to improve water quality and further natural resource conservation.
Virginia also relies on base 319 funds to pay for 2.7 FTEs for Nutrient Management Planning
Specialists. DCR currently has 13 field nutrient management specialists, two technicians, and
two coordinators throughout the state. Development and delivery of individual farm
nutrient management plans is the number one job priority for these positions.
o Since 1999 Massachusetts has relied on base 319 funding to support the Massachusetts
Alternative Septic System Test Center (MASSTC), which tests new and innovative onsite
septic system technologies that are used to address related water quality concerns
throughout the state. The MASSTC has become a premier research and development site for
new technologies that reduce pollutants, especially nitrogen, in wastewater that is treated
onsite.
21
-------
November 2011
o Iowa Department of Natural Resources allocated $100,000 of FY10 base funds for
continuation of the Water Quality Initiatives for Small Iowa Beef and Dairy Feedlot
Operations. This is a cooperative project involving various agencies and other partners that
(1) educates producers to better understand the pollution potential of open feedlots, (2)
trains producers to accurately assess the water pollution potential of their feedlots, (3)
assists producers to identify and evaluate appropriate runoff control alternatives, and (4)
provides technical assistance to producers to implement solutions that improve the
environmental performance of their feedlots.
o In FY10 South Dakota provided $200,000 of base funding to continue support of the
statewide Grassland Management Project (GMP). The GMP provides technical assistance to
grassland managers to complete the planning and design of an additional 160,000 acres of
rotational grazing systems (which are increasingly understood to improve soil stability and
riparian areas, thereby sharply reducing erosion and stream impairment), and complete the
implementation of rotational grazing systems on an additional 180,000 acres of grasslands.
Grasslands in 319 water quality project areas, riparian grasslands, and southeast South
Dakota receive priority for technical assistance during this project segment. This project
includes information transfer to producers, researchers and technical specialists, and
monitoring to evaluate progress.
o Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection provided a grant to a Resource
Conservation and Development Area to determine the viability of using dairy manure fiber
(byproduct of anaerobic digestion) in growing media (e.g., an alternative to peat) for
commercial plant production. Trials using digestate-fiber-based potting mixes to grow
annuals, perennials and woody plants will be conducted under the supervision of the
University of Connecticut. This research will lead to viable alternative uses of manure
nutrients and reduce NPS contributions of nutrients in farmland watersheds.
o Mississippi NPS program provides 319 funds and coordinates with Mississippi State
University Cooperative Extension Service and the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and
Commerce to manage the Pesticide Container Recycling Program. As of 2010, 1.2 million
pounds of waste-pesticides had been collected which might otherwise have ultimately
leached into surface and ground waters.
o Florida NPS program supports Statewide Agricultural BMP Outreach Teams with a 319
grant. These teams provide guidance to growers on BMP selection and implementation,
demonstrate BMP practices, develop training materials, etc.
States commit 7.3% of their base 319 funding to monitoring/assessment activities, which is critical in
developing well-targeted watershed-based plans and subsequently assessing the effectiveness of
restoration efforts (installation of BMPs, for example) in NPS-impaired waters (see Chapter 4:
Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives for more detailed information about state NPS monitoring
activities). For example:
22
-------
November 2011
o Oklahoma Conservation Commission's (OCC) Rotating Basin Monitoring Program (RBMP) is
a 319-funded program that supports 9.7 FTEs to implement a statewide NPS monitoring
program and in turn leverages significant state and federal dollars that are focused on high-
value implementation, leading to the development of NPS Success Stories (see
www.epa.gov/nps/success for more details). OCC has fixed monitoring sites at the base of
11-digit HUC watersheds in the state. Each basin is monitored for a two-year period on a five
year cycle. In 2010, a total of 138 fixed and 50 probabilistic sites were monitored in Basin
Groups 4 and 5. The state indicated that multiple NPS Success Stories have been identified
as a result of 319 base-funded ambient monitoring, which has shown where state-funded
and USDA-funded conservation practices were responsible for water quality restoration and
section 303(d)-delisting. The state's use of 319 funds to credibly evaluate the success of
state and USDA-funded programs and projects has increased cooperation between USDA
and the Oklahoma Conservation Commission's (OCC) state NPS program, including
significant contributions of agricultural program funding to solving NPS problems (see
Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA for more information).
Approximately 6.8% of base 319 funding is spent on "other State or Local Staff," including staff in
other state/local agencies who work on NPS activities. Chapter 2: Staffing Summary provides
additional discussion of states that rely on base 319 funding to support staff outside of the agency
or division that administers the NPS program. A few examples include:
o Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, the state agency responsible for
implementing the state's NPS program for agricultural and silvicultural activities, used FY10
base 319 funding to support three Soil and Water Conservation District technicians. These
technicians provide technical assistance to livestock operators in developing and
implementing water quality management plans. These efforts help promote the utilization
of USDA funds in a manner that is targeted towards achieving the mutual interests of the
NPS program and USDA in implementing projects and activities that protect water quality.
o The Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), which administers the NPS
program, has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Utah Department of Agriculture
and Food (UDAF) and corresponding yearly contracts lay out responsibilities for UDAF
related to devising and implementing NPS measures and controls. In FY10 more than
$200,000 was provided to UDAF by UDEQ for support of four FTEs to coordinate and
administer the Animal Feeding Operation strategy, conduct statewide information and
education programs, integrate the NPS program into other conservation programs of the
Utah Conservation Commission and local conservation districts, provide technical
assistance, and devise and implement NPS control measures.
o The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality supported nine watershed coordinators
in FY10 using base 319 funds. These coordinators were assigned to work in 10 of the 12
basins in the state. They worked with local stakeholder groups in developing and
23
-------
November 2011
implementing watershed implementation plans, identified NPS contributions in targeted
watersheds, provided educational outreach to citizens, engaged with stakeholder groups,
such as state and federal agencies, local citizen groups, and parish and municipal
governments; etc.
o California provides $425,000 of base 319 funds annually to pay for staff at the California
Coastal Commission to help implement the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
management measures, which is responsible for improving water quality across all
categories of NPS pollution.
o Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection relied on base 319 funding in 2010
to create a new program to finance NPS projects with Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(CWSRF), and support a new staff position within the state's public infrastructure financing
authority, PennVEST, which manages these assets. In addition to improving the quantity and
quality of NPS projects financed through the CWSRF, an important aspect to the new
program is the creation of a NPS subfund to facilitate nutrient trading between point and
nonpoint sources, and in particular to encourage trades with agricultural operators.
Pennsylvania sees point-nonpoint nutrient trading as a central strategy for implementing
the recently finalized Chesapeake Bay TMDL and creating options for renewals of
wastewater treatment plant discharge permits (see also feature story in Chapter 2: Staffing
Summary).
Nationally, states used the remaining FY10 base 319 funds for the following activities:
1.8% for developing TMDLs
0.3% for TMDL implementation plan development
2.2% for watershed-based plan development
0.3% for NPS management program plan updates
9.8% for indirect/administration costs
3.4% for other (which includes activities such as interagency cooperation, support for CWSRF
program, unspecified contract expenses, etc.)
24
-------
November 2011
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs)
Nationally, 22 states receive part or all of their 319 funds in a PPG. Eight states (AK, AL, MA, ME, NJ, NY,
Rl, VT) have their full 319 allocation in a PPG, and 14 states (AZ, CO, CT, IL, Ml, MN, MO, NE, NH, OR, TX,
UT, Wl, WY) have partial 319 allocation (typically only base 319 funding) in a PPG. This study found that
PPGs can present a challenge in tracking how 319 funds (particularly base) are used. This potential
challenge emphasizes the importance of the Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) in providing EPA
and the states an opportunity to state clearly and agree, at the appropriate level of detail, on how the
state will use the funds to implement program requirements and meet their program milestones per
section 319 and to report on program accomplishments pursuant to the applicable reporting
requirements of section 319.
25
-------
November 2011
Chapter 2: Staffing Summary
As provided in Chapter 1: Base 319 Funding Summary, 41.5% of all Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10) base
319 funding was used to support state agency staff. This chapter is focused on documenting in general
terms how the 319 funding for staff translates into total full-time equivalents (FTEs) for the NPS program
and FTE activities. Most 319-funded state staff are directly involved in activities utilizing both the base
and incremental section 319 funds. These activities are discussed in greater detail throughout this
report, in Chapters 3-10; therefore, all these chapters must be considered to fully understand the role of
319 funding for state staff. For example, "interagency coordination" is listed below as one of the primary
staff activities and detailed information about the importance of these staff efforts is provided in
Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships and Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA.
Information summarized in this chapter was obtained through review and evaluation of
State NPS Program annual reports;
State NPS Program work plans;
State reporting in EPA's Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS); and
Correspondence with EPA regional and state NPS program staff.
State Nonpoint Source Agency Staffing (FY10)
This study found that among all states and the District of Columbia, section 319 funding supports 14
FTEs, on average, within the state's primary nonpoint source (NPS) program agency (e.g.,
department of environmental quality, department of natural resources, etc.). Eighteen states
support less than 10 FTEs with 319 funds, and nine states support more than 20 FTEs with 319
funds.
Figure 2-1 compares all states based on the number of FTEs funded in relation to $1 million of
section 319 grant funding. Given that the number of staff funded by section 319 varies from state to
state, as do state 319 allocations, this graph is based on a calculation for each state of the number of
FTE in proportion to each $1 million of the state's section 319 allocation. Note that in FY10, state
allocations ranged from $1.2 million (District of Columbia) to $10.3 million (California). As illustrated
by the graph in Figure 2-1, the most common distribution of staff and funding is states that fund two
to four FTEs per $1 million of total FY10 section 319 funding allocation (e.g., Mississippi's total FY10
allocation was $3.7 million and in FY10 the state funded 11 FTE, or three FTE for each $1 million of
319 funding that the state receives for staff, pass through projects, education and outreach, etc.).
26
-------
November 2011
Figure 2-1: Number of FTEs per $1 million of FY10 319 funding
30
25
s 20
ra
in
2 15
-------
November 2011
ฆ Section 319 project oversight, including technical assistance and best
management practice (BMP) site visits
For example, New Hampshire NPS program staff has completed nearly
100 initial or follow-up BMP site visits to date. These site visits allow the
program to identify and correct problems with BMP performance. Staff
also has developed a Watershed Management Plan tracking program to
allow watershed groups and other grantees to better track
implementation of plans.
o Water quality monitoring
ฆ For example, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) uses 319
funding to support KDHE field staff for a targeted watershed monitoring
program to monitor water quality for implementation of watershed plans in
priority watersheds.
o Education/outreach activities
o Developing NPS TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans
ฆ In many states, 319-funded staff provides support to the states' TMDL program
by, for example, linking watershed-based planning effort with TMDL
implementation. However, in a few states, base 319 funding provides
substantial support for the TMDL program, so much that the state would have
little to no staff developing and implementing NPS TMDLs, responding to NPS
TMDL lawsuits, etc., without the 319 grant.
o Watershed-based plan development
o Interagency coordination
o Basin-wide NPS coordination (engaging with stakeholders and identifying potential 319
project partners at the basin or watershed level)
ฆ See Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives for examples of state
approaches to basin-wide planning and implementation
o Developing and implementing statewide NPS initiatives and state NPS regulatory
programs
Additional information on the specific statewide initiatives or programs supported by 319-funded staff is
provided in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution and Chapter 4: Statewide
NPS Programs and Initiatives. See Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS
Programs, Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA, and Chapter 8: Use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund
for NPS for detailed information about the results of 319-funded staff efforts to engage with
stakeholders and identify additional state and federal resources for NPS projects. Additional information
on interagency coordination is provided in Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships and Chapter 7: Coordination
with USDA.
28
-------
November 2011
Feature Story: Oregon NPS Staff Build Partnerships for the Long-Term
In Oregon, 319-funded NPS program staff in Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) play
a key role in building partnerships to leverage significant local, State and federal funds (beyond the 319
grant and match) to address NPS priorities. In addition to directing 319 and leveraged funds to NPS
priority watersheds throughout the State, ODEQ staff work closely with partner agencies and
landowners at the local level to ensure project success.
Coordinating at the State and Federal Level
Through a close partnership between ODEQ and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB),
the State NPS program has leveraged significant State dollars to address water quality issues in NPS
priority areas. OWEB grants support watershed assessment, monitoring, technical assistance, watershed
action plan development and implementation, education/outreach, and watershed coordinator
positions. Between 1999 and 2010, OWEB leveraged $229.3 million from Oregon Lottery funds and
$134.1 million from Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Funds, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Salmon License Plate Revenue to distribute 4,800 grants to watershed councils, soil and water
conservation districts, and other local organizations to protect and restore streams, rivers, wetlands,
and natural areas. In 2010, OWEB provided $12.4 million for 163 projects related to water quality.
OWEB works closely with partner agencies (including ODEQ's NPS Program) to prioritize and distribute
OWEB grants. ODEQ 319-funded basin coordinators serve on regional and statewide review teams to
rank and recommend OWEB project proposals. Additionally, OWEB and 319 funds are regularly used to
meet the other program's project match requirements. This interagency coordination provides OWEB
and ODEQ an opportunity to identify shared watershed restoration priorities, and direct leveraged funds
to address these priorities.
In 2010, ODEQ entered into a Conservation Effectiveness Partnership memorandum of agreement with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources Conservation Service and OWEB to
monitor, evaluate, and report on the effectiveness of cumulative conservation and restoration actions.
Staff from the three agencies identified two pilot basins (Tillamook and Upper Deschutes) that received
water quality-related funding from all agencies, and collaborated to evaluate the effectiveness of these
multi-agency restoration activities. Findings will be used to better estimate the potential effectiveness of
watershed restoration activities (see Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships for more information).
Coordinating at the Local Level - Tillamook Basin Case Study
In Tillamook Basin, ODEQ staff have achieved success in the field by not only working in their area of
focus, but by living there, too. Staff spent several years cultivating relationships with farmers who were
initially hesitant to implement 319-funded projects on their property aimed at remediating nonpoint
pollution from cattle grazing and riparian degradation. ODEQ developed strong relationships with
farmers and has had success in gaining the trust of farmers by highlighting the incentives of water
29
-------
November 2011
quality projects to landowners. For example, the installation of solar-powered electric fences and
stream-fed nose pumps enables riparian protection to be achieved while improving the landowner's
operation.
Pre-319 Restoration Work Post-319 Restoration Work
By using 319 base funds as a leveraging means, ODEQ and Tillamook Basin watershed councils are able
to access other federal, State, and local funding that wouldn't otherwise be available for use. ODEQ has
also built unique and necessary partnerships by sharing office space with Oregon Department of
Agriculture staff. This work has returned excellent results. Bacteria and temperature monitoring over
the last 10 years show decreasing trends and improving water quality as a result of the implementation
work. To date, approximately 165 riparian restoration projects have been implemented in the North
Coast; equating to the restoration of 200 miles of the 320 miles of stream identified in TMDLs. Since
2000, about $2.6 million of 319 grant money and about $1.8 million in match funds have been expended
in Oregon's North Coast Subbasin.
Citizens of Oregon's North Coast Subbasin have repeatedly emphasized the fact that water quality
improvements could not have been possible without 319 dollars. According to Tom McDermott of
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership, "...the 319 funds have been the backbone of...both the Tillamook
Estuaries Parnership and the Nestucca Nesowin Watershed Council." ODEQ staff and the 319 program
play a key role in successful watershed restoration, by building agency partnerships, relationships with
local communities, and leveraging local, State, and federal funds.
Other Staff Supported by Nonpoint Source Program (FY10)
In addition to nonpoint source agency staff who manage and implement the NPS "core program" (see
above for a list of core program activities), among the states with available information, 22 states (AL,
CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MN, MO, NE, NJ, OH, OK, PA, SC, TX, VA, VT, WV) also support staff in
state and local partner agencies. Examples include:
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation gives an annual grant of incremental 319
funds to Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (AAF&M). The grant supports staff and
NPS program activities, such as implementation of the Vermont BMP Cost Share Grant Program (see
30
-------
November 2011
the Leveraging of State and Federal Funding summary of this report for more information). The
involvement of AAF&M improves the partnership opportunities between the Vermont NPS Program
and the agricultural community, and USDA and conservation districts in particular.
Utah - In FY10 Utah Supported 4 FTEs in the Department of Agriculture and Food to help with the
"core" NPS program. For example, one FTE has been tasked with GRTS data entry and soliciting
annual reports for all active grants. See Chapter 1: Base 319 Funding Summary for more
information. Another FTE has been largely responsible for Utah's education and outreach initiatives
(see Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives for further discussion).
Feature Story: Pennsylvania Creates NPS Subfund of CWSRF for
Manure Management of Animal Feeding Operations
Pennsylvania relied on base 319 funds to create and manage a new NPS subfund within its Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program. In 2010, base 319 funds were used to hire a dedicated FTE
within the authority that manages this low-interest loan program, PennVEST, to improve the quantity
and quality of funded NPS projects. As a result of this use of base funds, the agency that manages the
state's CWSRF assets, PennVEST, is now well integrated with the state's NPS program. For the first time
ever, SRF funds are supporting agricultural BMPs. More than $14 million of American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds went toward agricultural BMPs for manure management in 2010, and
Pennsylvania is committed to continuing this program after ARRA funds expire.
A primary driver for the creation of this NPS subfund is to facilitate nutrient trading between point and
nonpoint sources, and in particular to encourage trades with agricultural operators. Pennsylvania sees
point-nonpoint nutrient trading as a central strategy for implementing the recently finalized Chesapeake
Bay TMDL and creating options for renewals of wastewater treatment plant discharge permits.
PennVEST has conducted at least three nutrient credit auctions to date, and while they have not yet
generated much interest in the agricultural community, PennVEST plans to continue to hold auctions on
a regular basis and expects the agricultural NPS nutrient credit market to grow once implementation of
the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is ratcheted up, as expected (see also Chapter 8: Use of Clean Water State
Revolving Fund for NPS).
Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Review
Clean Water Act (CWA) section 401 water quality certification provides states and authorized tribes with
an effective tool to help protect water quality, by providing them an opportunity to address the aquatic
resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under section 401, a federal agency cannot
issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. until the state
or tribe where the discharge would originate has granted or waived section 401 certification. The central
feature of section 401 is the state or tribe's ability to either grant, grant with conditions, deny or waive
certification. Many of the activities typically addressed through section 401 certification are point source
31
-------
November 2011
permitting under section 402 and dredge-and-fill permitting under section 404. However, some other
activities subject to section 401 certification involve nonpoint source pollution.
As part of this study, EPA collected information from state NPS program coordinators regarding their
program's participation with the state's section 401 certification program. The extent to which state NPS
programs are involved with section 401 certifications varies greatly from state to state. At least 27 out
of 50 states and the District of Columbia indicated that NPS program staff are involved in the review of
section 401 certifications, either routinely or on an as-needed basis. Among these states, NPS program
staff often provide technical assistance, including BMP recommendations (e.g., identifying the need for
stream bank stabilization) to mitigate aquatic resource impacts from section 401 water quality
certification-required activities.
Among the states whose NPS programs are not involved in section 401 certification, most indicated that
this process is completed in another division of the water quality agency, or a state agency other than
the agency managing the NPS program.
32
-------
November 2011
Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution
While state 319 programs are primarily non-regulatory, there are a modest number of states that
possess substantial regulatory authority and actively use those authorities to achieve nonpoint source
(NPS) pollution control on a statewide or watershed scale. In addition, other states rely on regulatory
approaches to enhance certain portions (e.g., agriculture, forestry, or urban) of their NPS programs.
Many of these authorities are administered by a different arm of state government than that of the NPS
unit, and often by entirely separate state agenciesin particular for agricultural and forestry authorities.
Occasionally, this has resulted in challenges in holistic NPS program administration. Other authorities
are managed by the NPS program staff itself and are integrated with the state NPS management
programs.
In order to obtain information on existing State regulatory authorities to control NPS pollution, as well
as the role of the State NPS program in developing and/or implementing these authorities, EPA relied on
the following sources: State NPS management program plans, annual program reports, State NPS
program and other State agency websites, the statutes and regulations themselves, and correspondence
with EPA regional, State NPS program, and other State agency staff.
Cross-cutting (broad regulatory authorities that cover more than one NPS category)
While many states have broad "bad actor" laws that authorize enforcement actions against activities
that generate NPS pollution regardless of its source category (agriculture, urban, forestry, etc.), typically
on a reactive complaint-driven basis, a few states proactively control activities across multiple NPS
categories through a single law or connected series of regulations. The most progressive of these NPS
authorities are described below:
California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) provides broad
authorities to regulate NPS pollution statewide. See feature story below, as well as separate
descriptions of how this law is applied to control NPS impacts from agricultural, urban, and
forestry activities in the sections of this chapter that specifically pertain to each of those
categories of NPS.
Wisconsin's "NR 151" Runoff Management Rules (Performance Standards and Prohibitions)
establish runoff performance standards for agricultural and non-agricultural sources. The law
creates specific performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural facilities and practices
and additional specific performance standards for nonagricultural practices, all of which are
intended to achieve water quality standards. Wisconsin relies on performance standards rather
than prescriptive practices to allow greater flexibility and more customized approaches to land
management. To avoid undue economic burden, agricultural performance standards and
prohibitions for existing facilities and practices cannot be required unless at least 70% cost
sharing is made available to bring the land into compliance (90% in cases of economic hardship).
33
-------
November 2011
Wisconsin has provided very generous funding to help reach this cost share goal broadly across
the state.
Feature Story: California's Porter-Cologne Act Regulates NPS Discharges, Provides TMDL
Implementation Authority
California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) provides broad authorities
to regulate both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. It requires the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to control all
discharges, including NPS discharges, that either generate or have the potential to generate pollution.
The SWRCB adopts statewide policy for water quality control and water quality control plans in
addition to regulations that are binding on the RWQCBs. The RWQCBs each govern one of the nine
hydrologic regions into which California is divided, adopting regional water quality control plans (basin
plans) for their respective regions. The Porter-Cologne Act provides the SWRCB and RWQCBs with
permitting authority in the form of three administrative tools to address ongoing and proposed waste
discharges: waste discharge requirements (WDRs), waivers of WDRs, and basin plan prohibitions.
Hence, all current and proposed NPS discharges must be regulated under WDRs, waivers of WDRs, or
a basin plan prohibition, or some combination of these administrative tools. As such, the SWRCB and
RWQCBs can, and have, used these administrative tools to regulate discharges associated with NPS
land use categories (e.g.; agriculture, forestry, urban, and marinas and recreational boating).
Currently, most forestry operations are exempt from Porter-Cologne but instead are subject to
regulation under the State's Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act, which comprehensively addresses
NPS impacts from timber production. A significant share of California's allocation of CWA Section 319
base funds provides the backbone of support for implementing these regulatory authorities for the
control of NPS pollution statewide.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation has become a significant issue in California. The
SWRCB has interpreted State law (Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act) to require that
implementation be addressed when TMDLs are incorporated into Basin Plans (water quality control
plans). The Porter-Cologne Act requires each regional board to formulate and adopt water quality
control plans for all areas within its region. It also requires that a program of implementation be
developed that describes how water quality standards will be attained. TMDLs can be developed as a
component of the program of implementation, thus triggering the need to describe the
implementation of that TMDL, or alternatively as a water quality standard. When the TMDL is
established as a standard, the program of implementation must be designed to implement the TMDL.
34
-------
November 2011
North Carolina relies on two significant regulatory authorities for systematically controlling NPS
pollution.
o State Nutrient Strategy Rules are state-level regulations designed to restore impaired
waters in North Carolina. These comprehensive water quality restoration regulations
have been developed for four large waterbodies that collectively comprise about a third
of the state (Neuse River, Tar-Pamlico Sound, Falls Lake and Jordan Lake basins). In
1997, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted the
state's first mandatory plan to control both point and NPS pollution in the Neuse River
basin. The plan, backed by figures in the Neuse River TMDL, called for a mandatory 30%
reduction in nitrogen from point, urban, and rural sources by 2003. The agricultural
community implemented best management practices (BMPs) that resulted in a 42%
decrease in nitrogen loading to the estuary by 2003 (see the Neuse River Basin NPS
Success Story for more details: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/nc neu.cfm).
The state's NPS program spends a significant amount of time developing these nutrient
strategies, coordinating implementation with the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), the state's Cooperative Extension Service, and other partners; and using
319 funds to support nutrient strategy development,
o North Carolina's Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act (2005) requires the
development of water supply reservoir protections and further authorizes NPS-related
rule development. Under the Act, the state's Environmental Management Commission
is required to: (1) study water quality in drinking water reservoirs to determine whether
the reservoirs meet current water quality standards, (2) identify any nutrient control
criteria necessary to prevent excess nutrient loading in drinking water reservoirs, (3)
restrict additional nutrient loading to drinking water reservoirs under certain
circumstances, and (4) develop and implement nutrient management strategies for
specific drinking water reservoirs.
Virginia established Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategies to comply with the multi-state
Chesapeake 2000 Agreement (with EPA) and Virginia Statute by establishing nutrient and
sediment reduction goals for the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James River Basins, and
the portion of the Eastern Shore that drains to the Chesapeake Bay. These "trib strategies" are
integrated with the state's NPS program to reduce nutrient and sediment loads for each of
Virginia's large river basins within the Chesapeake Bay, with load reductions tracked annually.
Additionally, Virginia has its Water Quality Monitoring, Information and Restoration Act
(WQMIRA) of 1997 (ง 62.1-44.19:7), which requires the state to develop TMDL Implementation
Plans. The Act states that "The Board shall develop and implement a plan to achieve fully
supporting status for impaired waters, except when the impairment is established as naturally
occurring. The plan shall include the date of expected achievement of water quality objectives,
measurable goals, the corrective actions necessary, and the associated costs, benefits, and
35
-------
November 2011
environmental impact of addressing impairment and the expeditious development and
implementation of total maximum daily loads..."
Some states, such as Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Washington have somewhat
comprehensive sets of separate regulatory authorities that collectively cut across multiple NPS
categories. Details on these programs are provided in the NPS category-specific sections below.
Agriculture
At least 23 states (AR, CA, DE, IA, ID, KS, KY, MD, ME, MN, NC, NE, NJ, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, VA, VT,
WA, Wl) have state statutes that regulate agricultural activities, either for animals (excluding regulatory
programs for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)4), row crops, or for both. For most of
these states, nutrient management is a major focus. Examples of these state laws include:
California has several significant agricultural programs that operate under the general authority
of its sweeping Porter-Cologne Act (see Feature Story above). More than 25,000 agricultural
producers are regulated under the state's Irrigated Lands Program. Under this program,
agricultural producers that generate runoff (generally up to the 25-year storm event) with
sediment, nutrients, or other pollutants ultimately destined for state waters, whether from
agricultural tile drains, piping or ditches, or runoff from one parcel to a neighbor's, must obtain
coverage under an Individual Discharger Permit or a Coalition Group Conditional Waiver, which
generally requires the discharger to: implement BMPs to protect water quality and comply with
water quality standards; conduct monitoring or join a Coalition Group that conducts monitoring;
prevent pollution of surface water; avoid nuisance conditions, such as odor; and pay applicable
fees. California has also begun to apply this approach to grazing operations and regulatory
programs for grazing exist in two RWQCBs, with more coming onboard. To be in compliance
with watershed-specific WDRs for grazing operations, operators must complete a Range Water
Quality Plan that describes BMPs to minimize loadings of sediment, pathogens and nutrients,
and develop implementation schedules. More information is provided at
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia/le graz.shtml. Since much
grazing occurs on California lands managed by Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), both the BLM and the USFS manage grazing allotments in accordance with
a State Water Resources Control Board-certified water quality management plan. The plan sets
forth an iterative process that governs the implementation, monitoring and revision (as needed)
of BMPs used to control NPS pollution. If BMPs are not effective, even after revision, the BLM
and the USFS can choose to mitigate the water quality impact, seek revised state water quality
standards and/or cease the activity. With regard to waste from animal operations other than
4 CAFOs are included in the CWA definition of point source (33 (JSC 1362(14)). Therefore, state CAFO programs are
not part of this NPS program study. Federal regulations defining which animal operations are CAFOs are found at
40 CFR 122.23(b).
36
-------
November 2011
grazing, California designates Combined Animal Facilities (CAFs), which can be either CAFOs or
AFOs, and has required that EPA's Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
management measures are met as minimum statewide standards. Specifically, facility
wastewater and the runoff from CAFs that is caused by storms up to and including a 25-year, 24-
hour frequency storm should be stored in reinforced structures (clay-lined or concrete). (A CAF
is defined in California regulations as "any place where cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses,
mules, goats, fowl, or other domestic animals are corralled, penned, tethered, or otherwise
enclosed or held and where feeding is by means other than grazing," and are not defined with
any particular size thresholds.) Finally, all agricultural operations must develop, implement and
update nutrient management plans. The nine RWQCBs may adopt more stringent standards
than the state minimum standards (which are consistent with the CZARA management
measures), and several have, particularly for dairy operations.
Wisconsin -The state's "NR 151" Runoff Management Rules (2002, updated 2011) include the
following Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions: (1) Tillage setback: A setback of
at least 5 feet and up to 20 feet from a waterbody or top of a stream bank; (2) Phosphorus Index
(PI) limits to restrict the amount of phosphorus that may run off croplands (with PI restrictions
to take effect on pasture lands on July 1, 2012); (3) Process wastewater handling to prohibit
significant discharge of process wastewater from milk houses and feedlots; (4) Meeting
TMDLsthis standard requires crop and livestock producers to reduce discharges if necessary to
meet an approved TMDL load allocation; (5) Sheet, rill and wind erosionall cropped fields shall
meet the "Tolerable Soil Erosion Rate" established for that soil (with applicability for pasture
lands starting in 2012); (6) Manure storage facilitiesall new, altered, or abandoned manure
storage facilities shall be constructed, maintained or abandoned in accordance with accepted
standards; (7) Clean water diversions; (8) Nutrient Management Plan implementation required
of all operations applying nutrients to agricultural fields; and (9) Manure management
prohibitionsno overflow of manure storage facilities, no unconfined manure piles in water
quality management areas, no direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure into state waters,
and restricted livestock access to waters of the state where vegetative ground cover cannot be
sustained. Compliance with the performance standards and prohibitions is not required for
existing facilities and practices unless cost sharing is offered. At least 70% of the costs that
qualify for cost sharing must be made available to an operation in order to require that a facility
correct performance standard violations (90% in economic hardship cases). Fortunately,
Wisconsin has consistently provided significant state cost share funds to agricultural operations
in its NPS priority watersheds, as has NRCS through its Farm bill programs. For more
information, see Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA, and Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and
Federal Funding for State NPS Programs. There is no cost-sharing exemption for new operations,
which are required to fully comply with all performance standards and prohibitions.
37
-------
November 2011
Feature Story: Maryland's Water Quality Improvement Act and Other NPS Regulations for Agriculture
In 1998 the Maryland General Assembly passed the Water Quality Improvement Act, landmark
legislation designed to protect the health of Maryland's citizens and its waterways by establishing both
short and long-term strategies for reducing nutrient levels in streams, rivers and Chesapeake Bay. The
most significant feature of the Water Quality Improvement Act is a provision requiring all Maryland
farmers grossing $2,500 or more annually or raising 8,000 pounds or more of live animal weight to run
their operations using a nutrient management plan that addresses both nitrogen and phosphorus
inputs. This far-reaching legislation also affects other interests, including those who apply nutrients,
poultry growers and companies, and Maryland-certified nutrient management consultants, who must
write nutrient management plans based on both soil nitrogen and phosphorus. Updated nutrient
management plans are required every three years. The law also applies to commercial lawn care
companies, landscapers, golf courses, and certain others. Annual implementation reports must be filed
with the state. The Nutrient Management Program oversees a licensing and certification program for
consultants, compliance activities and education and training programs necessary to implement the law.
The Act includes a number of deadlines and requirements, such as filing of annual implementation
reports, but it also offers many new incentives aimed at helping farmers comply. To learn more about
Maryland's Nutrient Management regulations, see
www.mda.state.md.us/resource conservation/nutrient management/.
Additionally, Maryland's Manure Transport Program, which was established by Water Quality
Improvement Act, helps livestock farmers cover the costs of transporting excess manure off their farms
to other farms or facilities that can use the product safely. Cost share grants for up to $20/ton are
available through Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost Share Program. This mandated initiative is
further described in Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives. To learn more about Maryland's
manure transport program, see www.mda.state.md.us/pdf/manuretransport.pdf.
In addition to requirements and programs established under the Water Quality Improvement Act,
Maryland has supplemental authorities for regulating agricultural activities. Maryland's General
Discharge Permit for Animal Feeding Operations, 2009-2014, goes somewhat beyond the federal CAFO
regulations. The state designates Maryland Animal Feeding Operations (MAFOs) as distinctly regulated
AFOs that do not meet the criteria for CAFO regulations. MAFOs are non-CAFOs that are designated as
"large AFOs" and may also include "medium AFOs", as defined by the regulations (see
www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/CAFO AFO General Permit Final Determination.pdf). AFOs
of a certain size not otherwise categorized as a CAFO or MAFO must submit a Certificate of
Conformance. Every MAFO in Maryland is required to obtain a state discharge permit under state
permitting authority even though they are not expected to discharge directly to state waters. MAFOs
must develop and implement Nutrient Management Plans, as well as Soil Conservation and Water
Quality Plans with very specific requirements to implement a suite of standard NRCS practices, and are
regulated to minimize the impacts to groundwater.
38
-------
November 2011
Maryland's Agricultural Sediment Pollution Control Act (ASPCA) prohibits agricultural operations from
adding, introducing, leaking, spilling, or otherwise emitting soil or sediment into waters of the state, or
placing soil or sediment in a condition or location where it is likely to be washed into waters of the state.
The MDE is responsible for regulating the ASPCA with the Maryland Department of Agriculture approval.
Enforcement is complaint-driven and violators are not subject to penalties if they are using an approved
soil conservation and water quality plan (SCWQP) or comply with an order for a corrective action water
quality plan.
Finally, Maryland's Critical Areas Law of 1984 (updated 2008) mandates that local governments pass
ordinances approved by the state's Critical Areas Commission to minimize water quality impacts from
conveyances or NPS runoff from activities and development within 1000 feet of mean high tide. Soil
conservation plans are required for agricultural lands to minimize impacts to water quality, protect
habitat, and provide protection from shoreline erosion.
Pennsylvania has several agricultural regulations of note for minimizing NPS pollution.
o Pennsylvania's Nutrient Management Act (1993, updated 2005) requires development
and implementation of nutrient management plans for high density AFOs with eight or
more Animal Units (8000 pounds or more). High density is defined as at least 2000
pounds of animals per acre. Requirements for these AFOs include: agricultural erosion
sediment control plans and restrictions on land application of manure near waterbodies
through either a 100 foot setback or a 35 foot wide vegetated buffer,
o Pennsylvania has Agricultural Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements (section
102.4; most recently amended Aug. 2010) under the state's Clean Streams Law. Written
erosion and sediment control plans are required for agricultural plowing, tilling activities
or concentrated animal operations that disturb 5,000 square feet or more of land. These
plans must include implementation schedules and be implemented. Plans must include
an inspection and maintenance component. For areas less than 5000 square feet,
implementation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control BMPs are required to
minimize erosion and sedimentation, even though written plans are not required.
(These regulations also apply to any earth disturbance activity, including land
development and road, highway, and bridge construction.)
Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality Act (1994) requires all landowners with 10 or more acres
that are being used for agricultural (or silviculture) operations to develop and implement a
water quality plan based upon guidance from the Kentucky Agriculture Water Quality Plan, a
document that provide BMP manuals in six different areas: silviculture, pesticides and fertilizers,
farmstead, crops, livestock, and streams and other waters.
Delaware's Nutrient Management Law (1999, updated 2001) requires a Nutrient Management
Plan (NMP) or Animal Waste Management (AWMP) for anyone who manages more than 10
acres of land on which nutrients are applied (including golf course operators and lawn care
providers) and/or operates an animal operation in excess of 8,000 pounds of live animals. These
39
-------
November 2011
plans must be developed by a state-certified nutrient management specialist and address the
amount, placement, timing and application method of nutrients. The law is overseen by
Delaware's Nutrient Management Commission. Delaware also has a highly successful Nutrient
Relocation Program that is supported with base 319 funds, which is further described in Chapter
4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives. The purpose of the program is to remove excess
animal waste (with excess nutrients) from high priority NPS watersheds and transfer them to
farms in other watersheds that need the nutrients and will properly apply them.
Feature Story: Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets (AAF&M)
Vermont's Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets (AAF&M) implements programs which address
management of discharges from agricultural operations. AAF&M and the Department of Environmental
Conservation have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that lays out the roles and responsibilities
of each agency with respect to implementation of these programs.
State law requires a set of Accepted Agricultural Practices (AAPs) for implementation by all farms in
Vermont. AAPs are statewide restrictions designed to reduce NPS pollutant discharges through
implementation of improved farming techniques rather than investments in structures and equipment.
The law requires that these practices must be technically feasible as well as cost effective for farmers to
implement without governmental financial assistance. The AAP rules require a ten foot vegetated buffer
along surface water, prohibit winter manure spreading (except in approved emergencies), and address
livestock access to streams and mortality disposal. AAPs include these practices among others: erosion
and sediment control, animal waste management, fertilizer management, and pesticide management.
Accepted AAPs and BMPs are two different levels of practices to reduce agricultural NPS pollution. AAPs
are distinguished from BMPs, which are more restrictive and prescribed on a site-specific basis.
State law established the Medium Farm Operation (MFO) permitting program, whereby all medium-
sized animal feeding operations are required to obtain coverage under a state general permit. All dairies
with 200-699 mature animals, whether milking or dry, qualify as a MFO. Other common MFOs include
beef operations (300-999 cattle or cow/calf pairs), horse operations (150-499 horses), turkey operations
(16,500-54,999 turkeys), and egg facilities (25,000-81,999 laying hens without liquid manure handling
system). The MFO program enables medium sized farms to seek coverage under a single Vermont state
General Permit. The General Permit prohibits discharges of wastes from a farm's production area to
waters of the state and requires manure, compost, and other wastes to be land applied according to a
nutrient management plan.
Virginia's Pollution Abatement Permit Program (AFO Permitting) goes beyond CWA permitting
requirements for CAFOs since it applies to AFOs that do not discharge, however, no permit is
required if there are fewer than 200 dairy cattle or 20,000 chickens or 11,000 turkeys. Nutrient
management plans (NMPs) are required for all permitted AFOs. NMPs must be developed by a
40
-------
November 2011
certified NM Planner and approved by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Additionally, Virginia's Agricultural Stewardship Act (ASA) of 1996 establishes a complaint-driven
system that requires resolution of water quality problems by giving farmers the opportunity to
correct water quality problem voluntarily before any enforcement action is taken. The local Soil
and Water Conservation District is contacted and given the opportunity to investigate. After a
complaint is investigated, the Commissioner's Office reviews the findings and determines if the
complaint is founded and requires further action under the ASA. If so, the farmer is required to
develop a plan to correct the problem and then complete plan implementation within eighteen
months. In 2009, 51 official complaints were processed as a result of the ASA process.
Oklahoma has two poultry waste management regulations:
o Registered Poultry Feeding Operations Act - every poultry producer that produces more
than 10 tons of poultry waste a year is required to: register the poultry feeding
operation annually; obtain an animal waste management plan (AWMP); keep reports
and records of litter application, sales, soil/litter analysis; follow NRCS Waste Utilization
Standards; attend waste management and annual update trainings,
o Poultry Waste Applicators Act - Waste applicators that apply more than 10 tons of
poultry waste to agricultural lands a year are required to: obtain licenses from the
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry (ODAFF) to apply litter; obtain
soil/litter tests; keep records of litter applied and where obtained; follow NRCS Waste
Utilization Standards; and attend waste management and annual update trainings,
o The Oklahoma NPS program is currently developing a 319 funded work plan revision to
help ODAFF manage poultry management data in a GIS database (beginning in one
priority watershed). The data will then be incorporated into an updated watershed
model to help evaluate the progress toward TMDL goals, and finally, will allow updates
of the currently approved watershed-based plan.
Washington's Dairy Nutrient Management Act is administered by WA State Department of
Agriculture (WSDA) in conformance with an MOU with Washington Department of Ecology (DOE
- State NPS agency). The Act required all licensed cow dairies (pursuant to Chapter 15.36 RCW -
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=15.36) to develop and implement nutrient
management plans, register these plans with WSDA, and participate in a routine inspection of
the cow dairy (conducted by WSDA Nutrient Management inspectors) at least every 22 months.
Dairy nutrient management plans were a key part of the restoration success in the Willapa and
Chehalis River Basins, where DOE's NPS program staff produced and implemented TMDLs that
informed dairies of the management actions required to eliminate pollution from their
properties. The implementation plans targeted areas needing BMPs, some of which were
funded with 319 funds. These Success Stories are responsible for restoring 78 impaired water
segments in the 2,660 square mile Chehalis basin and 8 impaired water segments in the 260
square mile Willapa basin, and are documented further on EPA's Success Stories website at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/wa chehalis.cfm and
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/wa willapa.cfm
-------
November 2011
Maine's Nutrient Management Law (1998) requires a certified nutrient management plan
(NMP) for any farm that meets the following criteria: (1) confines and feeds 50 or more animal
units at any one time; (2) utilizes more than 100 tons of manure per year not generated on that
farm; (3) is the subject of a verified complaint of improper manure handling; or (4) stores or
utilizes regulated residuals. The law also prohibits manure spreading from Dec. 1 to Mar. 15
(unless the farmer seeks and receives a variance). The Maine Dept of Agriculture (MDOA), the
lead state agency for agricultural NPS issues, administers the law and regulations. MDOA
consults with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection regarding new issues, BMPs,
and problem solving at specific sites.
North Carolina's "waste not discharged to surface water" rules were amended on September 1,
2006 and contain rules aimed at protecting water quality from potential agricultural pollutant
sources (see below).
o Section .1300- Animal Waste Management Operations with more than 250 swine, 100
confined cattle, 30,000 poultry with a liquid waste management system, 75 horses, or 1,000
must be permitted. Of the approximately 2,400 permitted animal operations in the state,
half are large CAFOs and half are AFOs that do not meet the large CAFO threshold (dry litter
poultry operations are exempt). The NC NPS Program uses 319 funds to support three staff
in the Nondischarge Permitting and Enforcement Section of the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) who review and issue permits to nondischarging AFOs. Permittees are required to
submit an animal waste management plan (AWMP) that:
ฆ Is approved by a technical specialist designated by the Division of Water Quality,
who must also certify that the BMPs in the plan will achieve the required
standards;
ฆ Meets NRCS standards, or standard of practices adopted by North Carolina's Soil
and Water Conservation Commission;
ฆ New and expanded animal waste treatment systems such as lagoons and waste
storage structures, as well as animal feedlots that lack vegetative cover, shall be
located at least 100 feet from a perennial stream or perennial water;
ฆ The animal waste shall not be applied to croplands at greater than acceptable
agronomic rates.
o Section .1400- Manure Haulers (any person who accepts or purchases animal waste
and land applies the animal waste on land not covered by the generator's permit) are
required to: (1) apply manure at no greater than acceptable agronomic rates, and (2)
maintain a setback of at least 25 feet from a perennial stream or perennial waterbody
during land application.
Oregon's Agricultural Water Quality Management Act (ORS 568.909) gives the Oregon
Department of Agriculture (ODA) authority to establish Agricultural Water Quality Management
Plans (AgWQM Area Plans) and adopt rules regulating agricultural practices that contribute to
water quality problems within the planning area if: (1) the state's Environmental Quality
Commission has determined that a TMDL is necessary for a waterbody; (2) Oregon DEQ
42
-------
November 2011
establishes a groundwater management area; or (3) an agricultural water quality management
plan is otherwise required by state or federal law. Pursuant to rules adopted under this section,
the ODA may require any landowner whose land is located within an area subject to an AgWQM
Area Plan to perform those actions on the landowner's land necessary to prevent and control
water pollution from agricultural activities and soil erosion. These actions may include:
construction or maintenance of any works or facilities; agricultural or cropping practices; or any
other measure or avoidance necessary for the prevention or control of water pollution of the
waters of the state. Landowners are provided flexibility of selecting BMPs to implement the area
plans and rules. 319-funded basin coordinators review and provide input in revision of AgWQM
Area Plans and associated rules.
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) administers the Title 130 Livestock
Waste Control Regulations, which cover CAFO National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting and state construction and operation requirements for CAFOs and non-
CAFOs that have, for example, 200 or more dairy cows, 300 or more beef cattle, 750 or more
swine, or 37,500 dry litter chickens. Smaller operations are subject to the state construction and
operation requirements if the animal feeding operation has discharged pollutants to waters of
the state, or NDEQ has determined that such a discharge is more likely than not to occur.
Requirements of this program include mandatory inspections prior to operation, land
application of manure at agronomic rates and a prohibition on allowing animals to have direct
contact with waters of the state. The inspection program also includes compliance inspections,
which generate information relied on at NDEQ to determine the effectiveness of the
BMPs. Eligible AFOs have the option of obtaining a conditional exemption letter instead of being
subject to the construction and operating permit. The conditional exemption letter traditionally
identifies BMPs that the operation can do to address a problem without going through the
permitting process. If through future compliance inspections NDEQfinds that the BMPs are not
working, they will require the operation to proceed through the permitting process. In 2010,
NDEQ issued 10 construction and operating permits to non-CAFOs, requiring the operation to
construct livestock waste control facilities (LWCF) or approving the operation of LWCFs that
were completed and previously approved under a separate permit. In addition, NDEQ issued 32
conditional exemption letters to non-CAFO operations.
Kansas regulates AFOs under the Livestock Waste Management Law and regulations. AFOs with
300 animal units or more and smaller operations that have potential for significant pollution are
subject to the state's permitting and registration process. There are approximately 1500 state
permitted facilities (non-NPDES) and another approximately 1600 certified facilities (small
facilities below the state permitting threshold). These facilities are required to comply with state
requirements and standards to protect water quality. Additional information about this program
is available at www.kdheks.gov/feedlots.
Iowa - Iowa has a manure application setback requirement that applies to anyone applying
manure on land in the state. A 200 foot setback or 50 foot vegetated buffer is required from
43
-------
November 2011
"designated areas", i.e., "a known sinkhole or a cistern, abandoned well, unplugged agricultural
drainage well, agricultural drainage well surface inlet, drinking water well, lake, designated
wetland or water source." An 800 foot setback is required from a high quality water resource. A
recent winter spreading law in Iowa prohibits the application of liquid manure on snow-covered
ground from December 21 to April 1 and on frozen ground from February 1 to April 1, except
under certain emergency situations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is required to
submit an annual report to the legislature of all allowed emergency applications, including
estimates of the water quality impact from the emergency applications and any efforts to
ameliorate the impacts.
Ohio addresses NPS impacts from agricultural activities in two sets of rules.
o Agricultural Pollution Abatement Rules (OAC 1501:15-5) mandate that overflow and
discharge to state waters from AFOs shall be prevented by implementing BMPs. The
rules require that: seepage into state waters from AFOs be prevented through design,
construction, operation and maintenance; AFOs minimize pollution from land
application by implementing BMPs; and impacts of animal mortality composting be
controlled by implementing BMPs. While the rules aim to prevent manure runoff,
protect stream channels from AFOs, and maintain vegetative cover,
o In 2010, Ohio also passed a Distressed Watershed Rule (OAC 1501:15-5-19 and -20) that
allows the chief of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Division of Soil and
Water Resources) to designate one or more watersheds-in-distress, and thus establish
"requirements for the storage, handling and land application of manure; and/or the
control of the erosion of sediment...; and associated nutrient management plans for
land and operations within the designated watershed boundaries." Within designated
watersheds, all livestock operations that generate 350 tons of manure/year or more
(roughly equal to facilities housing 15 dairy cows or 25 steers and larger) or 100,000
gallons of manure/year or more are required to implement nutrient management plans.
Also, land application on croplands or elsewhere between Dec. 15 and March 1 is
generally prohibited. Outside this time frame, land application of manure on frozen
ground is prohibited unless it is incorporated or injected. Currently, only the Grand Lake
Saint Marys watershed has been designated as a distressed watershed.
Arkansas adopted three nutrient management laws in 2003 to ensure that within nutrient
sensitive watersheds, all nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are applied by certified applicators
and according to nutrient management plans (NMPs) developed by certified plan writers. NPS
staff in the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) advised other agency staff during
the development of these regulations, and one 319-funded full-time equivalent works with
Conservation District staff to implement these nutrient management programs:
o Title 19 establishes the Arkansas Poultry Feeding Operations Registration Program to
locate litter sources and estimate the amount of litter produced within the state. Poultry
feeding operations where more than 2,500 poultry are housed or confined on any given
day are required to register annually with ANRC.
44
-------
November 2011
o Title 20 requires NMPs to be written by planners that have been certified by the state.
o Title 21 requires that nutrients applied within specially designated Nutrient Surplus
Watersheds (approximately 10% of the state) be applied by state-certified nutrient
applicators.
o Title 22 establishes the Arkansas Soil Nutrient and Poultry Litter Application and
Management Program. It states that no person shall apply nutrients to soils or
associated crops within the designated Nutrient Surplus Watersheds unless nutrients
are applied in compliance with a NMP or a poultry litter management plan prepared by
a certified nutrient planner or at the protective rate for commercial fertilizers set forth
in section 2202.5 of Title 22. This title applies to both agricultural and residential land
applications.
o Additionally, the Surplus Poultry Litter Removal Incentives Cost Share Program (Title 11)
was developed, which is intended to provide financial incentives to encourage the
removal of excess poultry litter from the state's nutrient surplus areas. The ANRC may
provide cost share from the state's Water Development Fund of up to $15/ton for the
purchase and transportation of surplus litter from any nutrient surplus area to be used
or disposed of within Arkansas but outside designated nutrient surplus areas and
outside specified watersheds.
Texas - In 2001, the Texas Water Code was amended to require all persons owning or operating
a poultry facility (of any size) to implement and maintain a water quality management plan
(WQMP) that is certified by Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB). This
regulation applies to both existing and new poultry farms. A poultry facility's failure to comply
with the WQMP requirements could result in loss of WQMP certification, penalties, and
requirement to obtain permit coverage from TCEQ.
New York's State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Environmental Conservation Law
General Permit (ECL General Permit) requires all large CAFOs and medium-sized AFOs that do
not discharge or propose to discharge to seek state permit coverage. An owner or operator may
apply for eligibility to obtain coverage under this ECL General Permit by submitting a Notice of
Intent NOI and either a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Certification for a medium-
sized AFO or an Annual Nutrient Management Plan submittal for a large CAFO.
45
-------
November 2011
Riparian Areas, Shoreland Protection, Wetlands and Hydromodification
As discussed in the Introduction of this report, hydromodification and habitat modification combined
account for the second largest number of river and stream impairments nationwide, second only to
agriculture. Subcategories of NPS activities under hydromodification and habitat modification include,
but are not limited to: channelization and channel modification, dams, streambank and shoreline
erosion, prevention of damage to wetlands that would cause NPS pollution and riparian areas
protection. At least ten states (FL, MA, MD, ME, MN, MT, NH, NJ, VA, Wl) have statutory or regulatory
authorities to protect riparian areas, shores and/or wetlands from NPS pollution.
New Jersey - The state's 2004 Stormwater Management Rules require 300 foot buffers along
approximately 6,000 stream miles. The buffer, known as a "special water resource protection
area," excludes "significant new development" (that disturbs one acre or more or increases
imperviousness by at least a quarter of an acre) within 300 feet from the top of each stream
bank for New Jersey's highest quality waters and their tributaries. An infill provision, consistent
with New Jersey's previous smart growth commitments, allows for this buffer to be reduced to
150 feet in previously developed areas. Streams and waterbodies are designated for this buffer
protection if they lie in critical drinking water supply watersheds or ecologically sensitive areas.
New Jersey requires a 50 foot setback from development everywhere else in the state.
Virginia's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (1988, regulations finalized in 1991) established a
cooperative program between state and local governments aimed at reducing NPS pollution.
Within Tidewater localities (84 in all), local Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinances are
required to comply with minimum state standards. The local ordinance must meet state
minimum requirements for controls on new development and existing development, and septic
tanks must be pumped-out every five years. Agricultural lands shall have Soil and Water
Conservation Plans. Shoreline and streambank erosion protections are required. Localities
outside tidewaters may participate; to date, only one (Loudoun County) is considering it.
New Hampshire - The Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act requires a state permit for most
new construction, excavation and filling activities with the "protected shoreland" (i.e., 250 feet
from reference line). Permit restrictions address the amount of impervious surface, fertilizer
use, septic system setbacks and ground cover. This is a key program in New Hampshire for
implementing state water quality goals through limitations on the water quality impacts of
shoreland development.
Florida's Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) consolidated processing of applications for coastal
construction permits, environmental resource permits, wetland resource permits (in the NW
District/Panhandle), and sovereign submerged lands authorizations. The JCP, managed by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, is
required for activities that meet the following criteria: (1) located on Florida's natural sandy
beaches facing the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, the Straits of Florida or associated inlets; (2)
activities that extend seaward of the mean high water line; (3) activities that extend into
46
-------
November 2011
sovereign submerged lands; and (4) activities that are likely to affect the distribution of sand
along the beach.
Maine has a Shore/and Zoning Act that regulates land use activities within 250 feet of rivers,
wetlands, lakes, the ocean, and within 75 feet of certain streams. The law protects water
quality, limits erosion, and conserves wildlife and vegetation by restricting timber harvesting
and urban development from these zones. Setbacks are also established for new parking lots,
roads and driveways. New legislation in 2008 created a requirement that by 2015 any earth-
moving activities in shoreland zones be overseen by contractors certified by the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in erosion and sedimentation control practices.
(In order to reduce erosion and sediment at smaller unregulated construction sites, Maine DEP
NPS program created the Voluntary Contractor Certification Program in 2001, which is
administered by the 319-funded NPS training and Resource Center at Maine DEP.)
Wisconsin has Shoreland Development Rules (NR 115). Counties must adopt ordinances that
include zoning regulations for shoreland-wetland zoning districts. Minimum state standards
include: new homes must be set back 75 feet from the water; existing property owners wishing
to expand their impervious footprint must mitigate the impacts, with options for adding no-
mow buffers along the shoreline, installing rain-gardens to absorb storm runoff, or re-planting
native vegetation near the shoreline. New agricultural tile drains or other agricultural drainage
modifications within the shoreland-wetland zoning districts are not allowed. A new standard
caps the total amount of impervious surfaces allowed on properties within 300 feet of lakes or
rivers for new and redeveloped properties.
Minnesota established Shoreland Management Rules in 1970, and has updated them since
then. The rules provide limits to grading and filling and vegetation alterations in nearshore areas
(at a minimum within 1,000 feet of a lake and 300 feet of a public watercourse). Impermeable
surfaces are limited to 25% of lot coverage. Local governments must adopt ordinances with land
use controls to provide for the orderly development and protection of Minnesota's shorelands
(both rivers and lakes). Farms must provide a setback of 50 feet from the shores of state waters.
Timber harvests within shorelands must be protective of water quality and require BMPs. The
standards emphasize the importance of using existing natural drainages, wetlands, and
vegetated soil surfaces to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff.
Maryland passed a Critical Areas Act in 1984 (and updated in 2008), which mandates that local
governments pass ordinances approved by Maryland's Critical Areas Commission to minimize
water quality impacts from conveyances or NPS runoff from activities and development within
1000 feet of mean high tide. Soil conservation plans are required for agricultural lands. Local
ordinances must include land use policies that minimize impacts to water quality and provide
habitat protection as well as protection from shoreline erosion.
Massachusetts - The Rivers Protection Act protects 200 feet of riverfront area by minimizing
development along shorelines, which reduces development impacts to habitat and provides a
buffer for overland runoff. Either the Department of Environmental Protection or the local
47
-------
November 2011
conservation commission reviews projects to ensure compliance with the Rivers Protection Act
and the Wetlands Protection Act. Implementation of this law protects riparian areas and water
quality by restricting clearing of riparian buffers and installation of impervious surface.
Montana - See discussion of Streamside Management Zone Law above.
Forestry
At least 20 states (AK, CA, CO, FL, ID, KY, MD, ME, MN, MT, NC, NH, OK, OR, TX, VA, VT, WA, Wl, WV)
provide regulations or actively enforced policies to control runoff from forest harvesting operations
through a State Forest Practices Act or similar rule that outlines best management practice (BMP)
compliance requirements, including management of stormwater runoff from forest roads. Many state
NPS programs coordinate with the State Forestry Commission or state forestry agency to implement a
statewide silvicultural NPS program, which often includes BMP compliance monitoring. Examples of
state laws include:
Washington has one of the most comprehensive forestry programs for private and state forest
lands in the nation. Timber activities are regulated under the State Forest Practices Act (Chapter
76.09 RCW) and by the rules established by the Washington Forest Practices Board (the Board)
that are authorized under the Act. The Forest Practices Act applies to all non-federal and non-
tribal forestland in Washington. The forest practices rules require the maintenance and
restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat. The Washington Department of Ecology (the state's
water quality agency) established and updates Clean Water Act assurances for the state's forest
practices program originally established as part of the 1999 Forest and Fish Report developed by
state and federal stakeholder agencies. These rules have been strengthened a number of times
over the years and include requirements for: significant riparian protection around fish bearing
streams; protection of landslide prone areas; and forest road management and abandonment
program with completion milestones. The rules provide linkage between forestry practices and
attainment of water quality standards. Additionally, strong adaptive management and
monitoring elements were codified into the Act in 2005 (WAC 222-12-045). The adaptive
management approach includes clear CWA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) related objectives,
establishes a formal adaptive management process and program manager, identifies an
independent scientific Coordinated Monitoring and Evaluation Research (CMER) Committee that
conducts science reviews and provides a framework for science and policy interaction. The
adaptive management approach establish a comprehensive program for developing, reviewing
and providing science-based recommendations and technical information to assist the Board in
determining if and when it is necessary or advisable to adjust rules and guidance for aquatic
resources to achieve resource goals and objectives.
Vermont's Silviculture Accepted Management Practices (AMPs) Program provides enforceable
provisions applicable to logging activities. AMPs are designed to maintain water quality by
eliminating discharges from logging operations. Enforcement is pursued where there is a
discharge and AMPs have not been implemented. If there is a discharge and AMPs have been
48
-------
November 2011
implemented, the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation works with the logging company
to correct the cause of the discharge.
California's Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act (1973) and related Forest Practices Rules
comprehensively address NPS impacts from timber production. In particular, the intent of
Article 6 of the state's Forest Practices Rules "is to ensure that timber operations do not
potentially cause significant adverse site-specific and cumulative impacts to the beneficial uses
of water, native aquatic and riparian-associated species, and the beneficial functions of riparian
zones; or result in an unauthorized take of listed aquatic species; or threaten to cause violation
of any applicable legal requirements. This article also provides protection measures for
application in watersheds with listed anadromous salmonids and watersheds listed as water
quality limited under section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act." Since the passage of the
1973 Forest Practices Act, there have been more than 16 significant rule packages adopted to
address water quality, most dealing with erosion, logging methods, shade requirements, road
construction and riparian protection. California's Forest Practices Rules are generally regarded
as among the most comprehensive and protective of water quality in the U.S. Timber operations
conducted under the Forest Practices Act are exempt from the Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs) under California's Porter-Cologne Act provided the Forest Practices Act requirements are
certified as BMPs by the EPA, unless the SWRCB makes a finding that compliance by forestry
operations is not protecting water quality or the Forestry Board requests WDRs.
Oregon's Forest Practices Act (FPA), enacted in 1971, requires the Oregon Board of Forestry
(BOF) to establish BMPs and other rules to ensure that to the maximum extent practicable NPS
pollution from non-federal forest operations does not impair achievement and maintenance of
water quality standards established by Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Under the FPA rules the BOF also conducts a triennial review of the effectiveness of BMPs and
independently, or in response to a request from DEQ's executive commission, can initiate a
forest practice rule change to ensure that BMPs are adjusted as necessary to meet water quality
standards. These rules are developed and administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry
(ODF). As back-up authority, DEQ's Director can issue a TMDL as an enforceable order along
with a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to implement any such TMDL. In waters failing
to meet DEQ established water quality standards, DEQ will develop and include BMPs or other
control measures necessary to meet TMDL load allocations as part of the WQMP issued in
conjunction with a TMDL. If the BOF fails to promulgate BMPs or other control measures that
are as effective as DEQ's BMPs, DEQ has the authority to directly order compliance with the
TMDL and WQMP via administrative order. Under this construct, Oregon has committed to
preparing "implementation-ready" TMDLs starting with preparation of the Mid-Coast TMDL by
2012/13. Management strategies identified in a TMDL and/or a WQMP to achieve wasteload
and load allocations in a TMDL will be implemented through water quality permits for those
sources subject to permit requirements in ORS 468B.050, safe harbor BMPs, and or through
sector-specific or source-specific implementation plans for other sources. TMDLs and WQMPs
will identify the sector and source-specific implementation plans required and the persons,
-------
November 2011
including Designated Management Agencies, responsible for developing and revising those
plans.
Minnesota's statutes and rules provide an assortment of restrictions to control NPS pollution
from timber harvesting. An administrative rule on vegetative cutting (6105.0150) prohibits clear-
cutting in wild, scenic, or recreational river land use districts where soil, slope or other
watershed conditions are fragile. The rule also requires setbacks ranging from 40 to 200 feet
from rivers with various protective designations (wild, scenic, or recreational) and tributaries
within designated management plans. Statute 92.45 governing restrictions on state lands
prohibits selling state forest land that "borders on or are adjacent to meandered lakes or public
waters and water courses," and if the state harvests these state lands, it must "reserve the
timber and impose other conditions deem(ed) necessary to protect watersheds, wildlife habitat,
shorelines and scenic features." Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995 (most recently
updated in 2002) provides for forest practice guidelines. Forest Practices BMPs are required for
timber operations on the 2.9 million acres of publicly owned timberland in the coastal counties,
which corresponds to roughly three-quarters of the total timberland acreage in these counties.
On federal lands, Minnesota's forest management BMPs serve as the minimum standard for
operation. Timber sale contracts on state lands specify that Minnesota's forestry BMPs are to be
followed. On county lands beyond the coastal counties, Minnesota's forest management
guidelines are either incorporated by reference into the timber sale contract, or the timber sale
contract identifies the specific practices that are needed to protect water quality. Encouraging
the use of BMP on Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) lands relies upon an emphasis on
voluntary programs promoted by economic incentives and public information and technical
assistance. Compliance audits have been performed periodically since the 1990s, utilizing multi-
stakeholder teams with a broad range of expertise and interests.
West Virginia's Logging Sediment Control Act of 1992 (WVC Article IB. Chapter 19. Section IB)
controls commercial timber harvesting activities that expose soil and subsequently result in
sediment deposition in streams by establishing requirements for licensing, certification and
harvest notification. While WV's Division of Forestry (WVDOF) has primary authority to adopt
rules and procedures to implement the Act, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (the state's water quality agency) may initiate action if WVDOF fails to appropriately
act on forestry practices contributing to sedimentation. The Act applies to all timber operations,
except when trees are harvested for personal use, harvested for purposes of rights-of-ways for
public roads and utilities, and harvested for purposes of holiday decorations. WVDOF is
responsible for a licensing and certification program, which includes education and examination
on appropriate BMPs for timber practices. Harvest areas are to be reclaimed within seven days
of completion. If BMPs are not properly applied, WVDOF may issue a written order requiring
corrective action. WVDOF has authority to issue stop-work orders and take other actions, if
necessary. Civil penalties may be assessed, not to exceed $2,500 for first offense and up to
$5,999 for subsequent offenses. West Virginia is developing its Logging Operation Notification
Inspection and Enforcement System (LONIE) with section 319 base funds to assist in enforcing
50
-------
November 2011
the Logging Sediment Control Act. The system uses a database, a mapping API, and web-based
user interface to submit, track, and enforce timbering operation notifications and activities.
Maine has multiple laws that regulate various aspects of forestry activities to protect water
quality. Under Maine's Forest Practices Act (12 M.R.S.A. งง 8867-Ato 8888) landowners are
required to notify the Maine Forest Service of planned timber harvest activity that involves
greater than two acres of clear-cutting or greater than five acres of partial cutting. Clear-cuts
over 50 acres require a summary of how water quality and wildlife habitat will be protected.
Maine's Natural Resources Protection Act (38 M.R.S.A. งง 480-A to 480-Z) requires the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection to issue permits for certain forest management
activities (e.g., stream crossings, location of landings, and general soil disturbances) occurring
within 75 feet of coastal wetlands, great ponds, rivers and streams, and certain types of
freshwater wetlands. All harvesting operations in forested wetlands (i.e., permitted and
exempted) are required to meet stream crossing standards. Under the state's Land Use
Regulation Commission's Rules and Standards (12 M.R.S.A., Chapter 206- A and LURC-Rules
Chapter 10) standards have been established for timber harvesting operations and related
activities within designated protection zones (subdistricts) of Maine's unorganized territories.
LURC Rules include standards for road construction and maintenance, erosion control measures,
use of filter strips, percent tree removals, minimum shade requirements, slash disposal, and soil
disturbance limits. Permits are required for either timber harvesting and/or construction of land
management roads in certain wetlands and in designated land use zones, depending on the
level of impact. Maine's ShorelandZoning Act (38 M.R.S.A. งง 435 to 449) requires minimum
guidelines for activities pertaining to timber harvesting, include those for selective cutting, tree
removal, road construction, operation of machinery, stream crossings, slash disposal and soil
disturbance. Under Maine's Erosion and Sedimentation Control Law (38 M.R.S.A. ง 420-C),
erosion control measures are required for activities, including road and landings construction,
that involve filling and soil disturbance. Finally, under Maine's Tree Growth Tax Law (36 M.R.S.A.
งง 571 et seq.), landowners with more than 10 acres of forested land that is held for potential
commercial use can have their property revaluated based on forest productivity rather than
development value. This financial incentive allows landowners to save on local property taxes
and helps to protect commercial forest land. Under this program, landowners must hire a
licensed professional forester to prepare a forest management plan which outlines intended
activities to regenerate, improve and harvest timber, and identifies the location of water bodies
and wildlife habitat. In 2001, 19,692 parcels (3,849,690 acres) of land in the organized towns
were enrolled in this program. In the unorganized towns, 22,823 parcels (9,036,172 acres) were
enrolled in the program as of 2000.
In New Hampshire timber harvesting is regulated by several statutes. All logging operations
(excluding those logging less than 20 cords or 10,000 board feet for personal use) are required
to file an "Intent to Cut Form" (see RSA 79:10). Though the form is used for timber tax purposes,
it also requires the logger to acknowledge RSA 227-J, the state's timber harvest laws. The Basal
Area law (RSA 227-J:9) requires that forested buffers be left along streams, rivers and ponds
51
-------
November 2011
following a timber harvest and it limits the percent of total basal area that can be cut near these
waterbodies. Basal area is a measure of tree density on each acre of land - New Hampshire law
states that no more than 50% of the basal area of timber within 150 feet of a fourth order river
or pond 10 acres or larger, or within 50 feet of any other perennial stream or pond smaller than
10 acres may be cut or otherwise felled each year. The timber harvest laws are enforced by the
Division of Forests and Lands. However, signing the Intent to Cut Form also acknowledges that
the logger will comply with state wetlands laws (RSA 482-A) and alteration of terrain laws (RSA
485-A:17), which are enforced by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
These laws and the agency activities supporting them have been included in New Hampshire's
NPS Management Program Plan since the initial plan was adopted in 1989. Early on in New
Hampshire's NPS program, section 319 funds helped publish guidance documents and BMPs for
distribution to loggers through the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association.
Montana - Streamside Management Zone Law requires the creation of 50 foot wide
"streamside management zones" for forest streams. Specific activities are prohibited within
these zones and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation has the authority
to inspect federal, state and private lands for compliance. State forest practice law requires use
of BMPs for forest harvest activities. Section 319-funded state staff has assisted with
development and implementation of the regulations for this program.
Wisconsin's county forests are governed by the County Forest Law, which requires they be
managed in a sustainable manner for multiple uses, including timber production, recreation,
wildlife habitat, and watershed protection. The county forests are also required to update their
forest plans every 15 years, a process that includes approval both by each forest's county board
and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Virginia - The Silvicultural Water Quality Act of 1993 (updated 2002) authorized the Virginia
Department of Forestry (VDOF) to act to prevent pollution of state waters from silvicultural
activities. The intent of the law is to prevent silvicultural activities from occurring "in a manner
that is causing or is likely to cause pollution." The law establishes a notification and an
inspection program and authorizes VDOF to issue special orders for corrective measures "to
prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the pollution." Notification is facilitated through a dedicated toll-
free phone number and an online system maintained by the state. VDOF has the authority to
issue stop work orders to correct problems. VDOF inspects all logging operations greater than 10
acres. Penalties for failure to notify VDOF and enforcement penalties go into the Virginia Forest
Water Quality Fund, which is "to be used for education efforts, promoting the implementation
of proper silvicultural activities, research, and monitoring the effectiveness of practices to
prevent erosion and sedimentation." Virginia has a strong logger education program that serves
as a companion to this law, which is described in Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and
Initiatives.
52
-------
November 2011
Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality Act (1994) requires all landowners with 10 or more acres
that are being used for silviculture (or agricultural) operations to develop and implement a
water quality plan based upon guidance developed by the state.
Florida's regulations under the Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) program (Florida
Administrative Code Chapter 62-341.500) require silvicultural operators to obtain a General
Permit for Construction, Operation, Maintenance, Alteration, Abandonment or Removal of
Minor Silvicultural Surface Water Management Systems. These general permits are intended for
non-exempt persons "constructing, operating, maintaining (including repairing or replacing),
altering, abandoning, or removing surface water management systems" and non-exempt U.S.
Forest Service activities "to construct, operate, maintain, alter, abandon, or remove surface
water management systems." For persons, this general permit is to be used only for those
activities designed to "place the property into silvicultural use or to perpetuate the maintenance
of this property in silvicultural use." In order to qualify for this general permit, silvicultural
surface water management systems must meet a number of performance standards (Chapter
62-341.500(5)) to protect wetlands and other surface waters, maintain normal water flow,
implement erosion control measures, etc. The applicant must also utilize BMPs set forth in the
"Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual." The permit is valid for one year for the
construction, alteration, abandonment, or removal of the silvicultural surface water
management system and indefinitely for operation or maintenance of the silvicultural surface
water management system.
Maryland has several laws that regulate forestry activities that impose controls of silvicultural
activities to protect water quality, including: limits on harvesting in designated critical areas
under the state's Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Act; requirements for reforestation of pine
forests; and limits on harvesting in nontidal wetlands. Additionally, Maryland's Sediment Control
Law and regulations require that a sediment control plan be developed and approved before
undertaking any earth disturbing activity in excess of 5,000 square feet. To assist loggers and
landowners in meeting this requirement, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the
Department of Natural Resources have developed a Compliance Agreement for the Standard
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Forest Harvest Operations. This plan lists the general
sediment control requirements for each harvest and may be obtained at any Soil Conservation
District office.
Urban NPS/Post-Construction Development
At least nine states (FL, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, Rl, VT and Wl) have regulatory authorities targeting urban
stormwater runoff, beyond state or EPA NPDES permitting requirements. In a number of these states,
the state law has been changed to reflect recent technical developments in treating and managing
stormwater runoff, such as low impact development, that have been advanced through statewide NPS
programs and activities (see Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives for further discussion).
53
-------
November 2011
Wisconsin - The state's "NR 151" Runoff Management Rules include the following non-
agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions (statewide; not just in MS4 urban areas).
For site developments of one acre or more, post-construction stormwater management plans
are required to be implemented to: (1) reduce total suspended solids (TSS) by 80%; (2) reduce
peak runoff discharge rates using the 1-year 24 hour design storm and the two-year, 24 hour
design storm as peak flow rates that must match the pre-development one- and two-year
storms; (3) infiltrate initial runoff except where groundwater contamination could occur; (4)
maintain a permanent 50 foot vegetative buffer area around lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands
within the site (75 foot buffer requirement from specifically defined sensitive habitats); and (5)
control petroleum products in runoff from fueling and vehicle maintenance areas. The Rules also
require Wisconsin Department of Transportation road, highway and bridge projects of one acre
or more to reduce post-construction TSS loads by 20% by 2008 and by 40% by 2013, and to
educate WDOT staff and contractors on proper road salt and winter deicing chemical use.
Maryland Stormwater Management Act of 2007 - Controls runoff from new development.
Mandates "Environmental Site Design be used to Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) for new
developments statewide. Environmental Site Design is defined in the Act as "using small-scale
stormwater management practices, nonstructural techniques, and better site planning to mimic
natural hydrologic runoff characteristics and minimize the impact of land development on water
resources." The Act requires that these regulations shall specify that "all stormwater
management plans shall be designed to" include nine comprehensive elements, including:
"prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, an increase in nonpoint pollution"; "maintain
100% of average annual predevelopment groundwater recharge volume for the site"; and
"capture and treat stormwater runoff to remove pollutants and enhance water quality." As of
September 2011, regulations to address requirements of the Act remain under development.
New Jersey Stormwater Management Rule, Tiers A & B, comprehensively addresses runoff from
all new development and existing development statewide. All coastal communities must comply
with Tier A rules, which are designed to meet and exceed EPA's Phase II Stormwater Rule.
Statewide, all new development that disturb at least one acre of land or that have increased
imperviousness by at least a quarter acre must reduce the anticipated increase of TSS loadings
by 80%, and nutrients must be removed "to the maximum extent feasible." Further, most new
major developments must either maintain 100% of the average annual pre-construction
groundwater recharge volume onsite or infiltrate the projected increase in stormwater volume
from pre- to post-construction conditions for a two-year design storm. There are notable
exceptions having to do with promoting infill and smart growth. To achieve all of these
objectives (minimizing runoff volumes and pollutant loads and maximizing groundwater
recharge), the rule strongly encourages low impact development practices. The rule also
requires that storm drains be labeled and additional stormwater education be conducted.
54
-------
November 2011
Feature Story: New Hampshire Alteration of Terrain Program
New Hampshire regulates stormwater runoff from development projects under the Alteration of
Terrain program. When the program was originally established it addressed water quantity and
quality issues, with a primary focus on preventing downstream flooding and increased peak flows.
Revisions to the regulations finalized in 2009 provide for infiltration and better treatment of
runoff. These rules require development projects to treat the first inch of rainfall with BMPs and
retain natural soil infiltration rates. An Alteration of Terrain permit is required for any project
proposing to disturb more than 100,000 square feet of contiguous terrain (about 2.3 acres) or that
disturbs an area having a grade of 25% or greater within 50 feet of any surface water. Projects
within one mile of an impaired water or Outstanding Resource Water are subject to heightened
standards.
Since 2007 NPS program staff has supported this program through efforts to improve use of low
impact development (LID) BMPs, update the New Hampshire Stormwater Manual that applies to
the Alteration of Terrain rules, and analyze the effectiveness of the rules in terms of pollutant load
reductions. The Stormwater Manual provides detailed information about BMP design and
effectiveness that supports compliance with the Alteration of Terrain program requirements. In
addition, in June 2011 New Hampshire released an updated manual, New Hampshire
Homeowner's Guide to Stormwater Management: Do-lt-Yourself Stormwater Solutions for Your
Home. Both of these manuals were funded in part with 319 grant funds and 319-funded staff
contributed to their development.
An analysis of permit applications and approvals during 2009 and 2010, the years following
adoption of the new Alteration of Terrain rules, shows that a direct result of base 319 funding
assistance was significant load reduction compared to how those applications would have been
permitted under the prior rules. The table below shows the resulting load reductions for TSS for
permitted residential development during the years 2009 and 2010.
Table 8. TSS Load Reduction Achieved for Residential Permitted Projects, 2009-2010
Load (no BMPs)
(Ibs/yr)
Load (with BMPs)
(Ibs/yr)
Load Reduction Due
to BMPs (Ibs/yr)
Percent
Removal
Total
98,144.58
43,672.49
54,472.08
Minimum
29.70
2.97
0.00
0.0%
Maximum
9,088.97
5,207.70
7,271.17
90.0%
Average
1,533.51
682.38
851.13
67.9%
For more information, visit NH Department of Environmental Management's Alteration of Terrain
website at http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/aot/index.htm.
55
-------
November 2011
Florida's Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) Program (Rule 62-343.050) requires that an
ERP permit be obtained "prior to construction, alteration, operation, maintenance,
abandonment, or removal of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment,
reservoir, or appurtenant work or works, including dredging or filling in, on, or over wetlands
and other surface waters, as determined by the methodology ratified by Subsection 373.4211,
F.S., and codified in rule chapter 62-340, F.A.C." Each of Florida's six water management districts
(WMDs) has its own rule for regulating the ERP program. Stormwater permit holders must
achieve at least 80% reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or
contribute to violations of state water quality standards; or achieve at least 95% reduction of
the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water
quality standards in Outstanding Florida Waters. Additionally, since 2007, Florida DEP has been
working to create and implement a uniform Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule, which will
amend its performance and design criteria for Environmental Resource Permitting program. The
rule is intended to ensure that post-development nutrient loading does not exceed nutrient
loading from natural landscapes, but must be ratified by the legislature. BMP effectiveness
monitoring is being conducted during 2011 to provide additional data to establish final BMP
design criteria. NPS staff are assisting in BMP effectiveness monitoring and BMP development.
Maine - Maine has a Stormwater Management Law that establishes strict stormwater controls
for developments above particular impervious area thresholds (depending on the
development's size and location). The law generally requires the management of runoff from
95% of impervious areas as well as 80% of developed areas (e.g., areas that are mowed more
than once per year) by the use of practices that detain a runoff volume of one-inch for the
impervious areas and 0.4 inches for landscaped areas. The vast majority of these projects are
not subject to NPDES stormwater regulation for post-construction runoff. Projects are reviewed
by Maine DEP to assess whether they meet applicable standards addressing areas such as
stormwater management, groundwater protection, and wildlife and fisheries. A range of LID
practices are utilized by developers to meet the program requirements. Section 319-funded
staff has been actively involved in developing and implementing these statutory and regulatory
requirements, including development of stormwater BMP manual and compliance assistance.
North Carolina's stormwater rules (15A NCAC 02H .1000) apply a zoned approach statewide for
controlling runoff from development that encourages LID. The Clean Water Responsibility Act of
1997 requires the state's Environmental Management Commission to implement stormwater
runoff rules statewide under a continuing program planning process. Priorities are weighted
toward the coastal area and are as follows: 1) Classified shellfish waters; 2) water supply
watersheds; 3) outstanding resource waters; 4) high quality waters; and 5) all other waters of
the State to the extent that the Commission finds it necessary to control stormwater. Across the
State's 20-county coastal region runoff controls must be provided for development activities
disturbing more than 10,000 square feet (approximately / acre) for non-residential
developments or more than one acre for residential development. These controls must reduce
TSS by at least 85% of their predevelopment loads (by design). Further, stormwater volumes
56
-------
November 2011
must be controlled on-site in accordance with either of the following requirements: the post
development discharge rate shall be no larger than the predevelopment discharge rate for the
one year, 24-hour storm; or the discharge rate following the one-inch design storm shall be such
that the runoff volume draws down to the pre-storm design stage within five days, but not less
than two days. Additionally, shoreline setbacks apply to new development along: designated
trout streams; all coastal shorelines; all navigable waters in the 20-county coastal region; all
designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and High Quality Waters (HQW); and nutrient-
sensitive waters throughout the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico basins. Additional rules for controlling
runoff and nutrient loads from new development apply in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico basins. For
example, Nutrient Strategy Rules require a 30% reduction in nitrogen from new development
(by design). For areas draining to ORWs and HQWs, North Carolina distinguishes between low
density development (defined for most of the State as an area that is less than 12% impervious
or zoned for one home or less per acre) and high density development. Rules for development
on low density sites are designed to reduce runoff velocities from any 10-year storm event and
prohibit discrete runoff collection systems. All other development is deemed high density and
requires a wet detention pond or equivalent infiltration practices to control water quantity and
quality. Beyond these regulations, in 2009, the state released its North Carolina LID Guidebook
to encourage implementation of LID. The Guidebook particularly promotes the LID performance
goals of: controlling post-development runoff volumes to predevelopment conditions at the site
level; and reducing targeted pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. North Carolina is
encouraging adoption of these performance goals and the Guidebook through local ordinances.
Rhode Island - The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management updated the
Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual in 2010 in accordance with the 2007
Smart Development for a Cleaner Bay Act. Under the authority of the Cleaner Bay Act, the
revised manual requires new development to maintain predevelopment groundwater recharge
levels, ensure that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development
rates, and use LID techniques as the primary method of stormwater control to the maximum
extent practicable. Section 319-funded staff and other 319 funds were utilized to develop the
2010 revised stormwater manual.
Vermont's "Act 250" was developed in part by NPS program staff, who also play a major role in
implementation of the Act 250 regulations. Act 250 establishes a permitting requirement for
new developments and subdivisions that involve construction on more than 10 acres,
construction of 10 or more housing units or subdivision of land into six or more lots. Act 250 is
administered by nine district commissions across Vermont and plays an active role in NPS
management. The review of applications is conducted by the Land Use Panel of the Natural
Resources Board and focuses on 10 criteria including impacts related to water pollution, wildlife
habitat and soil erosion. A project's impact on water pollution (during construction and after
completion) is considered along with soil erosion. The Act also applies to larger subdivisions and
commercial, manufacturing and industrial projects. One area where the Act has an especially big
impact on NPS reductions is expansion projects. Projects covered by an Act 250 permit must go
-------
November 2011
back for special permission if they wish to expand, as often occurs with ski resorts, for example.
If the permitted project has contributed to a downstream water quality impairment, Act 250 can
require development and implementation of a water quality remediation plan as conditions of
the permit for any expansion. This process has resulted in restoration of several impaired waters
that have been published as NPS Success Stories on EPA's website.
Non-Agricultural Fertilizer Use
In addition to state laws that address stormwater runoff from development, at least nine states have
passed or updated laws in recent years that address nutrient pollution through regulation of non-
agricultural use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. These laws typically apply to residential and
commercial land uses, and occasionally golf courses.
New Jersey's 2011 Fertilizer Statute (Chapter 112) - In 2011, New Jersey's new fertilizer law
took effect. The law is considered to be the most restrictive fertilizer content standards in the
U.S. for nitrogen and phosphorus, and is aimed at protecting water quality. The law bans
phosphorus in fertilizer for non-agricultural uses unless a soil test confirms that phosphorus is
needed or unless new vegetation is being established. It also establishes restrictions from
applying fertilizer within 10 feet of streams, and prohibits application of fertilizer to frozen
ground or when heavy rain is forecasted. By November 2011, professional landscapers must be
trained and landscape companies must be licensed for applying fertilizers. By January 2012
fertilizer must include 20% slow-release nitrogen.
Maryland's Fertilizer Use Act of 2011 restricts phosphorus in lawn fertilizer with exceptions for
specially labeled starter fertilizer and organic fertilizer products. The law also decreases the total
amount of nitrogen that may be applied to turf and specifies that 20% must be in a slow-release
form. The law prohibits labeling fertilizer product as de-icers and requires them to include the
following statement on the label: "Do not apply near water, storm drains or drainage ditches. Do
not apply if heavy rain is expected. Apply this product only to your lawn and sweep any product
that lands on the driveway, sidewalk, or street, back into your lawn." Lawn fertilizer use is
prohibited between November 15 and March 1, when the ground is frozen, and within 10-15
feet of waterways and is prohibited from being applied to impervious surfaces. The law contains
substantial penalties ($1000-$2000) per violation.
Wisconsin passed its Turf Fertilizer Restrictions Law in 2009 (Statute Chapter 94.643). The law
restricts use of lawn fertilizers with phosphorus on lawns, golf courses and turf, unless used to
establish grass or to correct a soil phosphorus deficiency identified by a soil test. Fertilizer
spread or spilled on impervious surfaces must be cleaned up. Fertilizer is prohibited from being
applied on frozen ground. Stores are prohibited from displaying phosphorus lawn fertilizer, but
can post signs saying it is available upon request for permitted uses. Fines are $50 the first time
and $100-$200 after that.
58
-------
November 2011
New York's Dishwater Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law (1) prohibits the use of phosphorus-
containing lawn fertilizer unless establishing a new lawn or a soil test shows that the lawn is
phosphorus-deficient, (2) prohibits the application of lawn fertilizer on impervious surfaces and
requires pick up of fertilizer applied or spilled onto impervious surfaces, (3) prohibits the
application of lawn fertilizer within 20 feet of any surface water (except where there is a
vegetative buffer of at least 10 feet; or where the fertilizer is applied with a spreader guard,
deflector shield or drop spreader at least three feet from surface water, (4) prohibits the
application of lawn fertilizer between December 1st and April 1st, and (5) requires retailers to
display phosphorus containing fertilizers separately from non-phosphorus fertilizers and to post
an educational sign where the phosphorus-containing fertilizers are displayed. Additionally, the
law prohibits the sale of phosphorus-containing dishwasher detergents for household and/or
commercial use.
Vermont passed the Turf Fertilizer Law in 2011. This law regulates application of nitrogen and
phosphorus commercial fertilizer on turf (excluding crops, fields for sod production, etc.).
Application of nitrogen is not allowed; application of phosphorus is restricted (can be allowed if
soil test shows deficiency). Application of phosphorus fertilizer during the winter or on frozen
ground is prohibited.
Minnesota's Phosphorus Turf Fertilizer Restrictions, (Statute Ch. 18C.60) updated 2006 -
Fertilizers containing phosphorus cannot be used on lawns and turf in Minnesota, except for
establishing new lawns or when a soil test or plant tissue test shows a need for phosphorus. Golf
courses are also exempted if fertilizer is applied by trained staff. The law was enacted to reduce
over-enrichment of lakes and other waterbodies with phosphorus. Restriction on phosphorus
fertilizer use on lawns and turf started in 2004 in the 7 county Twin Cities metro area and in
Minnesota's other 80 counties in 2005. It was the first law of its kind in the U.S.
Michigan - Public Act 299 of 2010 (Statute 324.8512b) prohibits the use of phosphorus
fertilizers on residential or commercial lawns, beginning January 1, 2012. Excluded from this law
are: phosphorus applications for agriculture; for new turf establishment; based on soil test
results; for certain types of manure; and golf courses whose operators complete an approved
training course.
Virginia passed its Fertilizer Act in 2011, which is scheduled to take effect in 2014. The law
distinguishes between fertilizer for lawn maintenance and for starting or repairing lawns. The
law prohibits the sale, distribution and use of lawn maintenance fertilizer containing phosphorus
beginning December 31, 2013 unless a soil test identifies a phosphorus deficiency. The law also:
requires the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to establish reporting
requirements for contractor-applicators and licensees who apply lawn fertilizer to more than
100 acres of nonagricultural lands annually; requires golf courses to implement nutrient
management plans by 2017; adopt precautionary labeling guidelines to prevent fertilizer runoff
59
-------
November 2011
into waterways; and prohibits the sale of deicing agents containing urea, nitrogen or
phosphorus intended for application on paved surfaces.
The Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program is a partnership between University of Florida and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) NPS program to develop quality
landscapes that conserve water, protect water quality, are adaptable to local conditions, and are
drought tolerant. Several Florida State regulatory authorities support the implementation of
Florida-friendly landscaping:
o Senate Bill 2080 (2009) requires water management districts to provide model Florida-
friendly landscaping ordinances to local governments, and requires each district to use
materials developed by FDEP and Florida-friendly partners. Additionally, the legislation
says that (1) a deed restriction or covenant may not prohibit any property owner from
implementing Florida-friendly landscaping on his or her land, (2) a local government
ordinance may not prohibit any property owner from implementing Florida-friendly
landscaping on his or her land, and (3) local governments must use the Florida-friendly
landscaping standards and guidelines when developing landscape irrigation and Florida-
friendly ordinances.
o Florida's 2010 Fertilizer Statutes require every county and municipal government in a
watershed containing a nutrient-impaired waterbody to adopt a model ordinance for
Florida-Friendly Fertilizer Use on urban landscapes. The statutes also require trainings
for all commercial fertilizer applicators.
Illinois passed a law in 2010 (Statute 415 ILCS 65/5a) to restrict phosphorus from fertilizers used
by lawn care companies, except for use on new lawns (during the first two growing seasons), or
unless a need for phosphorus is indicated by a soil test. Golf courses and farm lands are exempt,
and the new law does not apply to homeowners who apply their own fertilizer.
Arkansas promulgated Title 22 (effective 2010) Rules Governing the Arkansas Soil Nutrient and
Poultry Litter Application and Management Program that applies to eight HUC-8 watersheds
in the northwest corner of the state (about 10% of the state) that restricts phosphorus in
fertilizers for residential areas. Within these specially designated "nutrient surplus watersheds,"
fertilizers must not be applied in excess of "protective rates" (no phosphorus except where
indicated by a soil test; not to exceed 40 pounds of phosphate application per acre for medium
soil test phosphorus level and not to exceed 80 pounds of phosphate application per acre for
high soil test phosphorus level (defined in Appendix B of rule). Alternatively, a nutrient
management plan may be developed and approved by the Arkansas Natural Resources
Commission, and shall govern protective application rates.
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
During the past 15 years, at least five state NPS programs have upgraded state requirements relating to
the maintenance and inspection of decentralized wastewater treatment systems (DWTS) and are
60
-------
November 2011
actively implementing these requirements. Highlighted below are brief descriptions of these laws that
either add requirements to property transfers or require systems to be designed in accordance with
latest technologies.
Minnesota - All DWTS system components, including the tank and drainfield, must be inspected
every three years, although inspections may be conducted by the homeowner. Septage levels in
tanks must be recorded as part of these inspections and pumped when needed (Rule
7080.2450). The Rule precisely defines the levels of sludge and scum that dictate if the tank
needs to be pumped.
The Iowa legislature passed a law that took effect in July 2009 that requires time of sale
inspection for septic system that applies to all real property sales. Any inadequacies discovered
during the inspection must be addressed before transfer of title. Within the short life of this
program there have already been approximately 9000 inspections, which have resulted in
replacement or repair of 2500 systems. Additionally, in 2009, Iowa updated the regulations for
"private sewage disposal systems" to incorporate new standards for septic system technologies
that are used for upgrades in Iowa, increasing consistency and reducing septic system leakage
across the state. The revised regulations incorporate specifications for new septic system
technologies, including drip irrigation systems, mound systems, and packed-bed media filter
systems, and revised the specifications for previously-approved systems. All new systems do not
require new technology, but are subject to new specifications.
New Mexico's operation, maintenance, and inspection requirements (effective September 1,
2005 per Title 20 Chapter 7 Part 3 - 20.7.3.902 NMAC) require septic system inspection when
there is a transfer of ownership. In their 319 Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 work plan, the
New Mexico Environment Department was awarded 319 funding for activities to address NPS
pollution in groundwater that may be attributed to septic systems. The Ground Water Quality
Bureau reviews and approves groundwater discharge permits for discharges that have the
potential to impact groundwater water quality. Bureau staff also enforce permits to ensure
compliance with state regulations cited at NMAC 20.6.2.
Washington passed rules (WAC 246-272A) in 2005 to require owners of DWTS to: evaluate
conventional gravity-flow septic systems once every three years and all other systems at least
annually; hire an approved septic tank pumper to pump the septage when indicated; and to
"provide maintenance and needed repairs to promptly return the system to a proper operating
condition." State guidance notes that inspections should be conducted by a qualified sewage
system inspector or a homeowner that has demonstrated knowledge by receiving a
certification or passing a test. Many counties have adopted local ordinances that require a
qualified inspector either for all routine inspections, at the time of property transfer, or for
routine inspections within targeted areas of special concern such as shellfishing or drinking
water supply areas. Additionally, state law (RCW 64.06.020) requires that at the time of
property transfer, an owner provide a buyer with a statement that discloses when the system
was last inspected and pumped out and any problems that may exist with the system. In
61
-------
November 2011
addition to these statewide rules, under RCW 70.118A, the 12 counties bordering Puget Sound
must also develop an enhanced local DWTS program to provide even greater protection in
designated marine recovery areas. As part of the marine recovery program, these 12 counties
must develop and implement onsite waste management plans that the Washington
Department of Health (DOH) reviews and approves and ensure systems are inspected and
repaired as needed. Outside of the Puget Sound area, two other coastal counties require a
qualified inspector to inspect every system within areas of special concern such as shelIfishing
areas and drinking water supplies, at least every three years and report the results of the
inspection to the Health Officer. And other counties require proof that the system was
inspected by a certified professional within 36 months of property transfer. Also, where
nitrogen has been identified as a contaminant of concern in the local health management plan,
nitrogen contributions must be addressed in the DWTS design through lot size and/or
treatment. Under WAC 246-272A-0110, Washington requires that nitrogen reducing
technologies achieve a 20 mg/L total nitrogen threshold, and that DOH must review and
register these technologies before local governments can permit their use.
Rhode Island's Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Rules require that all new, altered or
repaired systems in the Narrow River and Salt Pond Critical Resource Areas be denitrification
systems in order to limit nitrogen loading to these coastal resources. The rules also provide a
means for state review and approval of advanced treatment systems used on constrained lots
and in sensitive areas. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management NPS program
staff have played a key role in the development and implementation of this program.
Ground Water
While ground water is valued in every state, and most or all states have regulations to protect ground
water from contamination, certain states use these authorities as a basis for controlling NPS pollution
broadly. Two states (AZ, NB) are offered as examples:
The Nebraska Groundwater Management and Protection Act requires the state's 23 Natural
Resource Districts to develop and implement plans for the management of groundwater quality
and quantity. Plans must be approved by the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources. The
law provides that each District plan shall "identify, to the extent possible, the levels and sources
of ground water contamination within the district, ground water quality goals, long-term
solutions necessary to prevent the levels of ground water contaminants from becoming too high
and to reduce high levels sufficiently to eliminate health hazards, and practices recommended
to stabilize, reduce, and prevent the occurrence, increase, or spread of ground water
contamination." The plans are used to target and prioritize groundwater projects. NPS program
staff at the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality review plans on a rotating basis. This
authority has resulted in nutrient controls, including restrictions in several Natural Resource
Districts on fall nitrogen application for row crop production, including a prohibition on fall and
winter application on sandy soils.
62
-------
November 2011
Arizona is an arid state that is extremely dependent on groundwater. Its Aquifer Protection Law
(AAC R18-9) establishes Aquifer Protection Permits (APPs) for any facility that discharges a
pollutant in such a manner that there is a reasonable probability that the pollutant will reach an
aquifer. Facilities subject to APPs include: mine tailings piles and ponds; mine leaching
operations; and decentralized wastewater treatment systems (septic systems). The Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality is also authorized to issue general permits under the
Aquifer Protection Program requiring the use of BMPs and addressing silviculture and certain
other activities.
Local Ordinances
At least eight state NPS programs play a key role in developing and promoting model ordinances for
localities. Examples include:
South Carolina - Several counties have local buffer ordinances that address stream flow volume
control, LID, and other NPS priority areas. For example, Jasper County is currently working to
develop a BMP manual, which is partially funded by 319 through a watershed-based plan
implementation project.
New Mexico - the City of Santa Fe developed local ordinances (including a stormwater
ordinance), which prohibit development in flood plains and require developers in specified areas
to maintain pre-development hydrology. NPS Program 319 funding supported the development
of these ordinances.
Oregon - Oregon's State Land Use Planning Program provides regulatory authority requiring all
land development ordinances to comply with Oregon's Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Process. Oregon's NPS program has helped to reduce air, water, and land quality development
impacts by preservation of natural resource lands and urban growth management policies. NPS
Program Regional Basin Coordinators work with cities and counties to develop land use plans
and development ordinances, which address erosion control, riparian area protection, etc.
Maine - Shore/and Zoning Law requires that municipalities protect shoreland areas through
adopting shoreland zoning maps and ordinances. Zoning ordinances provide for what types of
activities can occur in certain areas (e.g., within 250 feet of the normal high-water line of any
great pond, river or saltwater body, and upland edge of a coastal wetland). The Maine
Department of Environmental Protection Shoreland Zoning Unit, in conjunction with NPS
program staff, administers the program, determines if town ordinances comply with the
minimum statewide standards and responds to complaints. Existing municipal ordinances
address building size and setbacks, clearing land for development, timber harvesting, septic
disposal, driveways and roads, and creation of zones for resource protection, general
development, residential, stream protection, etc.
Kansas - The Local Environmental Protection Program (LEPP) is administered by the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment and has been providing grants to counties since 1992
for implementation of county environmental protection plans. LEPP regulations require each
63
-------
November 2011
county participating in LEPP to adopt and implement ordinances addressing on-site wastewater
management systems and water supply wells. All ordinances must be reviewed and approved by
KDHE. All but one county in Kansas participates in this program.
Montana - The Lakeshore Protection Law requires "a person who proposes to do any work that
will alter or diminish the course, current, or cross-sectional area of a lake or its lakeshore must
first secure a permit for the work from the local governing body." Local governments are thus
required to adopt regulations, including criteria for issuing and denying permits for work in lake
areas. Local regulations are judicially enforceable. Factors for consideration include water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, navigation and recreation, public nuisance, and visual and
aesthetic values. While the scope of this law is broader than the NPS program, 319-funded staff
at DEQ provide input at the local level to support development and implementation of local
regulations developed pursuant to this law.
Iowa - 319-funded educational programs and BMP demonstration projects have led local
governments to adopt stormwater management ordinances that rely on LID practices for new
development and/or require the management of stormwater volume through infiltration-based
BMPs for all new development. Five such local ordinances were adopted in 2008.
Connecticut - Under the Aquifer Protection Area Land Use Regulations, Connecticut DEP has
developed model ordinances associated with requirements that all "areas of contribution" and
"recharge areas" to major well fields be mapped, including inventories of all potentially
regulated facilities and agricultural activities. The municipalities in the aquifer protection
program are required under Connecticut statutes (Section 22a-354p) to adopt regulations at the
local level to regulate land use within the identified aquifer protection areas. So far, aquifer
protection areas have been mapped in 66 towns, and of these, 60 have adopted the local land
use regulations required. This is a new program and in the future information developed
through this program may be used to support the development and implementation of
watershed-based plans.
Hawaii - Under CZARA, which is well integrated with the state's 319 program, Hawaii is working
with the four primary counties to develop strong local ordinances to address impacts from new
development. Under these ordinances, the City and County of Honolulu and the County of
Hawaii have begun controlling total suspended solids by encouraging low impact development
practices. For example, the County of Hawaii requires infiltration of all post-development runoff
increases up to a 10-year design storm. Maui County is very close to passing a similarly stringent
ordinance.
64
-------
November 2011
Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives
Statewide nonpoint source (NPS) initiatives and programs play a key role in reaching broad audiences of
stakeholders (public, landowners, partner agencies, etc.) to increase understanding of nonpoint source
pollution and to reduce its impacts. In most states, base 319 funding provides support for the
implementation of these statewide efforts, either through "start up" funding or ongoing support.
This study highlights statewide NPS initiatives and programs that were supported by state NPS programs
in Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10). A statewide initiative/program was included in the study if it received
more than $100,000 in section 319 grant or match funds in a recent year, involved more than 0.5 NPS
program full-time equivalents (FTEs), and/or was considered by the state to be a key part of its NPS
program. The information in this chapter is summarized from a number of sources, including state NPS
management program plans, grant work plans, annual program reports, state NPS program websites
and correspondence between EPA regional and state NPS program staff.
Agricultural Programs:
As characterized in the most recent national report on the state of the nation's water quality, agriculture
is the leading source of impairments in assessed rivers and streams (approximately 38%), and the
leading known/specified source of impairments in assessed lakes, ponds, and reservoirs (approximately
17%). Virtually every state has programs that support controls on pollution from agriculture. Many of
these support regulatory authorities, including those that bring states into compliance with state
requirements for animal feeding operations. This study found at least 24 state NPS programs and
initiatives (AL, AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, LA, MD, MN, MS, NC, ND, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA,
Wl) that provide significant support for state and local efforts to address the impacts of NPS agricultural
activities on water quality. Among these states, this study found that at least 15 (AL, DE, GA, HI, ID, IN,
LA, MD, MN, MS, NY, PA, TX, VT, Wl) devote resources to their state agriculture agencies or soil and
water conservation commissions to implement agricultural NPS programs or initiatives. Examples of
these statewide agricultural programs include:
New York's Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program is led by the New York
State Soil and Water Conservation Committee (SWCC) and the New York State Department of
Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM). AEM is a voluntary, incentive-based program that helps
farmers install agricultural best management practices (BMPs) with funding support from the
state's NPS Abatement and Control Grant Program and United States Department of
Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). The state NPS program's
2010 annual report indicates that the AEM program has: over 12,000 participating farms, with
local programs established in 54 counties; allocated more than $81 million to local AEM
programs to assess, plan, and implement BMPs on New York farms; certified 46 planners to
develop Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) and trained over 300 resource
65
-------
November 2011
professionals on conservation planning by the SWCC since 1999, and has coordinated with the
state NPS program and NPS partner agencies to address agricultural NPS issues.
Maryland's Manure Transport Program, which was established by its Manure Management Law,
helps livestock farmers cover the costs of transporting excess manure off their farms to other
farms or facilities that can use the product safely. Under the program, animal producers with
high soil phosphorus levels or farmers who have inadequate cropland to fully utilize their
manure may apply for grants to transport excess waste to other farms or alternative use
facilities that can use the product safely. Cost share grants up to $20/ton are available through
Maryland Agricultural Cost Share (MACS). Because of the state's good working relationship with
the burgeoning poultry industry centered in Maryland's Eastern Shore, poultry companies
provide 50 % of the cost to transport poultry litter. To support Maryland's goal of transporting
20% of the poultry litter produced on the Lower Eastern Shore to other areas of the state, cost
share mileage rates to transport poultry litter from Dorchester, Somerset, Wicomico or
Worcester counties to other areas of the state may be provided at higher rates. Farmers
interested in participating can either contact their local Soil and Water Conservation District or
call the state's toll free hotline at 1-877-7MANURE. This program is in addition to the traditional
MACS, which provides more than $16 million to implement farm-specific BMPs. See Chapter 6:
Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs for more information on how
Maryland leverages state funds.
Delaware's Nutrient Relocation Program provides financial reimbursement to farmers, brokers,
and trucking businesses for the transportation cost of relocating litter from a Delaware farm to
an alternative use project or another farm for land application. In 2010, the Nutrient Relocation
Program accounted for the transportation of 4.9 million pounds of total nitrogen and 3.7 million
pounds of phosphorus as phosphate out of Delaware's priority NPS watersheds. This program
would not exist without base 319 funding. In 2010, it was funded at $200,000 from federal base
319 grant and $100,000 from EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. This program accounts for the
largest nutrient load reductions reported nationally through EPA's Grants Reporting and
Tracking System (GRTS). This is one important example of cross-agency coordination between
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environment Control (DNREC), which manages
the state's NPS program, and Delaware Department of Agriculture, which both signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in 2000. Since then, EPA and Delaware's Nutrient Management
Commission have been working cooperatively to reduce nutrients from key agricultural sectors,
including the poultry industry, which is a dominant player in Delaware in terms of water quality.
Michigan - The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) is an
innovative and proactive program that helps farms of all sizes and all commodities voluntarily
prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risks. It is a collaborative partnership between
Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan's Environmental Assurance Advisory Council and
the agricultural community that reduces farmers' legal and environmental risks through
education, the completion of a farm-specific risk assessment, and an on-site verification that
66
-------
November 2011
ensures that the farmer has implemented the environmentally-sound practice. Farms that are
verified as meeting program standards can display signs announcing their MAEAP compliance.
Michigan also runs an MAEAP grant program that helps farmers protect the environment. The
program began in 1998 and was codified into law by Public Acts 1 and 2 of 2011. One of the new
laws establishes an MAEAP grants program for uses such as technical assistance, educational
programs, demonstration projects to implement conservation practices, and removal of
potential contamination sources. The program incentivizes comprehensive nutrient
management program planning and implementing agricultural BMPs. It is responsible for
reducing the amount of phosphorus from entering waterways by nearly 260,000 pounds each
year. It further enhanced water quality by encouraging the installation of approximately 4,300
acres of filter strips and the stabilization of about 1,000 gullies. Annually, an average of 5,000
Michigan farmers attend an educational session geared toward environmental stewardship and
MAEAP verification. To date, nearly 10,000 Michigan farms have started the verification process.
Nearly 1,000 Michigan farms have become MAEAP verified or have requested verification.
North Carolina base 319 funds are used to support two staff members who are directly involved
in addressing agriculture-related NPS issues:
o NPS Planning Coordinator assists Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) across
the state in helping to identify water quality needs specific to their individual counties.
This staff member holds training sessions and assists SWCDs in writing and developing
grants for an array of funding opportunities, including section 319 grants, Farm Bill
funds, the state's Clean Water Management Trust Fund (a grant program), and other
North Carolina-specific water quality-related funding sources,
o The Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Basin Coordinator facilitates nutrient load reductions from
agricultural operations to meet the regulatory goals established in the Neuse, Falls Lake
(when adopted) and Tar-Pamlico agricultural rules, including the development of
required annual agriculture reports for these basins. This NPS program staff member
works closely with USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), SWCDs, EPA,
and North Carolina NPS program.
The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) implements a couple of statewide
agricultural programs.
o TSSWCB used FY10 base 319 funding to support three Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD) technicians. These technicians provide technical assistance to livestock
operators in developing and implementing water quality management plans. These
efforts help promote the utilization of USDA Farm Bill funds in a manner that furthers
the mutual interests of the NPS program and NRCS in implementing projects and
activities that protect water quality (see Chapter 1: Base 319 Funding Summary for more
information).
o The TSSWCB also supports a Statewide Resource Management (SRM) Team, which
monitors and provides technical assistance to section 319 project cooperators. The SRM
Team coordinates with SWCDs to engage with landowners and works with agricultural
67
-------
November 2011
and silvicultural producers in targeted watersheds to develop and implement Water
Quality Management Plans.
Pennsylvania has various agricultural BMP cost share programs available for agricultural
producers: the state's Plan Development Incentives Program offers 75% cost share for plan
development ($1,500 max); the state's Plan Maintenance Program provides funding for annual
plan updates; the State's Plan Implementation Grant Program provides for installing
conservation practices on farms up to 80% cost share funding ($75,000 maximum per year per
farm) for farmers with a financial need. Pennsylvania also has an Alternative Manure Technology
Program, which provides funding for new technology installation on farms, as well as a Cover
Crop Program, which provides funding for cover crops to allow for fall applications on bare
fields. Pennsylvania's environmental financing agency, PennVEST, recently established and
facilitates a nutrient trading market. Currently in a nascent stage, the market has significant
potential once implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) kicks
in. PennVEST conducted its first auction in October 2010, which will result in the annual removal
of 21,000 pounds of nitrogen from the Susquehanna River watershed for the next three years at
a price of $3.04 per nitrogen credit. PennVEST conducted its second auction in November 2010,
which will result in the annual removal of 41,000 pounds of nitrogen from the Susquehanna
River watershed at a price of $2.75 per nitrogen credit.
Virginia has at least two notable agricultural initiatives:
o Virginia has used its Water Quality Improvement Fund in recent years to substantially
support agricultural BMP cost share statewide. For example, in 2010, within the
Chesapeake Bay basin, Virginia invested $7.3 million in priority agricultural BMPs in
priority watersheds, $1.8 million in agricultural BMPs in other watersheds, and $1.5
million to develop nutrient management plans for farms. Outside the Chesapeake Bay
basin, Virginia invested $4.9 million in priority agricultural BMPs in priority watersheds,
$1.2 million in agricultural BMPs in other watersheds, and $1.0 million to develop
nutrient management plans for farms,
o Virginia's Poultry Litter Transportation Incentive Program encourages transfers of
poultry waste by subsidizing transportation costs ($15/ton) out of the Chesapeake Bay
basin areas of heavy waste concentration (Page & Rockingham Counties) and into
croplands outside the Chesapeake Bay basin that need fertilizer, thus reducing nutrient
loads to the Chesapeake Bay. This is a new program within Virginia's NPS Management
Program that has supported up to $100,000/year from Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation and up to $100,000/year from the Virginia Poultry
Federation. It began with a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant in 2007 to fund a
poultry litter hotline and "market maker" position with the Shenandoah Resource
Conservation & Development Council.
Mississippi's Commission on Environmental Quality (MCEQ), the state NPS agency, provides
Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Committee with annual base 319 funds to implement
68
-------
November 2011
an Agricultural Implementation Assistance program. This program includes the following
activities: agriculture watershed projects; Basin Team meetings; 50 Conservation Carnivals per
year; annual conservation youth camp; two teacher workshops per year; outreach to all
conservation districts regarding the Clean Water State Revolving Fund; and conservation
education poster and essay contests in all conservation districts.
Alabama's NPS program supports two interagency staffing positions - Agricultural Water
Quality Protection Coordinator and Education and Outreach Specialist - between the Alabama
Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) and the Alabama Department of the
Environment (ADEM), the state nonpoint source agency. These positions provide an integral
partnering link between state and federal agricultural resource agencies (e.g., NRCS, Resource
Conservation and Development Councils, ADEM, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts) and
the agricultural community (e.g., landowners, land users, farmers, producers, etc.). The
Agricultural Water Quality Protection Coordinator maintains and populates the statewide NPS
watershed assessment database, participates in citizen advisory committees, coordinates
registrations for animal feeding operations (AFOs) and concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), provides voluntary complaint resolution assistance to ADEM, and offers agricultural
BMP expertise for watershed management plans and to the Alabama Clean Water Partnership.
An Education and Outreach Specialist promotes statewide public/private sector partnering
opportunities while delivering agricultural water quality protection and watershed management
activities to the state's 67 Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
Pennsylvania uses its "Growing Greener" state fund to fully support 66 county-based
conservation district watershed specialists (FTEs) across all counties with agriculture.
Pennsylvania also devotes nearly $4 million/year from its Conservation District Fund Allocation
Program to each conservation district to cover salaries for conservation district managers and to
provide administrative funding assistance to districts, to finance Commission mandated or
authorized activities, and to provide financial assistance for technical staff and programs of
districts.
Louisiana section 319 funds are used to support the Master Farmer Program, a statewide
collaboration between Louisiana Department of Forestry (LDAF), Louisiana Cooperative
Extension/Louisiana State (LSU) Agricultural Center, and NRCS. The program educates farmers
and landowners about water quality impact of agriculture, the state's programs to address
water quality and NPS pollution, and the role of BMPs in addressing agriculture-related water
quality issues. Thus far, over 3,000 farmers and landowners have participated in the program
and over 200 individuals have gained certification by implementing a comprehensive farm
management system. NPS program staff coordinate with LSU Agricultural Center and NRCS to
plan and present Master Farmer workshops.
Utah - In FY10 the Utah Department of Environmental Quality awarded $344,000 in state NPS
funds to the Utah Farm Bureau and the Utah Association of Conservation Districts to fund the
state's AFO Strategy Program, which has been in place since 2001. This program identifies
69
-------
November 2011
animal feeding operations that have a risk of discharging to waters of the state. The
organizations then work with these producers to develop nutrient management plans for their
farms and help them come into compliance with state water quality standards. In FY10, $44,000
went toward education of landowners, including publishing pamphlets and fliers and holding
producer workshops on rules and regulations associated with manure management.
North Dakota - North Dakota provides a significant amount of funding to North Dakota State
University for the Discovery Farms Project. The goal of the project is to establish a network of
working farms to evaluate the water quality impacts associated with animal feeding operations,
tile drainage, and common farming practices and, more importantly, measure the effectiveness
of BMPs applied to address those impacts. A Discovery Farm is a working farm or ranch
voluntarily cooperating with the project to demonstrate and evaluate the effectiveness of
various BMPs. A Discovery Farm is enrolled in the program for a minimum of five-six years to
ensure sufficient data collection to accurately evaluate the benefits and impacts of specific
BMP's. As the program evolves, more farms will be enrolled to address future water quality
issues that are identified. With this grass-roots focus, the results from each Discovery Farm will
have local application, as well as relevance to a broader range of the farm/ranch population.
North Dakota NPS program coordinator is a member of the Discovery Farm steering committee,
which provides guidance for the project. The project has the support of local organizations,
landowners and North Dakota agricultural trade associations. In addition, over a five-year
period, this project will leverage nearly $300,000 of other federal resources through the United
States Geological Survey's participation in the project.
The North Dakota Livestock Pollution Prevention Program (LP3) is funded by section 319 and
administered by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture. LP3 coordinates the
implementation of BMPs at discharging facilities by providing technical assistance and funding
for up to 60% of approved expenses. The project began in 2000 with a focus on dairies and
recently expanded to other animal sectors. The long-term goal of the project is preventing and
eliminating water quality impairments associated with the majority of medium and small animal
operations in the state. To date, more than 300 producers have participated in the program.
Iowa's NPS Program supports several statewide education and information activities for the
agricultural sector.
o Iowa launched the Iowa Learning Farm (ILF) in 2005 to foster conservation partnerships
across the state and develop innovative conservation practices. The ILF is a project of
the Iowa State University Cooperative Extension and it is supported through base 319
funding (more than $149,000 annually from FY08-10). Key ILF partners include: Iowa
State University (ISU), Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Iowa Water Center, conservation districts and
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation. As of 2010, farmers accounted for between 30-50
partners out of 100 total partners. A goal of the ILF is to create long-term continuity and
70
-------
November 2011
a "culture of conservation." Iowa's FY10 section 319 grant work plan provides, "In 2011,
the Iowa Learning Farm program will continue to focus on four main areas: 1) nurturing
of our farmer/non-farmer partners (including Soil and Water Conservation District
commissioners), 2) broad outreach efforts, including working with K-12 schools and
community colleges throughout the state, 3)one-on-one educational opportunities that
made the ILF project originally distinctive, and 4) evaluation which will continue to cover
all aspects of the ILF program, a critical component of feedback, and ensure the
messages fit the means, the audience and our goals."
o The Statewide Manure Management Education Initiative provides resources to
producers and service providers regarding management of manure nutrients. The
initiative provides useful resources that feed into other NPS agriculture programs in
Iowa, such as the Iowa Manure Management Action Group, the Small Feedlot Education
Project, ISU Extension's Manure and Nutrient Management Workshops, and the Iowa
Learning Farm and Conservation Station. The Water Quality Initiatives for Small Iowa
Beef and Dairy Feedlots provides guidance, training and other technical assistance to
small feedlot operators in geographic areas with high concentrations of small beef or
dairy operations, where water quality problems are severe, where local watershed
protection projects already exist, or where producer and public interest is high. Iowa
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) credits the programs described above with
creating a culture of conservation in the agriculture community. One reason these
programs are effective is that the state surveys the farmers and uses the feedback to
improve their targeting of outreach, trainings, etc.
Indiana has two new statewide agricultural initiatives:
o The Indiana Conservation Partnership (ICP) is "an innovative partnership dedicated to
land and water stewardship assistance that will improve the water quality of Indiana's
streams, rivers, and lakes." It is formalized through a signed ICP Agreement, affirmed by
eight parties on January 12, 2010. Indiana's NPS staff is heavily involved in working
cooperatively with multiple state agencies, the state's Soil Conservation Board,
Association of SWCDs, Purdue Cooperative Extension, FSA and the NRCS to achieve the
ICP objectives. The stated objectives are "to cooperatively promote programs that will:
reduce soil erosion and sedimentation into Indiana's streams, rivers and lakes; reduce
the runoff of nutrients and pesticides into Indiana's streams, rivers and lakes; and
improve the quality of the habitat of Indiana's streams, rivers and lakes." There are
seven active ICP work groups, including one to develop a dedicated funding source for
ICP initiatives. The ICP is a well-structured framework for achieving water quality and
strives to effectively partner with NRCS and others to deliver results in the agricultural
community.
o Indiana's On-Farm Network program was created in 2010 when the Indiana Department
of Agriculture was awarded a Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) by NRCS. Indiana's
On-Farm Network is an off-shoot of similar programs in Iowa and Chesapeake Bay
-------
November 2011
states. The On-Farm Network is a group of crop producers interested in economics,
stewardship, and reducing their environmental footprint. The end result is farmer-
driven adaptive management in real time - farmers gathering and making beneficial
changes based on data from their own fields and those of others. The farmers are in the
driver's seat, which significantly increases buy in to the results and willingness to make
long-term changes. Key tools include the cornstalk nitrate test (CSNT), aerial imagery,
and replicated strip trials. This is being funded with base 319 funds in FY2011 and
potentially beyond. The On-Farm Network encourages peer-to-peer networking among
farmers. The original focus is on reducing nitrogen loads to the Wabash River, an NPS
priority area with significant agricultural tile drainage issues. The goal is to change
practices to reduce nitrogen loads and saves farmers money, which is supported by
data.
o Indiana is also home to the Conservation Technology Information Center at Purdue
University, which is recognized as a national leader that provides and promotes
information on technologies and sustainable agricultural systems that conserve and
enhance soil, water, air and wildlife resources and are productive and profitable. It has
received previous support from section 319 base funds.
Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has supported Pesticide Stewardship
Partnerships (PSPs) across the state with section 319 funds since 1999. PSPs are aimed at
providing local in-stream pesticide water quality data (collected and interpreted by ODEQ) to
local and regional experts to inform the voluntary implementation of agricultural pesticide
management practices to improve water quality. The PSP approach's tracking of legacy and
current use pesticides has also contributed to the leveraging of USDA Agricultural Water
Enhancement Program (AWEP) funds in Zollner Creek, an area of intensive, diverse irrigated
agriculture in the Pudding River subbasin of the Willamette Basin. The NRCS-AWEP project
(approximately $1.5 million) is aimed at reducing water use and enhancing water quality
through improved irrigation practices, as well as implementing conservations practices to
reduce in-stream pesticide levels. This project was selected by USDA in part due to the strong
advocacy of ODEQ and direct involvement in the project review process. See Chapter 7:
Coordination with USDA for more information on leveraging of USDA funds.
Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) section 319-funded NPS program staff, as
required by the state's 2003 nutrient management laws (see Chapter 3: State Regulatory
Authorities to Control NPS Pollution for more information), support nutrient management
programs:
o Nutrient Applicator Certification Program - ANRC certifies and provides training to
nutrient applicators on the proper application of nutrients. The state requires ANRC
certification nutrient application in Nutrient Surplus Areas.
o Nutrient Management Planner Certification Program - ANRC trains and certifies persons
who prepare nutrient management plans.
72
-------
November 2011
Florida has Agricultural BMP Outreach Teams, which are supported by section 319 funding and
match from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and local Watershed
Management Districts, as well as in-kind support and supervision from the University of Florida.
The teams are an integral part of the state's agricultural NPS program and provide targeted one-
on-one outreach, education, and technical assistance to growers in prioritized watersheds on
successful selection and implementation of agricultural BMPs. Several teams are located in the
citrus and vegetable areas in the southern and central part of the state as well as in the
Suwannee River basin (see Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA for more information).
State Forestry Programs:
At least 15 state NPS programs (AL, AR, CA, GA, KY, LA, MT, NC, OK, OR, SC, TX, VA, WV, WY) support
Statewide Forestry Programs aimed at addressing NPS problems associated with forest harvesting
operations. At least ten of these states (AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, NC, OK, SC, VA, WV) provide section 319
funding to the state forestry agency to support NPS management of forestry activities. In many of these
states, the NPS agency works closely with the state Forestry Commission via a contract and/or
memorandum of agreement (MOU) to implement the NPS forestry program. Some of the common
programs/initiatives completed as part of these programs are:
Virginia Department of Forestry (VDOF) has a well staffed Water Quality Unit to perform
inspections of all logging operations greater than 10 acres and implement statewide initiatives
to protect water quality from forestry activities. Virginia has implemented a toll-free phone
number and online notification system to facilitate loggers to comply with the law (see Virginia's
Silvicultural Water Quality Act in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS
Pollution). Loggers can learn about and use Virginia's Pre-harvest Planning Mapper, a free and
handy online Geographic Information System (GIS) tool that "helps loggers prevent water
quality issues before they happen," and includes a feature that automates stream culvert sizing
recommendations. VDOF used CWA section 319 funds to develop and update Virginia's Forestry
Best Management Practices for Water Quality, which is now in its fifth edition. Since forestry
operations contribute more than $27 billion to Virginia's economy, the state has invested in a
robust education program called SHARP (Sustainable Harvesting and Resource Professionals)
through Virginia Tech to teach and certify loggers on how to protect water quality and operate
responsibly. Virginia incentivizes participation by offering a 50% BMP cost share, up to $2,000,
to certified SHARP loggers. The maximum cost share amount doubles to $4,000 if it includes a
portable steel bridge, which has proven superior to other types of stream crossings commonly
used in logging operations. The cost share program is supported by Virginia's Water Quality
Improvement Fund. To date, Virginia has trained more than 6,000 loggers in applying water
quality BMPs to their operations and inspected more than 6,000 harvesting operations.
Virginia's forestry program is well coordinated with the state's NPS program.
Louisiana's Statewide Forestry Educational Program is a coordinated effort between Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA), Louisiana
73
-------
November 2011
Office of Forestry, USDA- NRCS and USFS, and Louisiana State University. Over the past several
years, LFA and NRCS have worked on a series of workshops for loggers, foresters, and
landowners, which have provided information on erosion control methods and forestry BMPs.
More than 5,300 people have been trained on forestry BMPs and how they should be
implemented for timber management and harvesting. NPS program staff give presentations at
these workshops and coordinate with partner agencies in planning these workshops. As a result
of the educational program, BMP compliance has increased statewide from 56% to 95%.
The South Carolina NPS program provides a base 319 grant to the South Carolina Forestry
Commission to implement the Statewide Forestry BMP Compliance Program. The program
prevents NPS pollution through offering voluntary courtesy BMP exams to provide forest
landowners, foresters, and forestry operators with site-specific recommendations regarding
BMP implementation that can be included in timber sale contracts. A monthly summary report
of completed courtesy BMP exams is provided to the South Carolina NPS program and forest
industry. Additionally, BMP Specialists conduct BMP training throughout the state, including the
Timber Operating Professional (TOP Program) course, given in cooperation with the South
Carolina Forestry Association and Clemson University.
Wyoming 319 funding supported BMP forestry audits and training for the Wyoming State
Forestry Division and Wyoming Timber Industry Association (WTIA) in 2001, 2003 and 2006.
Funding through these years resulted in auditing processes to support development and
evaluation of effective forestry BMPs. In addition, the Forestry Division and WTIA have provided
BMP training sessions in the classroom and in the field to private, state, and federal timber
representatives to promote the use of effective BMPs. Grant funding in past years laid the
foundation for these efforts to continue. For example, in 2011, the State Forestry Division again
hosted a week-long forestry audit of several sites around the State with participation of 319-
funded staff from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Watershed Section.
Montana - NPS program staff actively participate in the Montana Forestry BMP Audit program.
This is a voluntary program established to audit forest practices that protect water quality on
both public and private forest lands.
Georgia NPS program lists "achieve 100% compliance of recommended BMPs for silviculture" as
one of its NPS program goals. The Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), which receives section
319 funding to implement the Silvicultural NPS Management Program, engages in BMP
education (including Master Timber Harvester Workshops), private landowner assistance,
forestry complaint investigation and mediation, and forestry BMP implementation monitoring.
GFC's program, which conducts a biennial silviculture BMP survey, noted a 2.4% increase (to
94.15%) in BMP implementation between 2007 and 2009. The GFC coordinates with the forestry
associations, forestry/natural resource universities, and the United States Forest Service (USFS),
who provides data for BMP Implementation and Compliance Surveys. The section 319 program
also funds a portable timber bridge demonstration project to show how bridges can be used to
74
-------
November 2011
provide ideal temporary stream crossings that protect water quality from NPS associated with
forestry operations.
Oregon's NPS program at ODEQ works with Oregon's Department of Forestry (ODF) under the
terms of an MOU to evaluate whether current forest practices rules comply with state water
quality standards and TMDL load allocations. In 2002, ODEQ and ODF co-authored a statewide
sufficiency analysis focused on evaluating the Forest Practices Act effectiveness in protecting
water quality, with a primary focus on temperature. This report included monitoring
recommendations, including the need to monitor effectiveness of riparian and forest road
management practices. As a result, ODF is currently conducting the Riparian Function and
Stream Temperature (RipStream) study to quantify the effects of current riparian management
practices on private and state forest lands. Since 2009, DEQ has provided section 319 grant
funds to ODF to continue analysis of RipStream data. This study will be used to evaluate and
revise riparian BMPs on private lands. ODEQ is also committed to implementing enforceable
TMDLs with required WQMP/implementation plans and BMPs to control logging impacts. See
Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution for more information.
In 2010, Kentucky Division of Forestry (KDOF) completed a section 319-funded Silvicultural Best
Management Practices Implementation Study aimed at determining: the rate at which forestry
BMPs are put to use within the state; the effectiveness of KDOF inspection and enforcement;
and how best to use the resulting study information to improve logger and inspector training
programs. Results from two statewide surveys identified areas for improvement in the timber
harvest compliance process, and KDOF inspector and supervisor training was developed to
address these areas.
West Virginia - All logging operations must have a state-certified professional logger on site at
all times. A requirement of certification is to complete training forestry BMPs. Certified loggers
must attend a training course every three years to maintain certification, and more than 1,000
loggers complete this training each year. The West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)
inspects all forestry operations for compliance with mandatory BMPS to protect water quality.
WVDOF developed the Best Management Practices for Controlling Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation from Logging Operations in West Virginia publication and distributed it to every
certified professional logger in the state. To help enforce its Logging Sediment Control Act, the
state is using FY10 base 319 funds to develop its Logging Operation, Notification, Inspection and
Enforcement (LONIE) tracking database system to improve and streamline enforcement of the
Logging Sediment Control Act. The LONIE system uses a database, a mapping API (such as
Google Maps), and a web-based interface that will provide improved service to land owners,
logging operators and WVDOF. This system, which is being developed by West Virginia
University's Appalachian Hardwood Center, is easily expandable to provide future benefits and
water quality protections tailored to specific logging sites.
75
-------
November 2011
State Urban NPS/Post-Construction Development Programs
Urban NPS pollution has been a key category of the national NPS program since its inception. Overtime,
a portion of urban NPS pollution has been regulated nationally under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) for U.S. Census-
designated urbanized areas (generally, any area with a population of at least 50,000 and an overall
population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile) under EPA's Phase 1 and Phase 2
Stormwater Rules.5 EPA's NPS program has long taken a leadership role in controlling urban runoff and
brought significant financial support and national attention to the practice of Low Impact Development
(LID). LID and related tools (e.g., Better Site Design, Green Infrastructure, and Smart Growth) remain
central to controlling urban runoff, both within the roughly 1750 regulated MS4s and the large number
of unregulated urban and urbanizing places. Importantly, activities that directly implement regulatory
components of the national NPDES Stormwater regulations are not eligible to receive any section 319
funding, although activities that indirectly support the regulatory components are eligible for section
319 funding. A number of states have programs and initiatives in place to promote LID and other tools
for systematically controlling urban NPS pollution. For many states, these efforts support the state's
own regulatory efforts, which are described in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS
Pollution.
New York NPS program works with SWCDs to train interested parties in stormwater concepts,
rules, and regulations. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) developed a 4-
hour course titled "Protecting New York's Natural Resources with Better Construction Site
Management" for delivery through county SWCDs across the state. During FY09-10, SWCDs held
these four-hour training events across the state. Over 10,000 contractors and inspectors have
completed training. NYSDEC also worked with the NYS Builders' Association to produce an on-
line version of the four-hour course, which trained 220 contractors during FY09-10.
Florida NPS Program's award-winning Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program is a partnership
between the University of Florida and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
NPS program to develop quality landscapes that conserve water, protect water quality, are
adaptable to local conditions, and are drought tolerant. The program, which has been integrated
in 52 of Florida's 67 counties, consists of three sub-programs (see Chapter 3: State Regulatory
Authorities to Control NPS Pollution for more information):
o Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Homeowner Program, which educates homeowners
about how to design, install, and maintain Florida-Friendly landscapes;
o Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Builder and Developer Program, which educates
builders and developers, landscape architects, homeowner associations, and property
managers; and
o Green Industries: Best Management Practices Program, which trains and certifies
landscape professionals.
5 See www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater for more information on the point source stormwater program.
76
-------
November 2011
Massachusetts NPS program provides section 319 funding for the Massachusetts Stormwater
Technology Evaluation Project (MASTEP), which is administered by University of Massachusetts
- Amherst. This project provides a clearinghouse of innovative stormwater BMPs for users (i.e.,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, conservation commissions, local
officials and developers) throughout the state. The project's objective is to assist communities
with selection of technologies that have the greatest potential to achieve water quality goals.
The project website provides a searchable database, additional information about stormwater
technologies and a data entry feature for users who want to share information about BMPs. Any
information entered on the site by a registered user is screened by MASTEP according to verified
studies.
New Hampshire's NPS program provides section 319 funding for outreach and education
activities of the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. Activities include LID
demonstration projects, tours, and trainings, all targeted at developers, consultants,
municipalities and watershed organizations. The NPS program has also been involved in the
development of the New Hampshire Homeowner's Guide to Stormwater Management, the New
Hampshire Residential Loading Model and the New Hampshire Stormwater Manual. Results of
these efforts include increased understanding of LID practices among practitioners, increased
capacity of stormwater management expertise throughout the state, scientific advancement,
and incentivizing wider adoption of LID practices through integration into section 319 grant
criteria.
Decentralized Sewage Systems:
Approximately 20% of households nationwide are served by septic systems and alternative individual
on-site and cluster (decentralized) wastewater systems and the number of these decentralized
wastewater treatment systems (DWTS) continues to grow. These systems are viable and can be
managed in ways that minimize impacts on the environment. However, EPA estimates that 10-20% of
existing DWTS are malfunctioning at any given time. Even properly functioning conventional septic
systems contribute excess nitrogen to the environment. EPA actively promotes proper septic system
design, operation and maintenance, as well as nitrogen-reducing DWTS where needed. Many state NPS
programs provide support for this important subject. Two examples are provided here:
Massachusetts - The Massachusetts Septic System Test Center (MASSTC) serves as a resource
for quality third-party performance information regarding advanced onsite septic system
technologies. In addition, the existence of the MASSTC promotes the trial of new technologies
to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater. This continuing project supports the
state's TMDL program by providing environmental decision makers with the tools to achieve the
goals of the TMDL and the Massachusetts estuaries programs, especially where wastewater is a
major source of pollutant loading. The MASSTC endeavors to investigate three areas of concern
identified by Massachusetts DEP personnel and wastewater planners: (1) pharmaceutical and
personal care product (PPCP) treatment in onsite septic systems; (2) the effects of septic system
77
-------
November 2011
remediation technologies on the overall treatment ability of septic systems; and (3) a continued
assessment of nutrient removal technologies and their applicability in comprehensive
wastewater/nutrient management plans.
In 2010, New York NPS program funded the Onsite Training Network (OTN), a training program
for homeowners, design engineers, contractors, and municipal officials on the proper design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems. OTN
coordinated its efforts with watershed protection programs for high quality waters. OTN helped
with the installation of advanced treatment systems for homes located within 100 feet of waters
and with the development of inspection and pump-out programs for these watersheds.
Capacity Building Programs:
For many NPS projects to be successful there must be sufficient expertise, funding and desire at the
local level. One key role of base 319 funding is building capacity at the local level to more effectively and
efficiently achieve water quality results. State capacity building programs may be part of the state's NPS
education and outreach efforts, involve technical assistance, such as training programs, or provide tools
or information resources that support watershed-based water quality efforts. Several examples of
statewide efforts specifically designed to increase local capacity for NPS projects are provided below.
Many statewide programs described elsewhere in this chapter of the report, including outreach, training
and volunteer monitoring, also result in greater local capacity for watershed planning and
implementation.
Indiana - The Indiana Watershed Leadership Academy was created in 2005 to increase the
capacity of watershed leaders to lead community-based watershed groups to manage
watersheds and improve water quality. The academy works in collaboration with numerous
conservation partners throughout the state and is offered through Purdue University under the
leadership of Dr. Jane Frankenberger. It is supported by base section 319 funds to increase
creation and implementation of nine-element watershed-based plans. Since the Academy
began, nearly 200 people have participated in the Academy, through which they have learned
skills in organization and communication, watershed technology, GIS, policy, watershed science,
and leadership. The Academy has been instrumental in developing viable watershed groups to
develop nine-element watershed plans that, in turn, attract incremental 319 funded projects in
priority watersheds.
Utah has developed a framework for local watershed steering committees and local watershed
coordinators that results in increased local capacity for watershed planning and implementation
and improved relationships with key partners. NPS program staff at Utah Department of
Environmental Quality/Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and Utah Department of Agriculture
and Food work closely with existing watershed organizations, conservation district boards and
others at the local level to establish watershed steering committees. The steering committees
are the primary planning entities in watersheds across the state. In most cases, the salaries of
78
-------
November 2011
local watershed coordinators are paid through section 319-funded contracts. This geographically
focused approach to local coordination is designed to reduce or eliminate redundancy in
program activities. The Utah FY09 Annual Report included the follow status update:
"Approximately 24 local watershed committees are organized and functioning with DWQ in the
development and implementation of TMDLs. Local chairs and sponsors vary, including counties,
Conservation Districts and Water Districts."
West Virginia's legislature established the state's Stream Partners Program (SPP) in 1996 as a
cooperative effort of WV Conservation Agency, WV Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP)/Division of Water and Waste Management, WV Department of Forestry and WV
Department of Natural Resources. WVDEP makes seed grants up to $5,000 for stream
stewardship capacity building. The legislature appropriates $100,000 annually from general
revenue funds to be distributed as $5,000 seed grants to these organizations to complete
watershed improvement projects. These grants are awarded with the approval of all four state
agency directors. Also, the state provides base 319 funds to support the West Virginia
Watershed Network, an informal association of state and federal agencies and nonprofit groups
committed to providing resources and support for watershed management across the state. As
a result of these investments, West Virginia has built up a base of watershed groups and
stakeholders capable of leading restoration efforts and providing matching funds for section
319-funded implementation projects.
Illinois uses base 319 funds and state funds appropriated to Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IL EPA) to develop and conduct a series of workshops designed to build the capacity of
state watershed groups to create and implement effective watershed plans. For this effort, IL
EPA selected to work through a partnership between a well-established grassroots advocacy
group, Prairie Rivers Network, and the Illinois Lake Management Association. This team
crisscrossed the state holding workshops on many aspects of watershed planning. The
workshops, held from February 2009 to March 2011, addressed a range of topics such as
building partnerships, collecting watershed data, securing funding, and how to develop a third-
party TMDL. Six topics in all were selected based on a 2008 survey of the needs of local
watershed groups statewide conducted by the Prairie Rivers Network. The state's NPS program
invested in the Prairie Rivers Network because of the Network proven ability as an incubator of
local watershed groups across Illinois. The Network continues to innovate through effective use
of social media (e.g., blogging, Facebook, Twitter) to bring about positive environmental change.
In 2011, the Maine NPS program developed a new tool called the NPS Site Tracker in order to
enhance the effectiveness of watershed surveys. Many successful NPS protection and
restoration projects in Maine begin with either a lake watershed survey or stream watershed
survey. Watershed surveys are conducted at the local level, often by volunteers, and identify
sources of NPS pollution and solutions for addressing these sources. Part of the process involves
surveyors walking the watershed and documenting NPS sites, such as a site where erosion is
contributing to a sediment impairment. The new NPS Site Tracker is an easy-to-use tool to assist
79
-------
November 2011
local watershed groups with long-term watershed survey development and follow-up actions.
The NPS Site Tracker will make the NPS program in Maine more efficient and effective by
allowing watershed groups to better track their past efforts and target future efforts, including
monitoring, BMP implementation and BMP maintenance. This tool addresses the relationship
between quality tracking and quality local watershed work and extends the useful life of a single
section 319-funded watershed survey.
Through the Vermont Rivers Management Program, section 319-funded Department of
Environmental Conservation staff oversee the collection and analysis of stream geomorphic data
and an online database. The program's website provides "The objective is to guide and
encourage projects that provide increased property and infrastructure protection and maintain
or restore the ecological functions and economic values of the river system"
(http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers.htm). The program provides regulatory review
and technical assistance for protection, management and restoration projects that affect
streams and rivers. The online database includes data associated with impaired waters
restoration projects, stream alterations and healthy watersheds protection projects. In addition
to maintenance of the database in support of water quality projects, the program also increases
local capacity and inter-state consistency through training and skills transfer.
Education/Outreach and Training Programs:
While it is likely that all states engage in education and outreach efforts to promote awareness of NPS
issues and actions to control NPS pollution, a smaller number of states prioritize education and outreach
efforts to strive for large scale behavior change that can lead to wholesale reductions in NPS pollution.
At least 13 state NPS programs (AK, CT, FL, HI, IA, KS, LA, ME, NM, NV, SC, TX, UT) prioritize NPS
education/outreach statewide and aim for behavior change that can make a difference broadly.
Examples include:
Florida's NPS program partners with the University of Central Florida's (UCF) Stormwater
Management Academy and other cooperating organizations to implement statewide pollution
prevention education programs. This base 319-funded project implements and evaluates a
number of targeted education and outreach programs that reduce individuals' contributions to
NPS pollution. The Stop Pointless Personal Pollution Stormwater Education Toolkit, for example,
includes a number of resources including: the Stormwater Management Academy's website, a
quarterly Florida Stormwater Education newsletter, the Florida Stormwater Education Toolkit -
a Web-based resource library of social marketing research tools with a repository of NPS
outreach materials. The Academy tests and assesses the effectiveness of pollution education
slogans and programs through marketing research. This statewide education program also
informs and publicizes the Florida-Friendly Landscaping Program, which is aimed at reducing
NPS impacts from lawns.
o The City of Tallahassee's "Think About Personal Pollution" (TAPP) campaign, which has
been supported by a series of section 319 grants, uses a variety of means (billboards,
80
-------
November 2011
radio, television, online newspaper, www.tappwater.org. publications, etc.) to make
citizens aware of personal sources of pollution. The campaign has used pre- and post-
campaign surveys to evaluate effectiveness. The most recent post-campaign survey
documented that there was an increase in specific actions taken to reduce yard runoff
six months after the campaign, including: a 29% increase in households who picked up
their pet's waste; a 10% increase in the number of households who skipped a fertilizer
application they would have otherwise taken, and; an 18% increase in the use of
phosphorus-free fertilizers among households that still applied fertilizer.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ) uses base 319 funds to develop its
statewide "Be the Solution" NPS education campaign. The campaign conveys the "Be the
Solution" message via educational billboards, a website, and TV and radio public service
announcements (PSAs) which were aired across the state. LDEQ's "Be the Solution" television
PSA is available at www.digitalfx.tv/reels/be-the-solution (free Adobe Flash Player plug-in
required).
New Mexico's NPS program uses section 319 funds to host a biennial Watershed Forum for
existing and future watershed groups to exchange ideas, learn how to prepare watershed-based
plans, and discuss other tasks associated with maintaining a watershed group. The 2010
Watershed Forum had approximately 250 registered attendees, including watershed restoration
specialists, watershed planners, watershed groups, educators, federal, state and tribal agency
representatives, and concerned citizens. The state NPS program values the Forum as an
opportunity to strengthen professional relationships and discuss future collaborative
opportunities with NPS stakeholders.
Texas NPS program implements a "triple-option" approach to educate NPS stakeholders on
watershed planning:
1) As Texas initiates the development of a watershed-based plan, the Texas State Soil and
Water Conservation Board's (TSSWCB) Texas Watershed Steward Program (which is
funded, in part, by section 319 funds) hosts a day-long, watershed-specific public
outreach event to train attendees about NPS and watershed planning.
2) The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) utilizes section 319 funds to
conduct an annual Watershed Planning Short Course (WPSC). The course provides tools,
training, and coordination opportunities for watershed planners and coordinators
throughout Texas to ensure consistent, high quality watershed-based plans are
developed, and implementation and water quality improvements are achieved and
sustained. The Texas Water Resources Institute, with assistance from the Project Team,
identifies key speakers for the course, makes arrangements for facilities, advertises the
WPSC, conducts registration, and facilitates the delivery of each WPSC to a total of 80-
120 water resource professionals in Texas and other states in the surrounding region.
Past WPSCs have included federal, state, local officials, and consultants.
81
-------
November 2011
3) TCEQ uses section 319 funds to organize and facilitate two Watershed Coordinator
Roundtables a year. These face-to-face Roundtables build upon the fundamental
knowledge conveyed through the WPSC and establish a continuing dialogue between
watershed coordinators in order to facilitate interactive solutions to common issues
being faced by watershed coordinators statewide. This "triple-option" approach
engages multiple stakeholders in learning about, developing, and implementing
watershed-base d plans.
Maine - Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) and its partners increasingly
apply social marketing principles to design statewide and watershed level outreach actions
engaging target audiences to take action to reduce polluted runoff. DEP applied the Logic Model
& McKenzie-Mohr Behavior change matrix to analyze the issues, audiences, solutions, etc to
develop more cost-effective outreach to accomplish specific objectives.6 The award-winning
Think Blue Maine partnership aims to solve "people pollution" by changing human behaviors
throughout the community in neighborhoods, business and municipal services. The Think Blue
Maine partnership is comprised of the 28 regulated stormwater municipalities, nested regulated
entities, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, State Planning Office, MDEP, and the University
of Maine Cooperative Extension. Partnership members work together to address water quality
issues throughout the state and in four local clusters. Partnerships and collaboration across
programs and agencies have increased due to DEP's leadership in the use of social
marketing/strategic methods to design and implement NPS outreach. In addition to Think Blue,
MDEP's approach to outreach has benefitted other NPS programs including LakeSmart,
YardScaping, University of Maine Cooperative Extension Watershed Stewards Program, and the
New England Cooperative Extension lawn care project. DEP has used phone surveys & focus
groups to become better informed and evaluate outreach effectiveness. MDEP's Unpaved
Private Road pilot project is the result of applying the logic model/social marketing to an old
outreach effort to evaluate the impact the different outreach tools have on prompting people to
use BMPs.
Connecticut NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) is an award-winning statewide
natural resources outreach effort that was created in 1991 to address water quality issues in
Long Island Sound and has since expanded across the state and spurred 30 other state NEMO
programs and the National NEMO Network. NEMO provides NPS educational information to
municipalities, organizations, agencies and citizens. Funding from Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CT DEP) through the section 319 program from the 1990s through
2007 has allowed CT NEMO to flourish. Recent NEMO activities include:
o Developing a statewide database of Low Impact Development (LID) practices and LID
workshops for contractors and installers.
6 Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-based Social Marketing by Doug McKenzie-Mohr,
William Smith, 1999; New Society Publishers; see also, www.toolsofchange.com and www.cbsm.com.
82
-------
November 2011
o A targeted Municipal Initiative to support CT DEP's TMDL program, including outreach,
education and technical support for municipalities implement TMDLs for waterbodies in
their jurisdiction.
o Developing an LID training program that targets communities that have been involved in
watershed-based plan for TMDL implementation with the goal of helping towns
implement LID practices in their plans and regulations,
o Developing a bioretention training program that will target homeowners and utilize
existing resources such as the NEMO publication, "Rain Gardens in Connecticut: a
Design Guide for Homeowners."
Hawaii - Each section 319-funded project also includes an outreach component to help raise
awareness and change behavior relative to polluted runoff. Hawaii also uses base funds for
several projects that primarily focus on NPS outreach each year with the goal of achieving
behavior change. Hawaii has a long tradition of working with school children to instill an ethic to
prevent NPS pollution through personal commitment. Examples include investments with the
Youth Conservation Corps, the Hawaii Watershed Experience (for elementary education
students), fairs, expos and school plays. Hawaii dedicates one full-time position to outreach,
which is funded by its base 319 grant.
Nevada has a multi-pronged outreach and education program supported by base and
incremental 319 funds. Base funds have provided consistent support for Nevada's NEMO
program. Nevada NEMO helps communities protect their natural resources while still
accommodating growth through NPS education of land use decision makers. Nevada NEMO is
designed to address issues related to water quality or quantity statewide. Nevada NEMO also
provided the state with its first set of nine-element watershed-based plans, which is now being
followed up with more specific nine-element plans at a more refined watershed level. Nevada
also provides regular support for annual watershed fairs and K-12 educational programs such as
Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) with base 319 funds. Significantly, Nevada also
requires every funded incremental 319 project to include an educational or public outreach
component (often provided through grant match). This required component is scored separately
through Nevada's section 319 project solicitation and award process, which favors urban and
riparian projects located in priority watersheds that have educational longevity and involve key
stakeholders. Effectiveness monitoring is a required component of many of the outreach
programs and projects supported by section 319 funds.
Utah - Every year since FY06 the State of Utah has provided roughly a $35,000 section 319 grant
to Utah State University to fund its statewide information and education effort. This includes
oversight of volunteer monitoring, educational workshops and publications of NPS documents
such as a BMP Monitoring Manual, and watershed implementation fact sheets. In addition,
Utah's NPS program has funded one FTE in the Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) to
support a state education and outreach specialist. This position has produced newsletters, water
quality conferences, and videos, public service announcements and other water quality
83
-------
November 2011
outreach materials using social marketing techniques, which are geared toward achieving
behavior change. In 2007, UDAF released the section 319-funded guidebook Getting Your Feet
Wet with Social Marketing: A Social Marketing Guide for Watershed Programs, which has since
received national recognition and influenced NPS outreach efforts in other states.
Volunteer Monitoring Networks:
At least five states (OR, WV, ME, MT) implement volunteer water quality monitoring programs. In
addition to educating a broad public audience about NPS pollution and water quality, these networks
provide state NPS programs with a valuable source of water quality information that furthers watershed
planning and implementation efforts and/or aids prioritization of funding for NPS program activities.
Among these programs, some use the water quality data to better inform state NPS program decisions.
Some of the more robust state-supported volunteer monitoring networks also serve to increase
stakeholder involvement and capacity of local partners to help implement state NPS programs.
Oklahoma's Blue Thumb Education Program is a statewide NPS education program, which
engages volunteer citizens to conduct monthly monitoring at more than 100 sites statewide.
Blue Thumb participants take part in public education, groundwater screening, stream
monitoring, and other water quality-related activities. Volunteers attend quarterly quality
assurance checks to assure data collected is of acceptable quality to the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission. Blue Thumb also directs and implementation public education and outreach in
priority watershed project areas. The Blue Thumb Program reaches thousands of Oklahoma
citizens each year through water quality and NPS pollution education activities and thus builds
capacity and stakeholder involvement.
West Virginia's Save Our Streams (WV SOS) is a network of voluntary monitors. The statewide
program coordinator for WV SOS is funded by base 319 funds. An MOU between WV SOS and
WVDEP sets the terms for support for certified volunteer monitoring groups and WV SOS. First
and foremost, WV SOS is a statewide capacity-building effort that collects water quality data
and promotes statewide water quality awareness through workshops, demonstrations,
presentations, and other means. The program reaches schools, businesses and community
leaders, volunteer organizations, and citizens. The program's objective is to encourage volunteer
monitors to adopt sections of their local streams, thus taking responsibility for their protection
and preservation through their monitoring and other outreach activities. Volunteer monitors
often participate in meetings to develop watershed-based plans or TMDLs. First and foremost
the data is used by the volunteer groups themselves. Volunteer monitors determine baseline
conditions and often conduct long-term monitoring programs for trend analysis. Some high
quality volunteer data is also used in WVDEP's Integrated Report.
Maine has one of the oldest volunteer monitoring programs in the country, with its lakes
monitoring program of 40 years. The state attributes much of the program's success to
consistent base 319 funding over the years. The fact that Maine DEP, watershed groups and
84
-------
November 2011
conservation districts all have access to long-term data increases capacity for identifying water
quality issues that need to be addressed, including impaired, threatened and healthy waters.
DEP relies on this data for the first step in determining which waters to list as impaired. The
program is wide-reaching. For example, in 2010, samples were collected from over 42% of
Maine's total lake surface area. In addition, this program has been credited with allowing the
state and local experts to protect healthy lakes from invasive species. The state expanded
volunteer monitoring efforts four years ago with the creation of the volunteer monitoring
program for rivers.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources supports the Missouri Stream Teams, a network of
citizens involved in stream conservation, and the Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program
(VWQMP). This program increases capacity at the local level through public education efforts
and brings together public and private resources to implement water quality solutions. Program
offerings include training and equipment for water quality monitoring, educational workshops,
supplies for litter pick-ups, trees for riparian corridor restoration, and networking of citizens
within a watershed. Volunteers often work in conjunction with section 319-funded projects,
thereby increasing the resources available to an implementation project. This is a successful and
growing program in Missouri, currently with over 3700 stream teams, 1700 trained water
quality monitors and 55,000 citizens served by the program. In FY09 alone 218 new stream
teams were formed. Two state agencies, the Department of Conservation and the Department
of Natural Resources, and the Conservation Federation of Missouri jointly sponsor these
programs.
The Montana Voluntary Monitoring Partnership is managed by Montana State University (MSU)
with support from a section 319 grant. Additionally, NPS program staff at DEQ provide training
and arrange financial support for volunteer monitoring efforts across the state. The partnership
assists Montana DEQ with efforts to achieve water quality standards by providing resources and
technical assistance at the local level. The Voluntary Monitoring Partnership helps local groups
with project development, implementation and tracking. Montana has established a tiered
approach to watershed group certification: level 1 is not technical; level 2 includes instruction
on what to look for and proper protocol; and level 3 covers developing and implementing a
sample analysis. The monitoring data are entered into STORET and/or the MSU database.
Miscellaneous Statewide Initiatives
States engage in a broad variety of statewide initiatives that are customized for a particular state NPS
emphasis. A couple of representative statewide initiatives that fall outside of the bounds of the
categories captured earlier in this chapter are described briefly here.
Kansas NPS program staff work with the Kansas Water Office on implementation of the recently
established "Reservoir Sustainability Initiative" and "Reservoir Roadmap," State Water Plan
initiatives intended to protect and restore the state's federal reservoirs that provide public
85
-------
November 2011
water supply storage. There are 13 reservoirs that contain state owned storage for municipal
and industrial water supply as well as other reservoirs with non-state owned public water supply
storage. These reservoirs provide drinking water for two-thirds of Kansas residents and many
are experiencing sediment-related problems. The initiative covers a broad range of strategies,
including watershed restoration and protection activities in the drainage area above these
reservoirs. It is credited with improving efforts in Kansas to reduce sediment loads to federal
reservoirs and improving the quality and quantity of drinking water supplies. Additional
information on the Reservoir Sustainability Initiative and Reservoir Roadmap is available on the
Kansas Water Office website at: www.kwo.org/reservoirs/Reservoirs.htm.
New Hampshire - In 2009, the state's NPS program staff launched the BMP implementation
tracking initiative. Through this initiative staff employ a systematic approach for site inspections
of BMPs implemented with section 319 funds with the goal of assessing the condition of the
BMP and any maintenance requirements. This initiative and the associated BMP inspections
have provided information that the NPS program utilizes to inform future BMP funding decisions
and develop BMP operation and maintenance requirements for section 319 grantees. To date,
NPS staff have completed inspections of approximately 266 BMPs, which have prompted
improved operation and maintenance resulting in improved water quality performance.
86
-------
November 2011
Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships (including MOAs/MOUs)
State nonpoint source (NPS) programs coordinate with other local, state, and/or federal agencies
through interagency partnerships and more formal memoranda of agreement/understanding
(MOA/MOU). While state NPS programs rely on interagency agreements to accomplish an array of NPS
program goals, this study found that, nationally, most NPS-related agreements address the following
areas: federally administered national forests and public lands, agriculture, water quality monitoring,
and decentralized wastewater treatment systems.
The information in this chapter is summarized from a number of sources; including state NPS program
management plans, grant work plans, annual program reports, MOA/MOU documents, state NPS
program websites, and correspondence with EPA regional and state NPS program staff.
Federally Administered National Forests and Public Lands
At least 18 state NPS programs (AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, GA, ID, KY, MS, MT, NM, OR, SD, TX, UT, WA, WY)
have MOUs with federal agencies related to forestry and/or water quality management on federal lands.
All of these MOUs involve the United States Forest Service (USFS). Additionally, at least seven states (AZ,
CO, ID, NM, NV, OR, UT) have federal MOUs with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Examples
include:
Montana - Montana DEQ has MOUs with USFS and BLM related to NPS program implementation
and ensuring federal consistency. DEQ relies in part on MOUs to clearly articulate desired outcomes,
specify mechanisms for communication between agencies, and formalize and strengthen
relationships.
o A 2008 MOU between Montana DEQ and USFS was developed consistent with the Montana
NPS Management Plan "to foster interagency cooperation that will result in greater
efficiency and quicker restoration of impaired waters and will help implement projects that
will substantially achieve water quality standards for beneficial uses in waters on federal
and State lands." In Montana, the Forest Service manages approximately 17 million acres,
which include 32,000 miles of road, and 37,850 miles of streams. Some waterbodies on NFS
lands do not meet state water quality standards. Therefore, a key function of the MOU is to
outline how TMDL development and implementation will be accomplished on Forest Service
lands, with an emphasis on strong partnerships,
o Montana DEQ also has an updated MOU with BLM regarding "water quality management on
BLM lands in Montana," which was signed in 2010. Specific objectives of the MOU are to: (1)
strengthen the cooperation between the DEQ and BLM to reduce NPS pollution from BLM
managed lands and authorized activities; (2) develop, extend, and sustain partnerships that
support the purpose of this MOU; (3) extend and sustain the BLM's participation in TMDL
development and water quality restoration efforts in watersheds affected by BLM
authorized activities; (4) implement a watershed restoration program that emphasizes
87
-------
November 2011
reducing water quality impacts by addressing the sources and causes of NPS pollution,
including restoring both the hydrologic and riparian functions within the watershed; (5)
ensure adequate data exist to assess water quality and to evaluate restoration activities;
and (6) to the extent possible, work together to utilize the strengths of both agencies to
improve water quality.
Oregon - About 46% of Oregon's land base and about 60% of all forestlands in Oregon are federal
lands that are managed by the US Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
In 2002 and 2003, the Oregon DEQ, the USFS, and the BLM outlined a process to work in a proactive,
collaborative, and adaptive manner to meet state and federal water quality rules and regulations.
These memoranda require that a 5-year progress review and report on the implementation and
effectiveness of the BLM MOA and the USFS MOU with DEQ be prepared and used as the basis for
change to future agreements. On USFS and BLM lands throughout Oregon, from 2003 to 2007, over
$80.3 million dollars was spent on active restoration. Over 1,600 miles of road have been improved,
484 miles have been decommissioned, riparian treatment was completed on 452 miles or
approximately 25,000 acres, upland areas have had approximately 32,000 acres treated through
various methods including slope stabilization, revegetation, and silvicultural treatments, or livestock
exclusion fencing and freshwater and coastal wetland restoration occurred on 4,807 and 1,500 acres
(see Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs for more
information). ODEQ's MOU with BLM was revised and renewed in April 2011. ODEQ is currently
working with USFS to update and renew its MOU.
Washington - In 2000 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) reached a landmark agreement to repair, maintain, and close federal forest roads to better
protect water quality. National Forests that are within the State of Washington include Olympic,
Gifford Pinchot, Mount Baker- Snoqualmie, Wenatchee, Okanogan, Colville, and Umatilla. The
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is aimed at improving water quality for people and fish. Forest
roads are the most significant contributor to water quality degradation in the forests, which is why
the most significant element of the agreement is an aggressive commitment to a road maintenance
schedule that mirrors the requirements of the state's 1999 Forests and Fish legislation.
Utah DEQ has a 2009 MOU with federal and state land management agencies (Utah Forestry, Utah
Agriculture, USFS, BLM and the National Park Service), to coordinate state and federal activities for
NPS water quality protection and monitoring. The MOU provides specific responsibilities of each
signatory agency. DEQ oversees implementation of the MOU, in part through annual tours, annual
program coordination meeting and quarterly task force meetings.
Wyoming - Wyoming DEQ and USFS have a 2005 MOU that provides the framework for federal
consistency and program coordination efforts between the NPS program and USFS. The MOU covers
monitoring, BMP selection, periodic meetings, etc. (WDEQ and USFS are in the process of updating
the MOU.) WDEQ NPS program staff indicate that the language in the 2005 MOU is being followed
and accurately describes the coordination between DEQ and USFS.
88
-------
November 2011
Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has an MOU between the US Forest Service
which was updated in 2008. The USFS manages more than 11 million acres in Arizona and one
purpose of the MOU is "to foster a collaborative effort in implementing a watershed approach to
restore those watersheds not meeting clean water, natural resource, and public health goals and to
sustain healthy conditions in other watersheds." The MOU contains very specific language about
incorporating Arizona's NPS Management Program Plan goals into USFS program planning and
budgeting, cooperating on TMDLs, and working together to implement site-specific BMPs on Forest
Service lands. ADEQ and Arizona Department of Agriculture also share a very general MOU with 20
state and federal agencies on "coordinated resources management" signed in 1998. Signatories
include BLM, USFS, USFWS, BOR, National Park Service, US EPA, USDA FSA and NRCS, among others.
The MOU establishes an interagency executive group, a task group, field groups, and special working
groups. ADEQ's NPS program is currently working to update agreements with USFS, BLM, AZ Fish
and Game Department and AZ State Lands Department to better reflect updated priorities in its new
NPS Management Program Plan. Finally, ADEQ has a separate MOU with the National Park Service
from 1992 that establishes a framework for cooperation on investigations of environmental
problems, including water quality investigations.
Nevada - The U.S. Bureau of Land Management administers just over two-thirds of Nevada's land
base (47.9 million acres). In 2009, Nevada DEP renewed an MOU with BLM for "Water Quality
Management Activities." In the 5-year MOU signed in 2004, the parties pledged to "identify the
responsibilities and activities to be performed by each agency in carrying out water quality and NPS
pollution control programs as related to activities on BLM lands" and "to coordinate efforts to
facilitate development of complementary NPS control and abatement programs." The parties
agreed to meet at least annually and to form an interagency work group "to develop a policies and
procedures guidance document." BLM has been a key partner in funding restoration projects for
Lake Tahoe in particular, through sales of public lands in Clark County around Las Vegas. The U.S.
Forest Service manages more than 8% (roughly six million acres) of Nevada's lands as protected
national forests. NDEP renewed its MOU with the USFS "to prevent, mitigate and control NPS
pollution on National Forest System lands within the State of Nevada through development of
mutual priorities, improved communication and collaboration, and leveraging of resources and
information." NDEP describes its relationship with USFS as effective on a project-specific level.
At least 15 state NPS programs (AL, AR, CA, FL, GA, KS, LA, MS, NC, OR, SC, TN, TX, UT, WA) have
partnership agreements or MOUs with the state forestry commission, state department of forestry, or a
similar state agency responsible for statewide forestry operations. Most of these agreements address
coordination of BMP implementation, BMP compliance monitoring, and/or water quality management
on state forest lands. Examples include:
Oregon DEQ has an MOU with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), which outlines
management activities on private and state-owned lands. DEQ staff actively implements TMDLs by
working with ODF, for implementation on state and private forestlands, through the Oregon Forest
Practices Act and long-range management plans.
89
-------
November 2011
California.- In 2003 California's Water Resources Control Board and the four largest regional water
quality control boards signed an MOU with CA's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection "to
prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses of water from silvicultural activities... and to assist in
restoring beneficial uses..." in impaired watersheds. Among other provisions, the MOU states that
"proposed timber operations must be consistent with the provisions of the TMDL implementation
plan" where such plans have been adopted, and where they have not been adopted, proposed
timber operations "must be in compliance with applicable provisions of the relevant Basin Plan
regarding degradation of water quality by controllable factors."
Utah - DEQ has an MOU with state and federal land management agencies, including USFS and
BLM. See description above.
Kansas - KDHE partners with the Kansas Forest Service's efforts to provide technical assistance to
landowners for proper management of private forestland to protect land and water resources,
including the establishment and management of healthy riparian forest buffers to provide water
quality benefits.
Alabama - an MOU (updated January 2008) between the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) and the Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) provides a number of
opportunities for collaboration, including: annual meetings to discuss agency plans and initiatives to
abate and control NPS pollution; joint agency assessments (on-site field reviews) of silvicultural sites
to assess BMP compliance with the state's forestry BMPs; and coordination to provide to the other
technical and professional expertise and support.
Agriculture
At least 29 state NPS programs (AL, AZ, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, ME, Ml, MN, MS, MT, ND, NE, NY,
NV, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VT, WA, WY) have agriculture-related partnerships or formal MOUs with
local (e.g., conservation districts), state, and/or federal agencies. State partnerships/agreements are
often developed between the state NPS agency and either the state agricultural agency or the state soil
and water conservation commission to coordinate the implementation of its agricultural NPS program.
Examples of agreements between state NPS programs and USDA are listed immediately below, with
other examples of agreements to control NPS impacts from agriculture listed after that.
Agreements with USDA
Oregon - the Conservation Effectiveness Partnership MOU was signed in 2010 between USDA-NRCS,
Oregon Water Enhancement Board (OWEB), and ODEQ. The Partnership is aimed at collaboratively
monitoring, evaluating, and reporting the effectiveness of cumulative conservation and restoration
actions. The goals of the MOU are: 1) Build an understanding of the extent of the investment in
watershed improvement actions through the agencies' collective grant programs; 2) Develop a
better understanding of how local organizations are utilizing the agencies respective grant
programs, in concert; 3) Conduct an evaluation of the impacts of grant investments on water quality
90
-------
November 2011
and watershed health; 4) Produce a description of gaps in the treatment of priority limiting factors
in a watershed; 5) Design tools and methods of reporting accomplishments to the public. In 2010,
the Partnership identified 2 pilot areas to begin monitoring and evaluating projects (Tillamook Bay
watersheds and Upper Deschutes sub basin). The MOU allows NRCSto share certain confidential
information about conservation projects funded under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (2008 Farm Bill), including project locations and types of projects funded. This information is
used to evaluate the relationship between water quality trends and conservation investments,
report natural resource outcomes, and improve implementation of agency programs such as, where
to monitor, conduct analysis, and prioritize conservation investments. See the Oregon feature story
in Chapter 2: Staffing Summary for more information on this partnership.
Wyoming - In 1998 Wyoming DEQ and USDA/NRCS entered into an MOU for "Agricultural Waste
Management System Review." The MOU specifically applies to animal operations that are not
CAFOs, thereby limiting the applicability of the MOU to NPS animal agriculture. The purpose of the
MOU is to provide assistance to small animal operations with development and implementation of
waste management system plans and related construction plans that are subject to DEQ permitting.
The MOU provides that DEQ will accept work certified by NRCS, in accordance with specific
provisions in the MOU for the protection of water quality, in lieu of a separate construction permit
for agricultural wastewater conveyance and storage ponds. It also provides that NRCS and DEQ will
work together on updates to the Wyoming Field Office Technical Guide.
Oklahoma - MOU with USDA addressing delivery of Farm Bill programs, technical assistance for
state programs, and the state implementation of CREP program (see Chapter 7: Coordination with
USDA for more information).
Kansas - In 2010 the Kansas Technical Assistance Partnership MOU became effective. Signatories
include KDHE, USDA/NRCS, Kansas Conservation Commission, Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks,
Kansas Forest Service, Kansas Association of Conservation Districts, Quail Forever, Pheasants
Forever, and Playa Lakes Joint Venture. The MOU "establishes a framework that will enable the
parties to pool resources for the purpose of increasing technical assistance available to Kansas
agricultural producers for conservation activities. It also documents the intent and commitment of
the Parties to actively support that framework to further their shared conservation goals."
Therefore, through participation in this partnership, NPS program staff are leveraging additional
resources to meet technical assistance needs for water quality projects throughout the state.
Vermont - The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is party to a 1998 MOU that
created the Vermont Conservation Partnership. Agencies and organizations involved in working with
Vermont agriculture to address NPS issues signed the MOU and are members of the Partnership.
These groups include USDA NRCS, USDA FSA, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts,
Vermont Natural Resources Conservation Council, University of Vermont Extension and the Lake
Champlain Basin Program. The Vermont Secretary of Agriculture has been delegated the legal
responsibility for agricultural NPS pollution in Vermont and convenes the Vermont Conservation
Partnership when necessary to further the goals of the NPS program.
91
-------
November 2011
Agreements and Partnerships with State Agriculture Agencies
Examples of agreements or partnerships between the state NPS agency and the state agriculture agency
are provided below:
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) has an MOU with the Louisiana Department
of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) to coordinate implementation of the state's NPS program. LDAF
implements the incremental portion of the 319 funds in agricultural watersheds that have been
included on the state's section 303(d) list. Prior to BMP implementation, LDEQ and LDAF work
closely to discuss impaired waters that are in agricultural watersheds; develop a watershed-based
plan ; select a 12-digit HUC or set of HUCs that are agricultural "hot spots" in the watershed where
BMPs need to be implemented; determine what type of water quality monitoring may be necessary
to evaluate whether BMP implementation is achieving water quality goals; implement BMPs in
critical areas of the watershed; and continue efforts and assess effectiveness of BMP
implementation and education/outreach activities in the target watershed until a Success Story can
be written.
Georgia has a partnership with the Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission (GWCC), which
serves as the lead agency for implementing the agriculture component of NPS program. In 2010,
GWSCC managed six active 319(h) projects. GSWCC administers the state's Erosion and
Sedimentation Control training and certification program.
Utah DEQ has an MOU with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF). Through the
MOU and a yearly contract between the two agencies, UDAF has delegated authority for agriculture-
related 319 funding projects and education and information efforts. The MOU also specifies that
UDAF has authority for devising and implementing measures related to soil erosion,
hydromodification and riparian projects.
Vermont - A 1993 MOU between Vermont DEC and Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and
Markets (AAF&M) is still current and applicable to the state's NPS program. The MOU provides
authority to AAF&M for administration of the NPS program for the agriculture sector.
Implementation of the MOU involves an annual 319 grant (typically approximately $200,000) from
DEC to AAF&M.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has an MOU with the Texas State Soil and
Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB), which facilitates cooperation between these two primary TX
NPS control agencies in achieving program goals. A separate MOA has been developed to outline
each agency's responsibility and authority regarding the development of TMDLs.
Tennessee's Department of Environment and Conservation TDEC maintains an MOA with TN's
Department of Agriculture. TDEC is responsible for the abatement of ground/surface water
pollution, reclamation of polluted waters, and prevention of future pollution. TDA and TDEC consult
one another to assess actual and alleged water pollution from agricultural and silvicultural activities
to determine appropriate follow-up actions.
92
-------
November 2011
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) has a 1997 MOU with the MS Soil and
Water Conservation Commission (MSWCC) to assist MDEQ in developing and implementing the
state's voluntary agriculture NPS pollution control program. The MOU provides MSWCC with
$200,000 annually in 319 funds to conduct: district assistance, conservation carnivals, surface mine
permit reviews and reclamation assistance, agricultural BMP implementation and educational
assistance. A portion of 319 funds is provided to MSWCC to support two FTEs. Mississippi's
Agriculture Implementation Assistance project provides support to conservation districts for
implementing educational, restoration, and demonstration projects.
Washington Department of Ecology maintains an MOU with the State Department of Agriculture to
coordinate response to livestock-related water pollution issues. Washington established and
maintains a referral and response system to facilitate a first-responder process so that each agency
will know who is responding to a complaint, and provides a mechanism by which the partnering
agencies may refer complaints to one another.
Idaho maintains two MOUs to control NPS pollution from agriculture.
o Idaho DEQ has an MOU with the State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), the state agency
with the lead role in regulating the dairy industry, regarding dairy waste management. ISDA
monitors ground water under these facilities and ensures operations and dairy waste
systems are in accordance with provisions in ID Waste Management Guidelines for Confined
Feeding Operations. Working arrangement between agencies,
o IDEQ also has an MOU with three parties: USEPA, Idaho Soil and Water Conservation
Commission (ISWCC), and Idaho Department of Water Resources. The MOU provides a
broad outline of the responsibilities of each agency in implementing the state's NPS
program. This MOU supersedes an MOA between Idaho DEQ and ISWCC (1981), which
addressed issues pertaining to agriculture and grazing practices as they relate to water
quality. The ISWCC, as a Designated Management Agency for the state NPS program, has
played a key role in planning and implementing programs needed to reach water quality
goals since the inception of the NPS program. For example ISWCC is responsible for drafting
certain TMDLs and for developing TMDL Implementation Plans.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality maintains an MOU with Texas Department of
Agriculture, which sets forth cooperation, responsibility, and authority regarding development of
TMDLs.
Montana - Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is part of the Montana
AFO/CAFO Outreach Partnership, a working group composed of state and federal agency staff, trade
organization representatives, technical service providers and others involved in working to prevent
pollution from livestock operations. The partnership was formed in 2007 and meets quarterly to
better coordinate educational campaigns, foster partnerships and increase technical expertise
throughout the state. MDEQ devotes one FTE to agriculture NPS issues and collaborating with local,
state, and federal agencies, and private entities to promote implementation of agricultural BMPs.
Past outputs of the AFO/CAFO Outreach Partnership include a newsletter publication, AFO
93
-------
November 2011
Stewardship News, and the 2010 AFO/CAFO Roundtable meeting that provided program, outreach,
and technical information to participants.
Agreements with Conservation Districts - Statewide and/or Local
In addition to agreements and partnerships with state and federal agencies, at least four state NPS
programs (ME, NE, ND and UT) have agreements or partnerships with conservation district associations
to improve collaboration on agricultural issues at the local level.
Maine - There are 16 Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in Maine. Since the first year of
section 319 funding, the SWCDs have played a vital role in Maine's NPS program. The NPS program
partners with the SWCDs on programs including Lake Smart, contractor certification, and the Front
Runner Gravel Road Maintenance Program. Agreements help to maintain positive working
relationships between the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and SWCDs. For
example, districts currently provide technical assistance on most 319 projects, and they serve as the
actual subgrantee (project sponsor) for roughly half of all 319 projects. The work of district staff
related to the NPS program includes, but is not limited to: working closely with landowners to
troubleshoot erosion problems; designing best management practices; drafting local land use and
phosphorus control ordinances; generating outreach materials and host workshops to build
awareness about NPS; calculating pollutant load reductions; and sharing their experiences with
other SWCDs, through final 319 project reports, Maine's annual NPS report, and at Maine's annual
Watershed Roundtable.
Nebraska - The Nebraska Association of Resources Districts (NARD) is the coordination organization
for the state's 23 Natural Resources Districts. For the past seven years, Nebraska DEQhas supported
a liaison position that works out of offices at NARD and NDEQ. Section 319 funds 90% of this
position. This position is important given NRDs are the primary sponsor of most section 319
projects. NPS program is involved in NARD monitoring strategy; all NPS program staff maintain good
working relationships with the NRDs. For information about other Nebraska liaison positions, see
Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA.
Utah - Eight local watershed coordinators funded by section 319 play a key role in Utah's NPS
program. The local watershed coordinators are often co-located with a conservation district or
USDA Extension Service. While salaries and benefits are usually provided by UDEQ, the office space
and operating materials are often provided by the Utah Association of Conservation Districts
(UACD), the local conservation districts or the NRCS. Local coordinators are actively involved in
planning or designing NPS projects, identifying resources for NPS projects, and coordinating with key
partners, often serving as liaisons between UDEQ and conservation districts.
North Dakota - In North Dakota, projects funded by section 319 grants have a Local Project Advisory
Committees. These committees are partly responsible for overseeing operation and maintenance of
local NPS projects, including project implementation plans, project administration, technical and
94
-------
November 2011
financial assistance, and local education activities. Committee membership generally includes
representatives from soil conservation districts, USDA Extension, NRCS and water resource boards.
Water Quality Monitoring
At least two state NPS programs (IN, MS) have partnerships with the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) to coordinate NPS water quality monitoring projects.
Mississippi - MDEQ maintains a supplemental monitoring agreement with the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). Under this agreement, the USGS provides a 50% cost share with section 319 NPS
funds to develop pre- and post-implementation monitoring plans in priority watersheds to quantify
water-quality improvements where section 319 NPS implementation funding is used. These plans
are developed in collaboration with local watershed implementation teams (WITs) and serve as the
monitoring component of the WIT's watershed implementation plan (WIP). Development of a QAPP
for each monitoring plan is also required. The recurring annual agreement calls for approximately
$255Kfrom each participating organization.
Indiana maintains an MOU with the USGS for continuous nitrogen monitoring in priority NPS
watersheds.
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
At least four (ID, FL, MS, NY) state NPS programs have MOUs with the State Department of Health to
coordinate inspection and enforcement of decentralized wastewater treatment systems.
New York - MOU between NYSDEC and NY Department of Health regarding the inspection and
enforcement of septic systems.
Florida - MOU with the State Department of Health. NPS program 319 funds to support a tracking
system for septic system inventorying and management, including inspections, tank pumping and
other maintenance activities. The NPS program also funds and supports inspection programs and
compliance/enforcement activities. 319 funds also support educational efforts for proper septic
system maintenance.
Mississippi - MOU with MS State Department of Health (MSDH) defines the jurisdiction of each
agency with regard to wastewater treatment and interagency coordination. MSDH regulates all
residential onsite wastewater disposal systems and commercial on-site wastewater disposal systems
(excluding industrial waste) with flow less than 1,000 GPD and do not discharge to waters of the
state. MDEQ regulates commercial systems that receive flows greater than 1,000 GPD or discharge
to waters of the state. NPS staff member serves on the State Technical Committee for MSDH, which
evaluates septic system regulations.
95
-------
November 2011
Idaho - MOU between IDEQ and the state's District Health Departments. Agreement clarifies
roles/responsibilities and authority of two agencies for enforcing water quality, sewage disposal,
public water systems, and solid waste management.
In addition to interagency agreements, at least ten NPS agencies (AR, CA, KS, MT, ND, NY, OK, SD, UT,
WY) have also developed a NPS Working Group, Committee or Task Force to oversee statewide
implementation of the NPS program. These working groups/committees generally include
representation from local, state, and federal NPS-related entities, and assist in some or all of the
following activities:
ฆ Assist in the revision of the NPS Management Plan;
ฆ Promote consistency between state-state and state-federal NPS policies;
ฆ Assist in prioritization of statewide NPS control programs/initiatives and projects; and
ฆ Review project proposals for 319 funding and otherwise participate in selection process.
Examples include:
New York-the NPS Coordinating Committee includes representation from EPA Region 2, State
Department of Health, Department of State, Department of Transportation, SWCD, regional
planning boards, and Cornell University Cooperative Extension Service. The Committee meets
quarterly to coordinate statewide NPS activities to ensure consistency in program policy,
prevent duplicative efforts and focus limited resources to the highest priority NPS issues and
problems in the state.
Arkansas's NPS Stakeholder Group includes more than 75 people representing 36 different
organizations that participated in the development of the 2011-2016 NPS Pollution
Management Plan. The analysis/deliberation cycle of developing the Management Plan included
consultation with individual agencies and interest groups. The core team included the University
of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, which provided policy proposal analysis and input
into BMPs and management measures, etc.
Oklahoma's State NPS Working Group includes state and federal agencies, tribes, nonprofit
groups, industry representatives, and all other NPS-related entities. The Working Group helps
set priorities for state's NPS program by guiding update of NPS Management Plan and, at times,
reviewing project proposals. There are five purposes of NPS Working group: (1) assist in revision
of NPS Management Plan, (2) confirm process of selecting priority watersheds, (3) provide
consensus in planning of work in priority watersheds, (4) develop in-state leadership regarding
NPS issues, and (5) promote consistency between state-state and federal-state NPS policies.
Montana - The Montana Watershed Coordination Council (MWCC) was formed 18 years ago
and formalized in 1994 when federal, state and local natural resources agencies signed an MOU
to "establish a framework for cooperation and coordination to sustain ecosystems, watersheds
and communities in Montana." The MOU is still operational today. In addition, organizational
96
-------
November 2011
operating guidelines were established in 1994 and have since been regularly updated.
Membership of the MWCC includes conservation district staff, state and federal agency staff,
private consultants, and other water resource professionals. The mission of the MWCC is to
enhance, conserve and protect natural resources and sustain the high quality of life in Montana
for present and future generations using a collaborative watershed approach. The MWCC
supports the growth and activities of over 60 watershed groups throughout the state (e.g.,
provides training for members and assists with efforts to obtain funding) and is a leader in
applying the watershed approach to addressing water quality issues. The MWCC is also involved
in reviewing 319 project applications and supporting volunteer monitoring efforts. For more
information, see http://mtwatersheds.org/AboutUs/Governance.html.
California has an Interagency Coordinating Committee (IACC) that is a cooperative working
group composed of 28 state agencies involved in implementing California's Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program (NPS Program Plan). The lACC's goals are to: The lACC's primary goals
are to: (1) Improve interagency coordination and promote statewide consistency in
implementing the NPS Program Plan; (2) Promote the watershed approach in addressing
nonpoint source pollution; and (3) Provide a forum for resolving policy and programmatic
conflicts among state agencies. The IACC meets regularly to: develop/update their agency's five-
year implementation plans for implementing the state's NPS Program Plan; coordinate with
local watershed groups, federal agencies and others; help assess progress implementing the NPS
Program Plan.
97
-------
November 2011
Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs
(Beyond 319 Grants and Match)
Funding is a critical component of a successful state nonpoint source program. Therefore, as part of this
NPS program study, EPA examined the extent to which state NPS programs apply significant additional
resources (beyond their 319 grant and 40% non-federal match contributions) from state or federal
funding sources. Examples of how states obtain and utilize additional resources for implementation of
their NPS program include:
Directly providing legislated state funds (beyond the state's 319 match) for implementation of
NPS programs and projects;
Coordinating NPS program implementation with other state and federal programs such that
non-319 funds are directed to NPS projects, including state environmental trust funds, Clean
Water State Revolving Fund, and federal land management agencies' programs;
Providing seed money to support a larger project, such as a public event or the roll-out of a new
initiative, where additional (non-319) funds are then used in accordance with NPS program
goals and objectives; and
Working with current or potential 319 project sponsors to identify additional sources of funding
for a significant watershed project.
This study defines leveraging of funds as those portions of state or federal funds that squarely align with
a state's own NPS program priorities, and that are exclusive of section 319 grants and their required
non-federal match. When evaluating various funds and programs for this study, many were clearly
aligned with state NPS priorities either through the authorizing language for the funding program or
through implementation, such as the criteria for awarding or allocating the funds. This could include a
funding program administered by a state agency or department other than the NPS program agency
where NPS program priorities are factored into decisions about how all or part of the funds will be
utilized. In other cases, decisions on which funds and programs constitute true leveraging were more
difficult. Examples that required more scrutiny include state monies for conservation easements and
land preservation, which may inherently have some goals in common with the NPS program but are not
necessarily aligned with a state's NPS program priorities. On the federal side, Farm Bill programs proved
particularly challenging to scrutinize on a per-state basis, and the study team worked to understand the
ways in which state NPS programs coordinate with United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
(discussed in Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA) and the success of that coordination to align those
substantial federal dollars to state NPS program priorities. These cases typically involved considerable
back-and-forth between EPA Headquarters, regional offices and the states. In some cases, portions of
funds were credited as true leveraging. In all cases, EPA exercised its best professional judgment given
the information and time available.
98
-------
November 2011
It is important to note that the availability of state, federal and private-sector funding for NPS
implementation is volatile in general and in the recent and current economic climate is even more
volatile than it has been in the past. Therefore, state funding sources and amounts discussed in this
section are a less than clear indicator of the availability of resources to further NPS program goals in the
future as states face difficult decisions during budget shortfalls, at least for the near future. Indeed,
some of the funding programs or sources relied upon for reporting in this section, while painting a
reasonably accurate picture of funding availability until the recent past, may not fully reflect recent
reductions or potential near-future reductions. For example, several states which had been relying on
sizeable bond funding established by state referendums to supply stable NPS funding had their bond
funds frozen in 2010 due to state budget crises.
Furthermore, as is discussed elsewhere in this report, one of the significant functions of base 319 funds
is to support the staff who work with other state and federal agencies (and other partners) to cooperate
in the implementation of programs and projects, thereby creating opportunities for leveraging
additional state and federal dollars for NPS water quality projects. Reductions in 319-funding in Federal
Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 have already resulted in reduction of state staff and thus is adversely impacting
state 319 programs' capacity to cooperate with other agencies or work with the private sector to
leverage activities and funding to support state 319 programs and projects.
Finally, it is worth noting that the information summarized below is based on state NPS program
documents such as annual reports and other state records of various programs' expenditures. Many NPS
program managers are not routinely tracking state funds spent on NPS program activities (beyond 319
match), and are not allowed access to certain federal funding for NPS projects (e.g., due to legal and/or
policy restrictions that preclude states from obtaining a considerable amount of information regarding
USDA funding expenditures that may be supporting state programs and watershed projects). To the
extent that a state did not have information available about the amount of funding being leveraged for
NPS activities, these funds are not captured in the quantitative findings below; however, the findings in
this chapter provide some information, where available, about states that are leveraging state or federal
funds even if the amount of funding is unknown.
State Funding (FY10)
The primary findings with regard to NPS program leveraging of state funding are:
The most common sources of additional state funding are state appropriations for BMP loan or
grant programs (often focused on agriculture), state-based environment or natural resources trusts
99
-------
November 2011
(commonly funded by lottery or license plate fees), state bond initiatives, and state-earned interest,
fees or repayment on Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans.7
In FY10, 8 states (MD, MINI, NC, OH, OR, PA, UT, VA) more than quadrupled their 319 grant
allocation through leveraging of other state funds. For example:
o Maryland provides funding support for a variety of NPS program activities, which
collectively amount to more than $80 million per year. In 2010, Maryland provided more
than $8.6 million to fund statewide and targeted Soil Conservation and Water Quality
Planning efforts in the form of full-time equivalent (FTE) support. Maryland's Agricultural
Cost-Share program provided $10.7 million to implement agricultural BMPs in targeted NPS
priority watersheds and another $5.7 million to implement agricultural BMPs in other
watersheds. Maryland's Bay Restoration Fund provided approximately $5 million in 2010 for
septic system upgrades across the state. This fund, also known as Maryland's "flush tax" is
generated by a $30 fee added to annual property tax bills for residential properties. Finally,
and perhaps most significantly, Maryland recently created its Chesapeake and Atlantic
Coastal Bays Trust Fund, which is supported through a gas tax and rental car tax. The new
fund will support implementation efforts of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for agricultural and urban BMPs, monitoring and water quality innovation (through
the Innovative Technology Sub-Fund). Maryland's stated intent for this trust fund is to
"allow Maryland to accelerate Bay restoration by focusing limited financial resources on the
most effective nonpoint source pollution control projects." While the new fund provided
approximately $20 million in State Fiscal year 2011, it is expected to generate $50 million
annually when fully funded. Maryland also provides nearly $2 million of dedicated funding
annually to support its nutrient management statewide program. Maryland also provides
more than $7 million in a variety of other programs, ranging from $1.3 million to support its
Critical Areas Commission, $1.8 million to support state-funded NPS program staff, and
lesser amounts to support shoreline conservation and management, NPS outreach and
education, and several other NPS programs.
Feature Story: Minnesota Clean Water Fund and Other State Leveraging Boost 319 Funding
On November 4, 2008, Minnesota voters approved the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment
(CWLA) to the State Constitution. The Amendment increased the sales tax rate by three-eighths of one
percent on taxable sales, starting July 1, 2009, continuing through 2034. Approximately a third of this
revenue is being dedicated to a Clean Water Fund (CWF) to protect, enhance, and restore water quality
in lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater, with at least five percent of the fund targeted to protect
drinking water sources. For the 2010-11 biennium, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
7 The CWSRF program provides loans that spread project costs over a repayment period of up to twenty years.
Repayments are cycled back into the fund to pay for additional clean water projects and are no longer considered
a federal source.
100
-------
November 2011
received $51.16 million from the new fund (and $47.77 million for the 2012-13 biennium), which
included:
$18.5 million for TMDLs watershed-based plans, and TMDL implementation plans ($21.9 million
for the 2012-13 biennium);
$16.74 million for water quality monitoring & assessment ($16.5 million for the 2012-13 biennium);
$8.67 million for protection and restoration ($5.1 million for the 2012-13 biennium); and
$7.25 million for ground water assessment and drinking water protection ($4.27 million for the
2012-13 biennium).
The new CWF also provided $38.22 million for the 2010-11 biennium (and $55.07 million for the 2012-
13 biennium) to Minnesota's Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) for NPS protection,
restoration, and preservation by working in partnership with over 240 localities. This funding is then
allocated to projects based on TMDL, restoration, or protection plans, and is partly used as matching
funds for section 319 TMDL implementation projects. An additional $14.53 million from CWF for the
2010-11 biennium was appropriated to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for similar
activities ($20.72 million for the 2012-13 biennium), including $6.6 million for NPS restoration,
protection and preservation ($7.05 million for the 2012-13 biennium). Further, the Minnesota
Department of Agriculture received $4.5 million from the fund for agricultural BMP loans ($9 million for
the 2012-13 biennium) and another $4.5 million for other water quality investments ($6.4 million for the
2012-13 biennium).
In addition, Minnesota has several other significant dedicated revenue streams for addressing nonpoint
sources, such as its Clean Water Partnership (CWP), which finances agricultural BMPs and other NPS
projects with Clean Water State Revolving Funds (see Chapter 8: Use of Clean Water State Revolving
Fund for NPS) and the state's Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund. For the 2010-11 biennium,
the MPCA received $3.9 million ($2 million for the 2012-13 biennium) of Minnesota General Fund
money and $2.5 million ($800,000 for the 2012-13 biennium) of CWF money for the CWP program. In
2010, BWSR received from the state's Environment & Natural Resources Trust Fund: $9.1 million for
ecosystem protection, land preservation/easements and restoration; $1.6 million for water quality
monitoring and assessment; $800,000 to improve water quality from agricultural tile drainage and
related research and model development; and another $800,000 to address shoreline development and
erosion from agricultural croplands, and mine runoff.
According to Minnesota's 319 State Program Manager, Doug Wetzstein, "Steady 319 base funding over
the years created the [human resources] infrastructure to allow us to push nonpoint source issues to
the fore. This experienced staff allowed us to build our program and shifted attitudes through
education, which served as a catalyst to aid passage of the CWLA."
For more information on Minnesota's Clean Water Legacy funds, see www.legacy.leg.mn/funds/clean-
water-fund and www.pca.state.mn.us/dm0r92d.
101
-------
November 2011
Feature Story - North Carolina State Funding Programs Address Nonpoint Source Pollution
North Carolina has four state-based funding sources for NPS activities: (1) Agriculture Cost Share
Program, (2) Clean Water Management Trust Fund, (3) Environmental Enhancement Program, and (4)
Community Conservation Assistance Program. Combined, in 2010 these funding sources provided $4.5
million for NPS program activities, which is nearly eight times North Carolina's FY10 section 319
allocation.
The North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program (ACSP) helps address nonpoint pollution by providing
technical and financial resources. Funding is appropriated annually to share costs of implementing
BMPs with farmers and to provide technical assistance for practice design and installation. ACSP and
funding priorities are managed by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources - Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). All 96 Soil and Water Conservation
Districts in the state submit an annual strategy plan, which is used to assess allocation level for that
program year. The districts are provided information, such as the number of miles of impaired waters in
their county during the strategy planning process. As a part of the Strategy Plan, the districts also
submit a priority ranking form to fund those projects that are in alignment with the strategy plans. The
majority of districts have impaired waters as a high ranking priority and therefore "weight" the contracts
they perform toward impaired waters. NPS staff in DENR Division of Soil and Water Conservation serves
as staff to the technical review committee for ACSP.
Approximately $8,000,000 is annually appropriated for the ACSP. The funds are appropriated by State
Legislature, with recent years' cost share appropriations fluctuating between $3.5 million and $9 million.
ACSP is often used as a match for 319 and the cost share program requires a 25% match from the
landowner/operators involved in the program. Additionally, the NPS program often seeks to use ACSP
and other state/federal cost share programs to implement NPS initiatives. These include 319, Clean
Water Management Trust Fund, Conservation Innovation Grant, Environmental Enhancement Grant,
and others. In FY2011, $500,000 of ACSP funds were disbursed to address water quality issues in
targeted watersheds where known sediment from agricultural lands were causing water quality
problems.
The North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) was established by the state General
Assembly in 1996 and has awarded over $960 million to date. Funding level has varied from $10 million
to $100 million annually. CWMTF receives direct appropriation from the state General Assembly to
issue grants to local governments, state agencies, and conservation non-profits to finance projects that
address water quality problems. A 21 member Board of Trustees has full responsibility of allocating
money from the Fund. CWMTF will fund projects that (1) enhance or restore degraded waters, (2)
protect unpolluted waters, and/or (3) contribute toward a network of riparian buffers and greenways
for environmental, educational, and recreational benefits. CWMTF grants have reduced the number of
102
-------
November 2011
failing septic systems and straight pipes directly discharging waste into N.C. streams, and protected
more than 454,375 acres of important watersheds and more than 4,863 miles of riparian buffers. The
CWMTF has also awarded $95.7 million to fund 168 stream and wetland restoration projects.
The state NPS program often receives 319 proposals with CWMTF as a match; CWMTF applications
often have 319 as a match. NPS Program Section of Division of Soil and Water Conservation is
responsible for implementing NPS projects/programs using CWMTF funds. The NPS Planning
Coordinator assists SWCDs across the state in identifying water quality needs, assists with grant
development for 319, CWMTF, and other funders.
North Carolina's Environmental Enhancement Program (EEP) is a DENR initiative that primarily offers 4
In-Lieu Fee (ILF) mitigation programs to assist private/public entities comply with state and federal
compensatory mitigation for streams, wetlands, riparian buffers, and nutrients. The EEP funds livestock
exclusion, riparian buffer restoration, and other streamside BMPs as mitigation activities. North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily use EEP to move
projects forward.
EEP also plays a valuable NPS Program role by conducting full watershed assessments on prioritized
watersheds and completing Local Watershed Plans (LWPs) for use by others as well as itself. LWP
watersheds merge the interests of high priority for protection or restoration with projected road-
building (primarily NCDOT) impacts and mitigation needs, to provide the greatest aggregate benefit for
the state. To date EEP has completed 28 LWPs across the state. LWPs are used by state agencies, local
governments, and area non-profits to guide watershed improvement and protection actions. The LWPs
mirror EPA 9-Element Watershed Plan requirements and are adapted frequently by 319 applicants. EEP
funding is also used as match for 319 projects. In 2010, $21 million total was leveraged, of which $2.1
million specifically went towards 319 Grant Projects (including creation of LWPs, implementation of
existing LWPs, land acquisition/watershed protection). The funding stream for EEP is a combination of:
in-lieu fee mitigation payments and fee receipts (both coming from combination of private and public
developer applicants including DOT), and legislative appropriations. Thus, it is partly economy-
dependent but is also supported by diverse, generally stable funding streams.
Community Conservation Assistance Program is a voluntary, incentive-based program designed to
improve water quality through the installation of various best management practices (BMPs) on urban,
suburban and rural lands not directly involved in agricultural production. CCAP consists of educational,
technical and financial assistance provided to landowners by local soil and water conservation districts.
Funds come from different sources and are managed separately from Ag Cost Share Program funds. In
FY2010, the CCAP program funding totaled approximately $240,000.
o Virginia provided $18.8 million in FY2010 through its Water Quality Improvement Fund
(WQIF), which was established by the state's Water Quality Improvement Act. WQIF funding
fluctuated between $0.5 million and $60.7 million from FY2006-10, but has dropped to $1.8
103
-------
November 2011
million in FY2011. This fund is projected to run out of money sometime in early FY2012. For
FY2010, the $18.8 million was split between funding within the Chesapeake Bay basin ($11.0
million) and outside the Chesapeake Bay basin ($7.8 million). Within the Chesapeake Bay
basin: $9.1 million was allocated for Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program,
including $7.3 million on priority BMPs and $1.8 million on other agricultural BMPs; $1.5
million for nutrient management contracts; $0.3M for other TMDL implementation
activities; and $90,000 for Forestry BMPs. Outside the Chesapeake Bay basin: $6.1 million
was allocated for Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program, including $4.9 million on
priority BMPs and $1.2 million on other agricultural BMPs; $1.0 million for nutrient
management contracts; $0.2 million for other TMDL implementation activities; and $60,000
for forestry BMPs.
o Pennsylvania Environmental Stewardship and Watershed Protection Act supports its
"Growing Greener" fund, which was originally created from bonds in 1999 and 2005. To
sustain the fund for a longer term, the debt is serviced by $4.25 tipping fee surcharge
imposed per garbage truck that dumps in Pennsylvania landfills. $7-30 million per year goes
toward the NPS share, but Growing Greener covers more than NPS. In 2010, Growing
Greener contributed $11.8 million toward NPS priority efforts. The fund supports 66 county-
based conservation district watershed specialists (FTEs) in addition to supporting other state
NPS efforts.
o Oregon Water Enhancement Board (OWEB) distributed $12.4 million in FY2010 to fund 163
water quality projects throughout the State. The OWEB state watershed restoration grant
program offers two competitive grant cycles each year, as well as a competitive Small Grant
Program that awards up to $10,000 for on-the-ground restoration projects. There are five
general categories of competitive projects eligible for OWEB funding: on-the-ground
watershed management (restoration, small grants, and acquisition); technical assistance to
develop watershed restoration projects; assessment and/or monitoring of natural resource
conditions; opportunities for learning about watershed concepts (education/outreach); and
watershed council support. The state NPS program leverages these funds through match
(OWEB and 319 dollars can be used as match for one another) and through NPS program
staff participation on regional boards to assist in the review of OWEB project proposals.
Additionally, OWEB's Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory contains more than 13,000
records of OWEB (including 319 projects and OWEB projects with 319 match), Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) and US Forest Service (USFS), and other state-funded watershed
restoration projects completed through Oregon. Users can search for projects by
restoration area (road, riparian, wetland, instream, etc.), geospatially, and by funding
amount and source. This statewide water quality project database allows multiple agencies
to coordinate when prioritizing their funding, thereby maximizing leveraging of funds to
address water quality issues throughout the state. See the Oregon feature story in Chapter
2: Staffing Summary for more information.
104
-------
November 2011
o The Utah Wastewater Loan Program Subaccount is funded through interest from CWSRF
loans and, at the rate of $1 million, provides additional funding for monitoring studies, 319
projects in targeted watersheds, and outreach with animal feeding operations. See Feature
Story in Chapter 8: Use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund for NPS for additional
information. Also, the Agriculture Resource Development Loan program, administered by
Utah Dept of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) and the Utah Conservation Commission, provided
over $4.4 million in FY10 loans for conservation-related agriculture projects, including
improving water quality. Funds from this loan program are often combined with other
sources of funding for agriculture projects. UDAF also administers the Grazing Improvement
Program, which directs state revenue to improve upland and riparian areas throughout the
state. FY10 funding for this program exceeded $1 million.
In FY10, 6 states (FL, IA, KY, NH, NJ, Wl) and the District of Columbia tripled their 319 grant
allocation through leveraging of other state funds.8 For example:
Feature Story - Florida's State Funding Directed at Nonpoint Source Pollution
Florida has five state-based funding sources for NPS activities, which in 2010 provided over $7.5 million
for NPS program activities, nearly quadrupling Florida's FY10 319 grant allocation.
Between 2000 and 2011, approximately $587 million in special state appropriations supported
stormwater and NPS projects. Most of the priority waterbodies that receive this state funding are
identified in Surface Water Improvement and Management program plans developed by the state's
water management districts.
TMDL Water Quality Restoration Grant: Annually, the state legislature provides funding for the
implementation of best management practices, such as regional stormwater treatment facilities,
designed to reduce pollutant loads to impaired waters from urban stormwater discharges. This funding
is administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection as the TMDL Water Quality
Restoration Grant, which is set out by rule in Chapter 62-305, F.A.C. and authorized by Section
403.890(2), F.S. If there is a strong 319 applicant that does not qualify for funding or if a 319 application
requests more funding than the 319 grant can offer, the application is forwarded to the TMDL water
quality restoration grant review and the TMDL grant (state funds) are used to match the 319 grant. The
8 FY10 funding amounts for DC, FL and Wl are based in part on taking an average of funding over a period of years,
based on the information provided by each state to EPA for the purposes of this study. Also, the funding amounts
provided in the Florida feature story were calculated by taking averages of funding information provided by Florida
about the amount of funds for NPS in each of five programs over a span of several years. For example, state-
appropriated funds of $48 million for the TMDL program between 2006 and 2011 was averaged over six years,
resulting in an assumed value of $8 million in 2010.
105
-------
November 2011
grant funded four projects in FY2010 for approximately $2.14 million, and a total of $56,333,026 from FY
2000 to FY2010. Grants provide funding to local governments for urban stormwater retrofit projects to
reduce stormwater pollutant loadings from impaired waters and to fund best management practice
(BMP) development and demonstration projects. The criteria for project evaluation and ranking include:
impairment status of the receiving water body; estimated load reduction of the pollutants of concert-
percentage of local matching funds; cost effectiveness based on the cost per pound of Total Nitrogen
and/or Total Phosphorus removed per acre treated; inclusion of a robust educational component; and
whether the local government sponsor has implemented of a dedicated funding source for stormwater
management, such as a stormwater utility fee. Funding is based on documentary stamp fees and has
decreased with housing crisis; legislature remains committed to funding and has provided funding each
year.
Between 2004 and 2010, the FL Department of Health committed approximately $2 million to
administer the statewide septic tank evaluation program.
Between 2006 and 2011, the state appropriated nearly $48 million to support its TMDL program. NPS
program staff manages and direct BMP development activities necessary for TMDL implementation, and
work with state-funded Basin Management Action Plan coordinators (TMDL Implementation
coordinators) to analyze BMP information, such as BMP efficiencies and cost effectiveness. This research
and analysis is used to implement TMDLs throughout the state.
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Office of Water Policy: The Office of Agricultural
Water Policy (OAWP) was established in 1995 by the Florida Legislature to facilitate communications
among federal, state, local agencies, and the agricultural industry on water quantity and water quality
issues involving agriculture. In this effort, the OAWP is actively involved in the development of BMPs,
addressing both water quality and water conservation on a site specific, regional, and watershed basis.
As a significant part of this effort, the office is directly involved with statewide programs to implement
the federal Clean Water Act's TMDL requirements for agriculture. The OAWP works cooperatively with
agricultural producers and industry groups, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
the university system, the Water Management Districts, and other interested parties to develop and
implement BMP Programs that are economically and technically feasible. The Office of Agricultural
Water Policy spends 100% of its time and state-appropriated funding on NPS management in the
agricultural sector. Between 2007 and 2011 the Office spent $32,395,027. Funding is provided annually
by the legislature to support the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services OWAP program.
The legislature appropriated $5 million in the FY10-11 budget.
106
-------
November 2011
o Wisconsin provided at least $12.7 million of funding for NPS in FY2010 through several state
programs. State Rule NR 153 authorizes Wisconsin's Targeted Runoff Management (TRM)
Grant Program, which provided $3.5 million in FY2010 (and $4.9 million in 2008) to reduce
NPS pollution from both agricultural and urban sources. Funded projects must match the
state's criteria for targeting and be consistent with NPS priorities identified by Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Grants may be used for BMP cost share or to
support a variety of local administrative and planning functions. 2011 revisions to the TRM
program modify the grant criteria and procedures to increase the state's ability to support
performance standards implementation tied to Wisconsin's regulatory authorities and TMDL
implementation. Under the state's Agricultural BMP Cost Share program, the Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection has been providing more than
$5.1 million annually. These funds included: $1.8 million to cost share on 78,000 acres in
nutrient management plans; $0.52 million for 32,000 feet of streambank protection; $0.5
million for 180 acres of waterways; $0.49 million for 26 manure storage structures; and
$0.32 million for 20 barnyard practices. Additionally, Wisconsin provides funding for its
Farmland Preservation Program, which includes the state's Working Lands Program. The
Working Lands Program established a new sub-program in 2010 to provide up to 50% of the
cost of Purchasing Agricultural Conservation Easements. In its first year, 5779 acres of
agricultural lands were placed in conservation easements as a result of this initiative, with
an initial investment of $12 million. Finally, Wisconsin provided $4.1 million for its Urban
NPS and Stormwater Management Grant Program in 2008, the most recent year for which
funding levels are available. This reliable WDNR grant program covers both planning and
construction projects to address polluted urban runoff. In 2008, $2.8M went toward urban
BMP construction and $1.3M for planning, ordinances and education. Planning grants can
include stormwater management planning, education, ordinance and utility development
and enforcement. An unknown portion of this funding source is spent on projects within
federally regulated MS4 municipalities.
o Kentucky's Agriculture Water Quality State Cost Share Program committed $9 million in
State FY2010 for agriculture BMP implementation on NPS projects. The state NPS program
leverages this funding in two ways: (1) agricultural producers who are applying to install
water quality BMPs on impaired waters receive priority funding and, (2) Kentucky Division of
Water (KDOW), the state NPS program office, frequently awards sub-grantee contracts to
local Conservation Districts to employ technical personnel within the district, who then
assist local agricultural producers in applying for state cost share funding. This method
concentrates state cost share funding into targeted geographic boundaries.
o Iowa NPS program leverages $10.6 million from six different state funding sources,
including: the Lakes Restoration Fund, the Watershed Improvement Review Board, the
107
-------
November 2011
Water Protection Fund, the Watershed Protection Fund, the Publicly Owned Lakes Program
and the Integrated Farm and Livestock Management Fund.
In FY10, 7 states (DE, KS, NY, Rl, TN, VT, WV) doubled their 319 grant allocation through leveraging
of other state funds.9 For example:
o New York leverages funds from the state's Environmental Protection Fund via three
programs to address NPS issues: (1) the state Department of Agriculture and Market's
Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) Program (approximately $13 million in
FY2010) supports small farm NPS pollution control projects; (2) the state's Department of
Environmental Conservation's Water Quality Improvement Projects (WQIP) Program
(approximately $3.7 million in FY2010) non-agricultural NPS pollution control projects.
Together, the AEM and WQIP programs leveraged approximately $12.4 million beyond the
319 match requirement in FY2010; and (3) The NYS Department of State's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program funds watershed planning and management and green infrastructure
projects (approximately $2 million in State FY2009-2010).
o Vermont has several programs that have provided a reliable source of funding for NPS
program activities. State law created the BMP Cost Share Grant Program, which is
administered by the Vermont Agency for Agriculture, Food and Markets and provided $1.6
million in FY10 to help farmers implement BMPs to address water quality issues. The
Ecosystem Restoration Program (formerly known as Clean and Clear Program) provides
grants for a wide variety of NPS-related efforts, including river management, stormwater
management, local municipal actions, wetland protection and restoration, and forest
watershed management. The FY10 appropriation for this program was approximately $1.65
million. In addition, the Northern Vermont Resource Conservation and Development Council
administers the Better Backroads Program, a collaborative effort that promotes erosion
control techniques and practices through technical and financial assistance. This program
was launched in 1997 with a 319 grant and now is funded by state legislature allocations
(more than $400,000 in FY10) as a complement to the 319 grant program. Over the life of
the program nearly 330 grants have been awarded to 155 towns and organizations. The
Department of Environmental Conservation NPS program remains involved with this
program's activities.
o Kansas NPS program is supported by the state Water Plan Fund, which in FY10 provided
approximately $6 million for several state programs related directly to NPS and other
conservation activities. Programs or activities supported by the state Water Plan Fund
9 FY10 funding amounts for Rl are based in part on taking an average of funding over a period of years, based on
information provided by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management to EPA for the purposes of this
study.
108
-------
November 2011
include: NPS program staff at Kansas Department of Health and Environment, the
Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (a core element of Kansas' NPS program
activities associated with watershed planning, cost share for implementation of soil erosion
practices at the conservation district level, and cost share to implement locally developed
NPS management plans, including BMP implementation, education to conservation districts
on no till practices, etc. The state Water Plan Fund is a dedicated revenue source from a
combination of fees, fines and State General funds.
o Tennessee Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund provides
approximately $3 million/year in state funding (a portion of the state's Real Estate Transfer
Tax) to soil conservation districts, Resource Conservation &Development Councils, and other
organizations to cost share with landowners to install agricultural BMPs to address NPS
pollution. NPS program staff work closely with Agricultural Resources Conservation Fund
staff to allocate resources and approve project sites.
In addition to the states listed above, there are several other state NPS programs (CO, CT, MO) that
are leveraging significant state-based funding to support 319 and/or NPS-targeted projects, but for
which specific funding amounts were unavailable for this study. State records often do not track the
amount of funding that is being leveraged by the NPS program but spent by other agencies or
programs.
o For example, a 2010 NPS Success Story for Missouri's program describes how funding from
multiple sources made it possible for the state to address sedimentation in the North Fabius
River, ultimately removing an 82-mile stream segment from the state's list of impaired
waters in 2008. The project focused on address stream channelization and erosion from
agricultural lands. Over the five-year time period of the project, $410,000 of section 319
funding leveraged more than $4.5 million from Missouri Department of Natural Resources'
Soil and Water Conservation Program (SWCP) and two soil and water conservation districts.
The SWCP funding helped landowners install about 743 conservation practices in the
watershed. For the full story, see
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/upload/mo fabius.pdf.
Federal Funding (FY10)
The primary findings with regard to federal funding are:
In FY10, six states (DE, KY, MD, MS, PA, VA) quadrupled their 319 grant allocation through
leveraging of federal funds. For example:
o Mississippi leveraged significant dollars from USDA's Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI)
in FY2010 to help producers in selected watersheds voluntarily implement conservation
practices and systems that avoid, control, and trap nutrient runoff; improve wildlife habitat;
109
-------
November 2011
and maintain agricultural productivity: (1) The MRBI - Cooperative Conservation Partnership
Initiative (CCPI) provided $21.44 million, (2) the MRBI - Wetland Reserve Enhancement
Program (WREP) provided $13.2 million, and (3) USDA's Conservation Innovation Grants
(CIG) program provided $434,575 in FY2010. The Delta Farmers Advocating Resource
Management (FARM) association plays a key role in MRBI project/proposal development,
provides input throughout the project ranking/criteria development process, and works
with stakeholders to develop and implement project plans. Delta FARM focuses its efforts in
watersheds with additional, ongoing NPS activities (e.g., 319-funded projects) and works
with local Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff to ensure MRBI projects are
tailored to fit the specific NPS needs of the area. Mississippi NPS program has also played a
key role in augmenting federal MRBI funds with State agency funding targeted at addressing
nutrient management issues. In FY2010, the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
contributed $1.5 million to implement projects aimed at developing, validating, and
delivering comprehensive nutrient management practices in support of the nutrient
reduction goals outlined in MRBI plans.
o Kentucky's Division of Water NPS Pollution Control Program leveraged approximately $10.5
million in Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) funds in FY10 through
participation on the NRCS State Technical Committee. KDOW staff provided ranking criteria
to KY NRCS that helps prioritize impaired waterbodies for EQIP funding. KDOW then
provides maps of section 303(d) listed waters to NRCS, which their staff use when reviewing
EQIP applications. KDOW provides updated impaired waters information to NRCS every two
years, when a new Integrated Report is approved by EPA.
In FY10, DC and Michigan tripled their 319 grant allocation through leveraging of federal funds.
In FY10, four states (AR, MN, Wl, WV) doubled their 319 grant allocation through leveraging of
federal funds. For example:
o Arkansas received more than $5.33 million of USDA MRBI funding in FY2010, the first year
MRBI funding was available in the 12-state Mississippi River Basin. This funding supported
51 contracts on 24,781 acres of land. USDA-NRCS provided assistance to producers in
developing conservation plans and implementing practices to reduce impacts of nutrient
and sediment loss from agricultural fields. Arkansas NPS program supports MRBI by
conducting monitoring in NRCS-selected watersheds.
Additional Findings Regarding Federal Funding for NPS Activities
Among those states that are leveraging significant federal resources for NPS program
implementation, the most common sources are USDA (NRCS and FSA) agricultural conservation
programs, such as EQIP, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program and Wetland Reserve
Program. However, many state NPS programs do not maintain a detailed accounting of USDA
program expenditures that are leveraged to further the goals of the NPS program in accordance
110
-------
November 2011
with NPS program priorities. This is partially attributable to USDA/NRCS reporting restrictions -
states often have no mechanism to obtain this information, much less track and report it. In at least
nine states (IA, KS, MT, ND, OK, OR, SD, VT, UT), NPS programs are actively engaged in leveraging
Farm Bill program resources for NPS activities but were unable to provide funding amounts for
purposes of this study. For example:
o Oklahoma has leveraged approximately $100 million over the past two years from USDA -
NRCS and FSA programs, such as EQIP, Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which direct
funding for conservation practices. Additionally, the Oklahoma Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP), which is managed in part by the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission (the state nonpoint source agency), has obligated approximately $1 million
over the past three years to enroll 569 acres of land in the program. 319 dollars have been
used to enroll an additional 1,400 acres of CREP-ineligible land in long-term riparian
contracts. See Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA for more information.
o The South Dakota NPS program works closely with USDA at the state and local levels to
leverage Farm Bill program resources for NPS projects. However, while the state reports
that FY10 expenditures on CRP, EQIP, CSP, CREP and other USDA programs totaled more
than $50 million, the NPS program does not have data to indicate how much of this $50
million was directed to NPS projects.
o Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (ODEQ) NPS program coordinates with
USDA at the state agency headquarters level, and through NRCS/SWCD regional and local
working groups to leverage Farm Bill resources for water quality and habitat enhancement
work, including NPS projects. While ODEQ is unable to identify the specific amount of NRCS
funds leveraged by the NPS program, NRCS has provided more than $68 million since 2002
through Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, EQIP, and WHIP for projects that
address water quality issues.
o See Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA, for more detailed information about how these
states coordinate with USDA to leverage EQIP, CRP, CREP and other program funds.
Oregon is also an example of a state that is leveraging significant resources from USFS and BLM, but
for which specific FY10 funding amounts were unavailable at the time of this study. ODEQ has
leveraged significant dollars from both USFS and BLM over the past several years. ODEQ has
memorandum of agreements with both federal agencies to work in a proactive, collaborative, and
adaptive manner to meet state and federal water quality rules and regulations (see the Chapter 5:
Key NPS Partnerships for more information). ODEQ has been integral to the successful
implementation of many projects providing guidance, expertise, and access to funding through state
and federal sources. Between 2003 and 2007, the USFS and BLM committed approximately $80.3
million to water quality restoration projects on USFS and BLM lands throughout Oregon. Over 1,600
miles of road were improved and 484 miles decommissioned reducing sediment delivery and
111
-------
November 2011
floodplain encroachment. Riparian treatment was completed on 452 miles. Instream structure was
added to over 750 miles of stream and aquatic passage projects have provided fish access to 478
miles of habitat. Upland areas had approximately 32,000 acres treated through various methods
including slope stabilization, revegetation, silvicultural treatments, or livestock exclusion fencing.
Riparian areas received similar treatments on approximately 25,000 acres. Both freshwater and
coastal wetland restoration occurred on 4,807 and 1,500 acres. In 2008, BLM committed $2.6
million and USFS committed $6.6 million to water quality restoration projects on federal lands. In
2009, BLM committed $594,520 and USFS committed $1.9 million to water quality restoration
projects on federal lands.
Approximately half of state NPS programs are not leveraging significant federal funding (other than
319). The most common barrier cited by states is difficulties coordinating with other agencies on
targeting and prioritizing funds. While many states are leveraging other programs so that they
provide more funding to address NPS pollution, another program often does not align their projects
with those funded by the NPS program agency and sometimes does not target their funds in the
same manner. Many state officials that EPA has spoken to during this review have shared stories of
difficulties they have continued to experience over time in forming successful cooperative and
resource-sharing relationships with federal agencies that expend significant resources annually to
address conservation issues.
Some states have programs or mechanisms set up to successfully leverage CWSRF funding for NPS
projects. See Chapter 8: Clean Water State Revolving Fund for NPS for additional discussion.
Regional (Multistate) NPS Programs and Initiatives
There are at least three regional efforts that span multiple states, focused on specific large waterbodies
that are in trouble in significant part from nonpoint sources. In all three cases, the federal government is
a significant partner in providing and directing funds to particular efforts, including combating NPS
pollution; yet at the same time, the states are the primary implementers and NPS program managers
are playing significant roles in these programs and use both 319 dollars and other leveraged federal and
state dollars to accomplish the multi-state goals and objectives.
Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) -
There are scores of state and federal agencies, NGOs, and other partners working to develop and
implement nutrient reduction strategies as part of the 12-state MRBI. The USDA-NRCS is providing $80
million to this initiative for each of four fiscal years (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014), for a total investment of
new Farm Bill funding of $320 million over and above regular program funding for each state. The
funding is directed at voluntary projects in 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) priority watersheds
located in 12 key states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Within the first funding year, projects must fit within one of
the following three programs:
112
-------
November 2011
1. $50 million for Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative
2. $25 million for Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program
3. $5 million for Conservation Innovation Grants
The 12-digit priority watersheds, referred to as MRBI HUC initiative Areas by NRCS, were selected with
input from state technical committees and other conservation partners, and generally align with priority
watersheds as designated by the state NPS programs. According to the USDA, "The initiative is
performance oriented, which means that measurable conservation results are required in order to
participate. By focusing on priority watersheds in these 12 states in the basin, USDA, its partner
organizations, state and local agencies, and agricultural producers will coordinate their resources in
areas requiring the most immediate attention and offer the best return on the funds invested." In
general, USDA's investment aligns with several major planning components of the MRBI:
The Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan for the MRB;
The Gulf of Mexico Alliance's Governors' Action Plan for Healthy and Resilient Coasts; and
Nutrient TMDLs developed under various consent decrees.
Chesapeake Bay Program -
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership facilitated by EPA that includes federal and state
agencies, local governments, universities, NGOs, non-profits, and academic institutions. Much of the
work of this regional program is coordinated or completed by EPA Region 3's Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. Chesapeake Bay watershed states (including the District of Columbia) are heavily invested in Bay
restoration and preservation activities, providing roughly three-quarters of the direct spending, and this
investment has been well established over the years. Over a ten-year period ending in 2004, an
estimated $3.7 billion in direct funding from federal, state and local sources was provided to restore the
Bay. Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia invested $2.7 billion during that
period while eleven federal agencies combined for an additional $972 million. This funding was provided
for water quality improvements, land use planning, protection and restoration of habitats and living
resources, and stewardship and community engagement.
EPA funding of the Bay Program Office has risen from about $20 million annually in the late 1990s and
much of the 2000s to $50 million in 2010 and $54.4 million in 2011. The majority of these funds are
passed through to the states and local entities for on-the-ground restoration through the grant
programs described below. The remainder is used to support Chesapeake Bay Program Office staff, the
Chesapeake Bay Program's science and modeling initiatives, supporting the Chesapeake Bay Program
partnership and its many components, various monitoring programs, and special projects. The Bay
Program addresses nonpoint source priorities by providing funding to support the following grant
programs:
Chesapeake Bay Implementation Grants are funded to the Bay states each year under section
117(e)(1) of the Clean Water Act, which focuses on reduction of nutrient and sediment pollution
113
-------
November 2011
from agricultural IMPS, and is administered as a cost share program with eligible farmers. In
2010, this grant program was supported by $9.1 million in federal funds, and this funding has
held relatively constant over the years.
Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program (CBRAP) - The Chesapeake Bay
Program Office provided $11.2 million in 2010, which was the first year of funding for this new
program. This funding level is being maintained for 2011. These new funds are aimed at aiding
the states and the District of Columbia in implementing and expanding their states' regulatory,
accountability and enforcement capabilities, in support of reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment loads delivered to the Bay and implementing the new Chesapeake Bay TMDL. These
CBRAP grants will help states to develop new regulations, design TMDL watershed
implementation plans, reissue and enforce permits, and provide technical and compliance
assistance to local governments and regulated entities. Each state and D.C. may use up to
$200,000 of their FY2010 CBRAP grant funding to access EPA contractor assistance for
watershed implementation plan development. State or local matching funds are required for
the remainder of these grant awards, which provide further leveraging.
The Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants Program provides grants to innovative
and cost-effective projects that dramatically reduce or eliminate nutrient and sediment
pollution into local waterways and the Bay. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office contributed
$12.9 million in its first year of funding in 2009 for 24 projects, with grant recipients providing an
additional $11.7 million in matching funds. In 2010, EPA funding provided $5.9 million to 11
projects, with grant recipients contributing an additional $10.2 million. In 2011, EPA funding
provided $8.2 million to 19 projects, with grant recipients contributing an additional $11.7
million in matching funds. This grant program is administered in cooperation with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Prior to this grant program, NFWF administered the
Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watershed Grants Program through 2007 to target nutrient
reductions with significant support from EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
The Small Watershed Grants Program, currently administered in cooperation with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), with contributions from the USFS, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NRCS and the Chesapeake Bay Trust.
From 2008 through 2011, the Chesapeake Bay Program Office provided between $1.5 and $2
million per year to support this grant program. The Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grant
program provides grants of $20,000 to $200,000 to organizations working on community-based
projects that improve the condition of their local watershed while building stewardship among
citizens. There are three funding priorities: watershed restoration, watershed conservation, and
watershed planning.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (NRCS funding) -
Beyond the federal funds made available through EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office, but working
cooperatively with this regional partnership, the USDA-NRCS has committed to a new effort called the
114
-------
November 2011
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI). The 2008 Farm Bill will provide $188 million over the next
four years to support restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, which represents one of the
largest single federal investments in the clean-up effort and an unprecedented targeting of Farm Bill
resources to a specific watershed. Congressionally authorized future funding levels are $43 million in
2010, $72 million in 2011 and $50 million in 2012. The CBWI is more aligned to NPS program priorities
than NRCS investments such as EQIP. Payments are directed toward High Priority Watersheds, as
determined by NRCS with input from state technical committees and other conservation partners,
including state NPS programs. Payments will go toward conservation practices that reduce sediment
and nutrient losses from fields and pastures in priority/targeted watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay.
Within the CBWI, $72 million is set aside for a new Showcase Watersheds initiative. Three agriculturally
dominated HUC-12 showcase watersheds were singled out for extra funding of $24 million each:
Pennsylvania's Conewago Watershed in Dauphin and Lebanon counties.
Maryland's Upper Chester Watershed in the Eastern Shore
Virginia's Smith Creek Watershed in the Shenandoah Valley
Restoration funds in these watersheds align with EPA-approved nine-element watershed plans for the
Conewago and Upper Chester watersheds, and with an approved TMDL Implementation Plan for the
Smith Creek watershed.
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
Through a coordinated interagency process led by the EPA, implementation of the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) is helping to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. This interagency
collaboration began in 2010. As outlined in the 2010-2014 GLRI Action Plan, the Initiative targets five
focus areas:
1. eliminating or mitigating toxic substances and restoring designated Areas of Concern;
2. preventing and reducing the destructive impacts of invasive species;
3. improving nearshore health and reducing nonpoint source pollution;
4. improving habitat and reducing species loss; and
5. emphasizing and instilling the concepts of accountability, education, monitoring, evaluation,
communication, and partnership throughout GLRI implementation.
The EPA works with its GLRI partners to select the best combination of programs and projects for Great
Lakes restoration and protection. Special priority is being placed on cleaning up and de-listing Areas of
Concern, reducing phosphorus contributions from agricultural and urban lands that contribute to
harmful algal blooms and other water quality impairments, and keeping invasive species out of the
Great Lakes. GLRI funds are used to implement federal projects and projects done in conjunction with
public entities like states, tribes, municipalities, universities and with private entities such as non-
governmental organizations. In addition to funding its own work through grants and contracts, EPA
distributes GLRI funds to other federal agencies to supplement (but not supplant) their base Great Lakes
funding.
115
-------
November 2011
The principal agencies involved with EPA in the GLRI are: White House Council on Environmental Quality,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, Department of Health and Human
Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Interior, and Department of
Transportation.
In its first two years, 2010-2011, approximately $775 million in GLRI funding is being used to restore and
revitalize the Great Lakes, including an investment of more than $162 million in projects competitively
awarded through EPA. The majority of funds have gone to support on-the-ground projects in the Great
Lakes states - Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Watershed plan implementation is a GLRI principal action for improving nearshore health and reducing
nonpoint source pollution. Under Funding Category I.C.8, EPA provided $16.2 million in competitive
grants to support 24 "Watershed BMPs Planning and Implementation" projects in 2010 and another
$7.7 million to support 13 "Watershed Restoration" projects in 2011. All work funded under these
categories address nonpoint sources, and together comprise 15% of the total funds awarded by EPA in
the 2010 and 2011 grant competitions. In 2010, watershed restoration proposals scored significantly
higher if the work aligned with nine-element watershed planning or a TMDL Implementation Plan. In
2011, this alignment became a requirement for eligibility. An additional portion of GLRI funding went
toward developing TMDLs, amounting to $1.9 million in 2010, and this was counted in the federal
leveraging calculations for this study. However, projects that focused on water quality monitoring or on
riparian restoration under a GLRI program other than the NPS or TMDL categories of EPA's competitive
grants offerings were not counted in the federal leveraging calculations for this study. Furthermore,
GLRI funding distributed by other federal agencies are not counted in the federal leveraging calculations
used in this study, even though some agencies, such as the USDA NRCS, are utilizing approved TMDLs
and nine-element watershed based plans to prioritize some of their GLRI funding decisions.
It is worth noting that state NPS staff (largely funded by base 319 funds) from most states either
prepared GLRI grant applications or helped local stakeholders prepare applications. Further, this 319-
funded staff provides technical assistance and administrative support necessary to implement projects,
and they are monitoring the effectiveness of these projects, as well. In many cases, GLRI-funded
projects would not have been possible without the support of 319 funded staff. Lastly, although state
and/or local match was not required for GLRI projects, voluntary match was often provided to show
support from project partners and is a source of additional NPS leveraging not necessarily documented
by this study.
116
-------
November 2011
Chapter 7: Coordination with USDA
The most recent national report on the state of the nation's water quality, the National Water Quality
Inventory: Report to Congress - 2004 Reporting Cycle,10 indicates that agriculture is the leading source of
impairments in assessed rivers and streams (approximately 38%), and the leading known/specified
source of impairments in assessed lakes, ponds, and reservoirs (approximately 17%). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Bill programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Conservation Reserve Program (including the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)) and the Wetlands Reserve Program, provide a
significant potential leveraging source at approximately $3.5 billion/year with which to address
agriculture-related water quality issues.
This study found that coordination between state nonpoint source (NPS) agencies and USDA agencies
(primarily the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA)), varies
significantly among states. As indicated below, in a substantial number of states, EQIP or other Farm Bill
conservation program funding is distributed in whole or in part in accordance with the state's NPS
program goals and priorities. At the same time, many states indicated that they have had difficulty
obtaining significant broad-based, recurring support for NPS program priorities from USDA funding
programs. Many states identified improved coordination and collaboration with USDA programs as a key
NPS program goal. In this regard, a few states have stated that they have made or are in the process of
making progress in obtaining greater levels of support from USDA funding programs to address
agricultural NPS issues.
This study includes the following examples of leveraging: (1) direct coordination between state NPS
program staff and NRCS State or District Conservationists (e.g., efforts of a local NPS watershed
coordinator or NRCS-NPS program liaison position that lead to cooperative funding from 319 and EQIP in
the same watershed), or (2) USDA scoring sheets or ranking systems for Farm Bill conservation programs
include significant weighting of water quality considerations, such as projects focused in section 303(d)-
listed impaired watersheds and/or NPS program priority watersheds or that implement nine-element
watershed-based plans. Landscape conservation initiatives that NRCS has established in priority
geographic areas, such as the Chesapeake Bay Initiative, Mississippi River Basin Healthy Watersheds
Initiative, Illinois River/ Eucha-Spavinaw Initiative, and West Maui Coral Reef Initiative may provide
additional opportunities for increased collaboration. The multi-agency Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
is another opportunity for collaboration.
In order to obtain information about the working relationship between state NPS programs and USDA
funding programs, EPA HQ relied on a number of sources, including:
State NPS Program Annual Reports;
10 See http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/305b/2004report index.cfm.
117
-------
November 2011
State NPS Program Work Plans;
State NPS Management Program Plans; and
Correspondence with EPA Regional and State NPS program staff.
EPA's review has led to the following findings:
Nearly all state NPS program coordinators participate in NRCS state technical committee meetings.
However, in some states these meeting take place relatively infrequently (e.g., 2 or 3 times per year)
and may not provide a strong enough basis for relationship-building and significant partnering.
Opportunities for coordination with NRCS arising from state technical committee membership vary
depending on the state, and can range from the NPS program obtaining information about NRCS
program implementation in the state to NRCS integration of funding with a state's NPS program
priorities, not only in terms of project locations, but also conservation practices.
In addition, many state NPS programs coordinate state-wide interagency (state, federal and local)
NPS committees (e.g., State NPS Coalition or Task Force) that help to guide or administer the state's
NPS program. In most such groups, USDA is represented on the group. This can provide additional
opportunities for NPS program staff coordination with USDA (including Forest Service, NRCS, FSA,
and Cooperative Extension Service). However, only a few states can point to relationships built
within these groups that contribute to an effective process for overall coordination of program
funding prioritization. These groups are discussed further in Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships.
At least six states (AL, CA, DE, FL, KY, NE) fund one or more NPS program/NRCS liaison positions at
the state level. These positions are funded by 319 or in some cases are jointly funded by 319 and
NRCS. The liaisons often work out of an NRCS or conservation district office. Benefits of having a NPS
program liaison to NRCS include greater accessibility to USDA program data and increased
coordination on watershed and best management practices (BMP) targeting.
o Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality's (NDEQ) NPS program has an NRCS liaison
that is jointly funded (50/50) by USDA. The NDEQ/NRCS liaison has the following
responsibilities: 1) coordinate program implementation between NDEQ, NRCS and project
sponsors (e.g., participate in reviews and updates of 319 and EQIP ranking); 2) provide
leadership in organizing and assisting watershed councils (e.g., outreach regarding
opportunities for NRCS programs to complement 319 activities); 3) assist in evaluating the
progress in addressing identified resource concerns in a watershed (e.g., provide technical
information to NDEQ); and 4) support and advise NDEQ staff on coordination of NRCS
programs and section 319 activities (e.g., advise NDEQ of workload and technical assistance
resources at NRCS). The NDEQ also funds a NPS program liaison at University of Nebraska-
Lincoln Cooperative Extension.
o Alabama NPS program supports a statewide agricultural Water Quality Coordinator (WQC)
with base 319 funds, who works to achieve agricultural NPS management program goals and
objectives. The agricultural WQC serves as an NPS pollution management link between the
Soil and Water Conservation Committee and its partners (Alabama Department of
118
-------
November 2011
Environmental Management, NRCS, Resource Conservation and Development, and Soil and
Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs)). The WQC coordinates with NRCS regarding BMP
technical assistance and other aspects of agricultural-related 319-funded watershed
projects (see the Agricultural Programs section of Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and
Initiatives for more information on this position).
o California's State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) uses base 319 funds to support
the coordination and implementation of California's Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program
(ILRP), which operates under the authorities within the Porter-Cologne Act (see the
Agriculture section in Chapter 3: State Regulatory Authorities to Control NPS Pollution). This
funding support includes Water Board staff serving as an active liaison with USDA. The
collaboration with NRCS involves providing a greater emphasis on water quality in NRCS
guidance (such as the Field Office Technical Guide), which has traditionally focused on other
aspects of conservation. This NRCS guidance is used to determine the types of management
practices to be implemented in the EQIP funded projects. As an example, the Region 5
Central Valley Water Quality Control Board enforces the ILRP by requiring dischargers to
development and implement Management Plans (MPs) where monitoring has shown
inadequate water quality. These MPs typically include the management practices that must
be implemented by the dischargers. This, in turn, can help steer NRCS EQIP funding to
support the compliance with and implementation of MPs required under the ILRP. This is
particularly significant because this Board regulates an area that spans approximately
60,000 square miles (nearly 40% of the state) and includes 80% of the state's irrigated
lands. Further, the new Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), established
under the 2008 Farm Bill and administered under NRCS-EQIP, has goals that dovetail very
nicely with those of California's ILRP. California is optimistic that as these two programs
evolve, coordination will increase and both programs will be strengthened.
o Florida NPS program has a state-funded staff member who serves as a liaison between the
NPS program and USDA. Among other duties, this individual serves on the USDA-NRCS State
Technical Committee, which meets several times per year and provides direct input to NRCS
programs like Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), EQIP, Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Forestry Incentives Program.
o Delaware is a small state that is dominated by agriculture. For this reason, the state has
invested heavily in developing a strong, well leveraged agricultural NPS program that
includes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, USDA Farm Services Agency and NRCS. Less formally,
but perhaps more significantly, Delaware's NPS Program Manager (Bob Palmer) has taken
on the role of unofficial NRCS liaison (in addition to his other duties) because the
relationship bears much fruit. Approximately once a month, Bob and his staff join the NRCS
State Conservationist and his staff (6-15 people in all) over lunch to strengthen professional
bonds and to seek ways to integrate their respective programs. Additionally, this crew, plus
119
-------
November 2011
a larger group of agricultural conservation leaders in Delaware (approximately 40 people in
all), conduct standing quarterly state technical committee meetings. Bob notes that
"without 319 base funding, this targeting and coordination would not happen." Five
Conservation Planners from Sussex County and two from Kent County funded with base 319
funds work with farmers to provide nutrient management planning, cost share funding for
agricultural BMPs, and partnering with NRCS to develop conservation plans and EQIP
contracts. These two counties account for 78% of the state's land and approximately 87% of
its agricultural acreage. Delaware and NRCS have established the voluntary Cooperative
Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI) between them to target EQIP funds toward the
state's agricultural NPS priorities. This greater flexibility to target came about through EPA's
Chesapeake Bay Program. Finally, NRCS recently awarded $715,000 to the Sussex
Conservation District through the CCPI to help farmers increase conservation efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
o Kentucky NPS program provides 319 funding to the Kentucky Division of Conservation to
support half of an Agriculture Water Act Liaison position with the University of Kentucky
Cooperative Extension. This individual coordinates statewide agricultural NPS pollution
control efforts with the KY Division of Conservation, KY Division of Water, and University of
Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service. This liaison is currently coordinating with NRCS
through the Agriculture Water Quality Authority to address nutrient reduction issues.
At least 11 states (FL, IL, IN, MN, OK, PA, SD, UT, VA, VT, WV) fund liaison positions at the watershed
or conservation district level. These positions often serve to increase the amount of cross-program
coordination and funding that is obtained for important NPS watershed projects and to pool
resources to provide technical assistance to landowners. The purpose of these liaison positions is to
help promote the utilization of USDA funds in a manner that furthers the mutual interests of the
NPS program and USDA in implementing projects and activities that protect water quality. Examples
include:
o Pennsylvania - See feature story below.
o Utah NPS program leverages staff resources from conservation districts. NPS program
funding provides for up to eight local watershed coordinator contract positions. While
salaries and benefits are usually provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
(UDEQ), the office space and operating materials are often provided by Utah Association of
Conservation Districts (UACD), the local conservation districts, or the NRCS, due to the fact
that many of these positions are co-located with NRCS field offices, UACD or local
Conservation Districts. The watershed coordinators are located in watersheds where a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed and are members of the local community.
The primary focus of coordinators is to ensure the development and implementation of
comprehensive watershed, water quality-based TMDL/watershed plans. In their efforts to
develop and implement plans, watershed coordinators identify sources of funding for
120
-------
November 2011
implementation, provide technical assistance and coordinate with key partners, including
NRCS. UDEQ encourages each watershed coordinator to become an NRCS-certified planner
and to use Farm Bill funding. Farmers seeking Farm Bill program funding for conservation
practices are sometimes referred by NRCS to the local watershed coordinator. The local
watershed coordinators may recommend 319 funding to assist with the landowner's cost
share for EQIP or other USDA program. All watershed coordinators are required to attend
local conservation district meetings, and in many cases projects must ultimately be
approved by the local CDs.
o Oklahoma NPS program supports 8.4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) who work on five active
cost-share implementation programs and projects, including USDA-Farm Service Agency's
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) program. These 8.4 FTEs are housed in
five different Conservation District offices. This cooperation has helped produce a significant
number of Success Stories in the State of Oklahoma, where significant USDA dollars were
focused in priority impaired watersheds (under the Local Emphasis Area Project program,
discussed in the next section) and were determined, in conjunction with Oklahoma's section
319-funded monitoring program, to meet water quality standards (see Chapter 6:
Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs for more information).
o Florida NPS program provides 319 funding to support an Agricultural BMP Outreach Team
(approximately 6 FTEs). This team provides guidance to growers on effective water quality-
related BMPs, provides quality assurance for BMP implementation, develops training
materials, etc. After working with landowners to select potential BMPs for their property,
the Outreach Team assists landowners in identifying and applying to potential funding
sources, including the state agricultural cost share program and USDA Farm Bill programs, to
support BMP implementation.
o Hawaii provides 319 match to support four Resource Conservation Specialists with the
Hawaii Association of Conservation Districts in each county/island to assist local farmers in
creating conservation plans and conduct nutrient planning for individual farms, provide
technical assistance with specific BMPs, and assisting with watershed planning and
implementation efforts.
o Indiana is applying its Clean Water Indiana funds toward agricultural BMP cost share and
on-farm demonstration projects administered by Indiana's State Soil Conservation Board to
Indiana's 92 SWCDs, with each SWCD receiving a maximum of $10,000/year. Beginning in
2011, Indiana will move toward focusing on a few watersheds at a time, so some counties
may receive more than $10,000/year. Also, via the Indiana Conservation Partnership (ICP),
Indiana Department of Environmental Management leverages 319 funds with USDA-NRCS
funds by each funding what the other cannot, as well as funding BMPs both agencies can
fund. The ICP develops an annual Scope of Work for priorities, for example the Mississippi
River Basin Initiative, which delineates what each Partner will deliver to leverage resources.
121
-------
November 2011
State NPS staff work with individual landowners in 319-funded priority watersheds to
secure/leverage EQIP funds.
Feature Story: Pennsylvania Provides Staffing, Resources to Work in Tandem with Farm Bill Programs
Pennsylvania's NPS program agricultural specialist maintains contact with state and county NRCS
personnel on a project-by project basis and represents Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection on the Conewago Initiative Advisory Board. Pennsylvania also provides annual staffing
support sufficient to hire a technical assistance specialist for each of 66 county SWCD offices across the
state through its dedicated environmental fund, Growing Greener (see Chapter 6: Leveraging of State
and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs). These conservation specialists work with individual
farmers to provide technical support and state and Farm bill cost share funding for agricultural BMPs
where they are needed most to protect water quality. Pennsylvania contributes nearly $4 million a year
to SWCD managers in support of conservation activities and programs through a separate Conservation
District Fund Allocation Program. Additionally, the State Conservation Commission uses the annual $4.5
million Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) Program to allows farmers and businesses to
earn tax credits in exchange for BMPs on agricultural operations that will enhance farm production and
protect natural resources. Eligible applicants may receive between 50% and 75% of project costs as state
tax credits for up to $150,000 per agricultural operation, which allows Farm Bill programs to work in
tandem with more targeted state-funded agricultural programs. REAP participants must have developed
an approved conservation plan (or an NRCS approved grazing plan); an agricultural erosion and
sedimentation control plan (which is part of a conservation plan); and a nutrient management plan if
Pennsylvania's Animal Feeding Operation threshold of 8 Animal Units or more is met. And with the 2008
Farm Bill, NRCS is dedicating $9.8 million in the new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative to pay for
conservation practices that reduce sediment and nutrient losses from fields and pastures in priority NPS
Chesapeake Bay watersheds in Pennsylvania. Beyond that, NRCS worked with state NPS staff to select
the Conewago Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania to be a "showcase watershed" and provide $24 million
of Farm Bill funds toward agricultural BMPs (see Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative federal funding
description near the end of Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs).
This is leveraging the substantial investment that Pennsylvania DEP has already made in this watershed,
which is covered by an approved nine-element watershed plan.
As a result of coordination over the years between state NPS program staff and NRCS State
Conservationists, in 26 states (AR, DE, IL, IN, KY, KS, LA, MD, Ml, MN, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OH, OK,
OR, PA, SC, SD, TX, VA, VT, Wl, & WV), EQIP or other Farm Bill program funding is distributed in
whole or in part in accordance with the state's NPS program goals and priorities, i.e., USDA scoring
sheets or ranking systems include significant weighting of water quality considerations, such as
projects focused in section 303(d)-listed impaired watersheds and/or NPS program priority
watersheds or that implement nine-element watershed-based plans. Other examples include where
the state NPS program is actively involved in administering CREP, resulting in projects focused in NPS
priority areas. Among the states that provided examples of successful leveraging of USDA dollars,
122
-------
November 2011
some were often unable to provide exact dollar amounts of USDA funding leveraged to address NPS
program priorities/goals (see the Federal Funding section in Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and
Federal Funding for State NPS Programs for additional information). Examples of Farm Bill funding in
cooperation with NPS program goals and priorities include:
o Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC), the state NPS agency, has pursued a number of
opportunities to strengthen its relationship with USDA. At the local level, OCC 319-funded
watershed project coordinators work out of local conservation district offices in cooperation
with USDA-funded district conservationists to ensure their programs reduce overlap (to
reach the maximum number of producers), and coordinate to select effective agricultural
BMPs for local producers. The OCC's NPS Monitoring Program and Blue Thumb Education
Program (see Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives) help inform conservation
district decision-making as to where USDA funds should be directed at the local level.
Similarly, at the State level, the OCC NPS water quality monitoring data has been used to
identify watersheds where USDA and State program implementation led to section 303(d)
de-listings, leading to engagement with the USDA office about how to achieve further NPS
success. The OCC's close working relationship with the Oklahoma Association of
Conservation Districts (OACD) has led to greater cooperation with and support for the 319
program through conservation district partnerships with USDA. As a result of these efforts,
the OCC has been able to leverage a significant portion of USDA's Farm Bill funding to
address NPS program priorities throughout the State (see Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and
Federal Funding for State NPS Programs for more information). Specific examples of
leveraging include:
ฆ CREP - The OCC plays a key role in administering the USDA-Farm Service Agency's
CREP program, which has obligated approximately $1 million over the past three
years. Generally, USDA CREP funds conservation practices and contracts for long-
term livestock exclusion and riparian protection. Concurrently, section 319 and state
dollars fund technical support to develop and implement the CREP contracts, water
quality monitoring to evaluate success, watershed modeling to identify target areas
for program implementation, and equivalent cost share for riparian exclusion in
areas of the watershed not eligible for CREP.
ฆ EQIP - the OCC leverages this funding through the designation of EQIP Local
Emphasis Area Projects, which are targeted towards specific state conservation
needs. Current efforts include a no-till initiative (i.e. erosion control) in 19 counties
in the state, and a $2 million Cooperative Conservation Partnership in Sugar Creek
to address severe erosion.
o All Region 5 states (IL, IN, Ml, MN, OH, Wl) - Because of the importance of agriculture
across all EPA Region 5 states, the Region systematically worked within each of its states to
ensure the water quality data contained in the approved section 303(d) listed waters is used
to prioritize EQIP funding. At a minimum, it is a factor for both the state ranking question
123
-------
November 2011
(worth 20 points on the scoring sheet) and the national ranking question (worth 10 points
on the scoring sheet). In addition, agricultural lands in all of the Region 5 states areas
covered by nine-element watershed-based plans receive priority consideration for NRCS-
administered Farm Bill funding programs. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota have
additional levels of cooperation, explained below.
o Wisconsin - In addition to the cooperation that occurs across all Region 5 states noted
above, Wisconsin's NR 151 NPS regulations (described in Chapter 3: State Regulatory
Authorities to Control NPS Pollution) are a driver for implementing agricultural BMPs, so
NRCS coordinates with state NPS staff to assist with compliance. Wisconsin's CREP is a
cooperative effort with the USDA's Farm Service Agency and the NRCS, Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture Trade & Consumer Protection, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Land Conservation Districts, and Wisconsin landowners. Currently, about 3,500
landowners around the state are receiving a total of nearly $5 million annually in rental
payments for enrolling lands in this program intended to protect water quality. This
partnership allows Wisconsin to leverage about $82 million in federal payments over the
next 15 years. Also, within priority watersheds in the Great Lakes Basin, NRCS uses TMDL-
derived data and information as the first level of screening to target practices and outreach.
o Michigan - In addition to the cooperation that occurs across all Region 5 states noted
above, if the proposed practice for NRCS funding is implementing an approved TMDL, the
applicant receives extra points on the project scoring sheet.
o Minnesota - In addition to the cooperation that occurs across all Region 5 states noted
above, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency uses its own considerable cost share support
to work with NRCS to target projects that increase effectiveness and stakeholder
acceptance. In the past, Minnesota had a memorandum of agreement with NRCS and
shared staff to facilitate coordination.
o Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW) NPS program staff participated with the NRCS State
Technical Committee extensively during the development of the new EQIP Ranking Tool
upon issuance of the 2008 Farm Bill. NPS program staff also participates in the 14 NRCS-
EQIP pooling area groups throughout the state to help set regional priorities for NRCS-EQIP
funding and to develop EQIP project ranking criteria. KDOW staff provides water quality
data, including impaired waterbody information, to members of these pooling area groups
to direct EQIP funds to address NPS priorities (see the Chapter 6: State and Federal Funding
to Control NPS Pollution for more information). Additionally, KDOW staff worked
cooperatively with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and USDA-Farm
Service Agency to target CRP funding toward impaired waterbodies in western Kentucky in
Federal Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10). KDOW NPS priorities were also addressed through the
Green River CREP program.
o Mississippi NPS program has coordinated with a number of partners, including USDA State
and local offices, Delta Farmers Advocating Resource Management (Delta F.A.R.M.) and
124
-------
November 2011
various State and federal agencies, to leverage a significant portion of the USDA Mississippi
River Basin Initiative (MRBI) funds to address water quality issues in the state. The state NPS
program has developed the Mississippi Watershed Characterization and Ranking Tool
(MWCRT), a spatially-based tool used to characterize sub-watersheds within the major
Mississippi river basins. MWCRT has enabled the Mississippi NPS program and partner
agencies, including NRCS, to shorten the evaluation time for identifying priority watersheds.
Mississippi NPS Program staff indicated that NRCS adjusts its ranking and allocations based
on Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality input to target priority watershed
areas.
o Nebraska - The Water Quality Special Initiative is a cooperative effort between NRCS and
NDEQto coordinate EQIP and Clean Water Act section 319 funding for installation of best
management practices in impaired watersheds. From 2005-2010 NRCS set aside $1 million
annually for EQIP projects. NDEQ, with concurrence by NRCS, will identify the watersheds in
which initiative funds will be made available. The ranking sheet for these funds provides
concentrated installation of select BMPs that are expected to result in the attainment of
water quality standards in designated watersheds.
o Vermont - NRCS added points to the EQIP ranking sheet for projects in watersheds impaired
primarily by agricultural runoff and distributed a map of these watersheds to district offices.
USDA cost share programs give extra points to projects that will improve water quality in
Lake Champlain, a NPS program priority. In addition, the Vermont NPS program collaborated
with USDA on a CREP pilot project in Lake Champlain basin that provided higher incentive
payments, which resulted in increased farmer participation. This project paved the way for
the state-wide CREP. Section 319-funded state staff are dedicated to CREP and working to
increase participation through outreach efforts.
o The Arkansas NPS program indicated that the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission
(ANRC) and Conservation District participation on the NRCS State Technical Committee has
led to an increase in the amount of EQIP funding directed towards ANRC-declared "critical
groundwater areas" and watersheds where watershed based plans (WBPs) have been
developed. In 2011, EQIP funding was allocated to the Illinois River Watershed as a result of
the NPS program's development of a WBP.
o North Dakota NPS program has worked with NRCS through participation in the state
technical committee to incorporate factors for water quality, TMDLs, and 319 watershed
projects into the EQIP priority ranking system. Local 319 grant project coordinators are
often able to leverage EQIP dollars for NPS projects. The project coordinators also assist
NRCS field office staff with the planning and development of EQIP and other USDA Program
plans/agreements within active NPS Program watershed project areas.
o Kansas NPS program's active participation in the state technical committee has led to
inclusion of TMDLs, WRAPS (Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy) project areas,
and Source Water Protection Areas in the EQIP ranking criteria. There are also efforts
125
-------
November 2011
underway to include watershed-based plan targeted areas in the ranking criteria for future
EQIP funds.
o Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the state NPS agency, leverages
USDA-NRCS funds to address water quality by (1) its involvement in Agency and Stakeholder
review (specifically, as a member of NRCS' Oregon State Technical Advisory Committee,
ODEQ has an opportunity to review NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant and Agricultural
Water Enhancement Program project proposals. USDA also consults with ODEQ regarding
implementation of the CREP program, so that funding addresses priority water quality issues
and geographic areas); (2) providing 319 funding for water quality monitoring in watersheds
where USDA funds are distributed for pesticide projects; (3) SWCD specialists and
landowners' use of 319 fund as supplement to access funds through NRCS cost share
programs (for example, ODEQ NPS program staff indicated that, as a result of using 319
funds as a supplement for NRCS cost share programs, USDA funding was directed to NPS
priority areas to assist with TMDL load reductions in the Lower Willamette and Clackamas
subbasins to address water quality issues identified in the Willamette Basin TMDL); and (4)
NRCS is included as a stakeholder during TMDL development so that they are aware of NPS
TMDL implementation priorities, and uses TMDLs to identify priority needs for NRCS
funding.
o South Dakota NPS program coordinates with NRCS and the Farm Service Agency on EQIP,
CRP and CREP. In recent years, animal waste management systems have been an EQIP
priority in South Dakota. Coordination between South Dakota Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and NRCS has involved NPS program support for planning
associated with conservation practice needs and NRCS EQIP funding for implementation of
those plans. The NRCS State Conservationist reviews 319 project plans to determine the
level of NRCS assistance that can be provided to the projects. For example, South Dakota
DENR, South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department and USDA have recently partnered
on the James River Watershed CREP. The focus is on improving water quality, reducing soil
erosion, and providing flood control, all while creating additional pheasant nesting habitat in
the watershed. There are 319-funded projects in the upper and lower parts of the
watershed.
o In Louisiana, USDA-NRCS includes water quality in their priority ranking criteria for the EQIP
program and provides a higher ranking to projects that are intended to "...result in
considerable reductions of non-point source pollution, such as nutrients, sediment,
pesticides, excess salinity in impaired watersheds, groundwater contamination..."
Additionally, project proposals receive more points if they are located within the drainage
area of an impaired stream segment or waterbody.
o Montana NPS program staff makes recommendations to the State Conservationist on EQIP
and other Farm Bill program priorities. NRCS has added points into EQIP and CSP project
126
-------
November 2011
selection process for streams with completed TMDLs. Higher points are awarded to projects
in impaired waters that address pollutants with TMDLs.
o In 2005, the Texas NPS agencies (the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) worked with NRCS to establish an EQIP
Statewide Resource Concern for water quality in south central Texas, which directs EQIP
funding towards protecting streams impacted by bacterial contamination from livestock.
o North Carolina NPS program implements/administers the USDA-Farm Service Agency's CREP
program in a number of Nutrient Sensitive Water watersheds throughout the state,
including the Chowan, Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, Jordan, and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basins.
o In South Carolina, NRCS uses the state's CWA section 303(d) list to help prioritize funding
allocation. One of the questions listed on the EQIP Application Ranking Sheet is: "Will the
majority of the land offered in this application lie in a watershed designated on SCDHEC's
section 303(d) list of impaired watersheds or is in a watershed with an existing 319 project?"
Additionally, NRCS classifies high-priority watersheds as "major needs" (based on sediment,
bacteria, and other impairments); watersheds with an existing 319 project receive higher
priority in this ranking.
At least 16 states (AR, DE, IA, FL, IL, MD, MN, NE, NM, OK, OR, PA, SC, VA, VT, Wl) have programs in
place to provide cost share assistance to farmers in combination with USDA cost share as an
additional incentive for BMP implementation. For example, where USDA assistance for an EQIP
project covers 50% of the total cost, the state may provide 25% of the total cost, thereby reducing
the farmers' cost share from 50% to 25%. This can be significant enough to allow for BMP
implementation by a farmer who otherwise would not have been able to participate. The USDA
programs in these states consider control of NPS pollution in priority areas when determining
farmer eligibility for cost share assistance. This approach likely increases implementation of EQIP
and other Farm Bill programs in areas and on practices of importance to the NPS program. Examples
include:
o Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) has an Agricultural BMP Cost-
Share Incentives Program funded through its Water Quality Improvement Fund, which is
described in Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding for State NPS Programs.
Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program can be (and often is) leveraged with NRCS
EQIP support, reducing the landowner s expense to less than 30% of the total cost. In FY10,
more than $15 million was made available to agricultural producers across the state. This
program focuses on efficient nutrient and sediment reduction from five priority BMPs: cover
crops, conservation tillage, nutrient management plan development and implementation,
livestock exclusion from streams, and the establishment of vegetative riparian buffers.
These five priority BMPs are emphasized in guidance given to 47 local SWCDs spread across
the state for program year funding allocations. Each SWCD receives a funding allocation and
127
-------
November 2011
signs a cost share grant agreement with DCR. SWCDs also receive a lesser amount of "base"
level funding to implement any of the roughly 30 practices contained within the Virginia
Agricultural BMP Cost-Share program manual. Funding is provided to each SWCD to target
TMDL implementation priorities that have tie to agricultural sources. Beyond this program
Virginia also provides an agricultural BMP tax credit program to support voluntary
installation of BMPs that will address Virginia's NPS program objectives (up to 25% of the
first $70,000 spent on agricultural BMPs). To qualify for the tax credit, an agricultural
producer must have an approved conservation plan and the BMPs must be inspected by a
SWCD technician.
o Vermont - VT Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (AAF&M) receives an annual state
appropriation to fund the BMP Cost Share Grant Program, which was established by state
statute in support of Vermont farmers' "voluntary construction of on-farm improvements
designed to abate non-point source agricultural waste discharges into the waters of the
state of Vermont, consistent with goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and with
state water quality standards." The program can award a grant that reduces the producer's
cost share to as low as 15%, however, the state grant cannot exceed 50% of the total cost.
Eligibility factors include eligibility for USDA cost share assistance and whether the farmer
has a nutrient management plan. Priority is given to farmers in the Lake Champlain or Lake
Memphremagog basins. Section 319-funded staff at AAF&M assist with implementation of
this program. Benefits of the program include a greater number of agricultural BMPs
installed/implemented that help achieve NPS program goals and tracking of load reductions
associated with USDA-funded BMPs.
o Iowa Department of Natural Resources NPS program staff coordinate 319 funding with
USDA, Iowa Department of Agriculture and Lands, Iowa's Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program, and the state Watershed Improvement Review Board to make conservation
practices more affordable for farmers. Typically, USDA cost share for a conservation practice
is 50% and the NPS program will work with state and federal partners to provide an
additional 25% of cost share requirement so that landowner only has 25% cost share. In
limited cases, where the water quality benefit warrants, a 319 grant could provide a higher
percentage of the total BMP cost. For example, between 1999 and 2008 the Rathbun Lake
Watershed Project relied on EQIP and 319 funding to provide 75% cost share on private
lands located within high priority areas of the watershed (i.e., areas contributing higher
amounts of sediment and phosphorus to the lake).
o In Oklahoma, 319 and state funds are used as cost share to landowners to implement BMPs
to address water quality problems in priority watersheds. Local Watershed Advisory groups
recommend both individual practices with the greatest likely water quality benefit as well as
cost share rates necessary to ensure voluntary adoption by local landowners. Section 319
and state funds are also utilized as equivalent cost share in areas where the Farm Service
128
-------
November 2011
Agency's CREP projects are implemented but a portion of the watershed is ineligible for
CREP (e.g., a semi-forested area where cattle are grazing and have stream access).
o Under the Nebraska Water Quality Special Initiative a portion of EQIP funds are reserved to
support NPS program priority practices in priority areas (see discussion above). Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality in turn reserves some 319 funds to support EQIP
projects that are funded under the Initiative. In general, EQIP pays for 50% of the practice.
The remaining 50% may be subsidized with section 319, local NRD, landowner or other
funds. Total EQIP, 319 and other federal funds cannot exceed 75% of total cost, preserving
the goal of having the landowner become personally invested in the practice.
o South Carolina NPS Program encourages all watershed-based plan implementation projects
to utilize USDA funds when eligible (typically EQIP and CRP). NPS program staff coordinates
with sub-grantees and county NRCS staff to supplement the homeowner portion of EQIP
contracts with 319 funds through cost share.
In addition to the above findings regarding NPS program coordination with USDA at the state and
local level, this study found that NRCS provides technical assistance/landowner consultation on
agriculture-related 319 projects. A complete list of states engaging in this form of leveraging was
unavailable at the time of this study. Examples include:
o Kansas Department of Health and Environment has a Technical Assistance Partnership MOU
with NRCS and other state and federal agencies to support BMP implementation (see
discussion of this MOU in Chapter 5: Key NPS Partnerships).
o Nebraska NPS program coordination with USDA on meeting technical assistance needs is
facilitated by the NDEQ/NRCS liaison described earlier in this chapter. The liaison interacts
at the local level with Natural Resources District staff and 319-project Technical Advisory
Teams to provide technical assistance on GIS mapping and BMPs.
Additional examples of NPS program coordination with USDA at the state or local level include:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management partners with NRCS to implement the
statewide poultry litter program, and coordinates with NRCS in developing technical standards
and guidelines related to animal waste and nutrient standards. Further, 319 funding provided
original seed money for the current NRCS cost share program that supports the transport of
poultry litter from nutrient-impaired to unimpaired watersheds.
Virginia DCR has a contractual relationship with NRCS to provide engineering services, training
and technical assistance services to support both Virginia's Agricultural TMDL Program as well as
Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost-share Program. Technical assistance furnished by NRCS was
directed to local SWCD and DCR staff to provide for more effective implementation of
agricultural incentive programs that result in water quality improvements. Tasks included
training of SWCD employees to ensure that they are qualified to effectively assist farmers in
their communities to implement on-the-ground BMPs.
129
-------
November 2011
Chapter 8: Use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund for NPS
In 1987, Congress authorized the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Each year, the federal
government appropriates funds to EPA for the CWSRF program, and these funds are distributed by EPA
to every state according to a statutory formula. The CWA primarily provides the CWSRF loans can be
made to the following eligible projects:
1. The construction of publicly owned treatment works by any municipality, intermunicipal,
interstate, or state agency
2. The implementation of projects pursuant to a state nonpoint source pollution management
program
3. The implementation of projects pursuant to an EPA-approved estuary conservation and
management plan
In order to be eligible to receive funding, a project must be listed on a state's annual Intended Use Plan
(IUP), which identifies the intended uses of CWSRF program funds and describes how these uses support
the goals of the state's CWSRF program. Publicly owned treatment works projects, including both
wastewater and regulated stormwater projects, must be prioritized in a Project Priority List. States
select a subset of these projects for funding each year and include them on the IUP. Nonpoint source
projects do not have to be included in the Project Priority List. However, a list of NPS activities eligible
for assistance in a state for a particular year must be included on the IUP for these projects to be
funded.
The NPS project categories eligible for CWSRF funding include: agricultural cropland; agricultural
animals; silviculture; urban; ground water (unknown source); marinas; resource extraction; brownfields
remediation; containment of storage tank (including salt sheds and underground storage tanks); sanitary
landfill remediation and closure; hydromodification; and individual/decentralized sewage treatment.11
However, as a general matter, the following NPS categories are not high priority issues in the states'
own NPS management programs: brownfields remediation, storage tank containment, and sanitary
landfill remediation and closure. Therefore, for the purposes of this report, the aforementioned
categories are regarded as "fringe" NPS activities. The remaining NPS categories for CWSRF funding
(listed above) such as agriculture, silviculture, hydromodification and urban, address the nonpoint
sources of pollution that dominate state 305(b) reports and 303(d) lists, which indicate EPA and state
priorities for the NPS program. Therefore, for purposes of this report, these categories are considered
"core" NPS activities and the discussion about CWSRF funding for NPS projects in this chapter focuses on
"core" NPS activities.
11 Each state has discretion to provide all, part or none of these NPS categories for CWSRF funding eligibility.
130
-------
November 2011
The state summary data included in this chapter is based on information stored in the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) National Information Management System (NIMS), available at
http://water.epa.gov/grants funding/cwsrf/cwnims index.cfm. Findings are based on the 2010 NIMS
reporting year, which includes the total dollar amount of CWSRF assistance (including federal
capitalization grants, state matching funds, bond proceeds, fund investment earnings, and loan
repayments) provided for the implementation of nonpoint source management programs during the
reporting period, July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. The year 2010 was selected because it was the
most recent year for which data was available and it is consistent with the timeframe considered for
other chapters in this report. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds spent in 2010
(carried over from the one-time ARRA allocation from 2009), and tracked separately from Federal Fiscal
Year (FY) 2010 funding by the states and EPA, were deliberately excluded from this analysis to better
focus on what NPS projects are funded in a representative year.12 Additional sources of information for
this chapter include state NPS management program plans, annual reports, state websites and
correspondence with state staff. Due to limited time available for the completion of this study, EPA was
unable to schedule a comprehensive review/update of the data by state CWSRFs.
States have flexibility in how to operate the CWSRF program with respect to priorities for funding,
eligible recipients and project types, and mechanisms for administering the loans. Accordingly,
coordination between state NPS programs and CWSRF varies greatly between states. Several states do
not fund NPS projects (see below) and other states limit loan recipients to public entities. Still other
states restrict nonpoint source funding with SRF dollars to a narrow set of activities that may not reflect
the priority issues faced by the state's nonpoint source program. These state-specific limitations can be
barriers to NPS program managers interested in leveraging SRF dollars for implementation of the state
NPS management program. Nevertheless, as discussed below, a significant number of states allocate
CWSRF loans and/or grants for projects that address NPS pollution.
At least seven states have never used CWSRF funds for NPS projects (outside of ARRA). In direct
contrast with EPA's allowance (and encouragement) of this fund to support NPS projects, most of these
states prohibit this money to be applied to such projects. However, as a result of ARRA and the advent
of the Green Project Reserve, which requires states to use at least 20% of their annual CWSRF allotment
for projects with energy efficiency, water efficiency, green infrastructure or other environmentally
innovate project component, several of these states are taking steps to expand eligible project to
include NPS categories. Among the remainder of states, some have formal programs that focus on NPS
and others only fund NPS activities occasionally or at relatively low levels. From 1990 to 2010, a total of
$3.5 billion of CWSRF funds has been allocated to NPS projects, accounting for approximately 4% of all
CWSRF lending (Figure 8-1). Half of this amount has been directed to primarily address "fringe" NPS
activities.
12 A modest number of States applied ARRA funds to core NPS activities, and a few did so at significant levels (more
than $5 million).
131
-------
November 2011
To date, approximately 2% of all CWSRF lending has been committed to addressing the nonpoint
sources of pollution that dominate state 305(b) reports and 303(d) lists ("core" activities). In 2010, the
following 29 states financed nonpoint source projects (core and fringe) with some level of non-ARRA
CWSRF funding: AK, AR, CA, DE, GA, IA, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NY, OH,
OR, PA, Rl, SD, VA, UT, WV, and WY.
Of these, the following six states committed more than $5 million to core NPS activities (i.e., projects
other than landfill remediation/closure, underground storage tank remediation, and salt storage shed
construction) in 2010: AR, IA, MN, NE, OH, and OR.
4
3.5
3 -
2.5
1.5
1
0.5
0 J
0 Annual
9 Cummulative
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 08 09 10
Figure 8-1: SRF funding for NPS in billions of dollars (Source: EPA Office of Wastewater Management)
In a number of states the NPS program works closely with the CWSRF program to prioritize NPS project
proposals for CWSRF. In some cases, this means collaboration across state agencies and, in most cases,
across offices and divisions within the same agency. In general, the extent to which a state administers
CWSRF loans to NPS projects is often dependent on partnerships between CWSRF program and other
entities. Examples of partnerships that facilitate CWSRF lending for NPS projects are summarized below.
Partnerships with other public entities:
In some cases, CWSRF programs partner with other public entities to distribute CSWSRF loans. One
example of public partnering is through a pass-through loan, in which a CWSRF program makes a loan to
another government agency or to a municipality that then passes the money to private borrowers as
loans for nonpoint source pollution projects. The town, county, or state agency reviews the project and
132
-------
November 2011
the finances of each borrower. Examples of state CWSRF programs designed to support NPS pollution
activities are provided below.
Public partnerships:
Partnerships with local governments
Washington Department of Ecology (CWSRF agency) lends to Conservation Districts, who
lend to farmers. The Conservation Districts guarantee repayment to CWSRF with county
assessments. As the farmer incurs costs, they provide invoices to the Conservation Districts,
which send them to the CWSRF program for disbursement. Also in Washington, many
counties in the state have used the Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving
Fund (SRF) low-interest loan program to create local loan programs to help residents and
small businesses pay for needed repairs and upgrades of faulty on-site sewage systems.
Since 2007, Washington has also awarded grants from its Centennial Clean Water Fund
(Centennial) for administrative costs of those programs and for grants to residents who
cannot qualify for low-interest loans. Most of these loan and grant programs are
administered by local health jurisdictions that apply for loan and grant funding through the
Department of Ecology's Water Quality Financial Assistance Program (which includes SRF
and Centennial funds). The SRF and Centennial programs have provided more than $18
million for this purpose since 2002; at least $5 million of that is available now through
programs in counties throughout Washington. From 2002 to 2011 these local loan
programs funded the repair or replacement of over 600 failing on-site sewage systems in
Washington.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) coordinates with the
Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency on the Community Septic System Loan Program
(CSSLP), which was established in 1999. Under the CSSLP, municipalities with a RIDEM-
approved on-site wastewater management plan (OWMP) can apply for a low-interest loan
for a term of 10 years. A municipality receiving a CSSLP loan will distribute the funds to
homeowners in accordance with the OWMP.
Partnerships with other state agencies (e.g.. Agriculture. Forestry, and Natural Resources)
Delaware has developed an Agricultural Non-Point Source Loan Program as part of its
CWSRF. Local conservation district planners and NRCS assist agricultural producers with
needs assessments and with project planning and design. This program targets poultry and
dairy producers by underwriting up to 90 percent of the producer's share of the cost of
building manure and composting structures. Borrowers guarantee repayment of the loans
with revenue streams from poultry integrators and dairy cooperatives. Poultry and dairy
producers must have an approved waste management plan to be eligible to receive funding
for approved practices. So far, Delaware has funded more than 700 agricultural projects for
133
-------
November 2011
$7.3 million. Delaware has also applied $6.2 million from the CWSRF to repair or upgrade
failing septic systems.
Minnesota's CWSRF program is highly integrated with its NPS program, and provided
$14,900,599 in NPS loans in FY2010. The majority of this is loaned to implement agricultural
best management practices (BMP) through the state's Clean Water Partnership between the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the MN Department of Agriculture (MDA). In
FY2010, $5.4 million was provided to control NPS impacts from cropland and $3.4 million
was provided to control NPS impacts from non-CAFO Animal feeding Operations. Another
$6.0 million was loaned to upgrade failing or underperforming septic systems. Minnesota's
Agricultural BMP loan program is unique among CWSRF programs because of the many
partners involved in its operation. MDA manages this program. Counties receive loans from
the CWSRF, and the counties manage agricultural loan programs at a local level. Soil and
Water Conservation Districts assist farmers with needs assessment and with project
planning and design. To date, Minnesota's CWSRF program has funded 8700 agricultural
projects for more than $118 million.
Maine - Through the Forestry Direct Link Loan Program, the Maine Forest Service's Division
of Forest Policy and Management, Department of Environmental Protection, and the Maine
Municipal Bond Bank have teamed up to offer a mechanism to provide incentive financing
to loggers that reduces NPS pollution risk on timber harvests in Maine. This program
accounted for loans totaling $3.7 million in FY10.
Montana - the Montana CWSRF program lends $1-2 million annually to Montana
Department of Natural Resources to provide loans to increase irrigation efficiency on
agricultural lands.
Partnerships with other federal assistance programs (e.g.. EPA - NPS. USDA- Farm Bill programs.
HUD, etc.)
Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) provides CWSRF funds to support stacking
sheds, fencing, compost sheds, trenching, and no-till farming drills and tail water recovery
nonpoint source projects. Local Conservation Districts partner with ANRC to approve
project plans and approve the completed project. The CWSRF purchases certificates of
deposit at 49 banks, who in turn make reduced interest rate loans (3%) loans to local
farmers to implement agricultural BMPs. Over $50 million has been loaned for agricultural
nonpoint source projects in 35 counties.
West Virginia CWSRF, in partnership with state and federal agencies and banks, provides
cost share for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). CWSRF funds are
available for agricultural BMP projects and remediation of failing septic systems and
removal of straight pipes. Since 1998, more than $10 million has been loaned to fund NPS
134
-------
November 2011
projects for agricultural BMPs ($6.1 million) and septic system upgrades (including removal
of straight pipes) ($4.2 million).
Oklahoma- In 2008 the City of Tulsa utilized $1.25 million of CWSRF funds from the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board to invest in permanent riparian easements to protect
their water supply reservoir. These funds were used as match for the USDA (Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) in that watershed.
North Dakota - The ND NPS program coordinates with the CWSRF program on the Livestock
Waste Management System SRF program, which has annual funding commitments of at
least $500,000. This program helps producers meet 319 and EQIP match/cost share
requirements for manure management systems.
Loan Sponsorship Options:
At least four states (ID, MD, OH, OR) have a CWSRF loan sponsorship option, which allows a water
restoration project (e.g., stream bank stabilization project) to be funded in conjunction with a
community's traditional CWSRF-funded wastewater project. The restoration project is paid for by a
POTW's sewer user charge. Reduced costs from lower interest rates offered by the SRFs result in no
negative financial impact to the utility.
Ohio uses a linked-deposit loan program to fund NPS projects that support county watershed
management plans. The program has provided more than $120 million since 2000. See feature story
below.
Maryland - In addition to direct SRF loans, and similar to Ohio's program, Maryland also relies on a
linked deposit mechanism to provide a source of low interest financing to implement NPS capital
improvements that will reduce the delivery of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries,
and provide safe drinking water. Eligible projects include agricultural BMPs, septic, stormwater, and
shoreline erosion control projects.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) CWSRF "sponsorship agreements" provide
funding to NPS projects that have a nexus with the point source community by adjusting either the
interest rate charged on wastewater treatment/collection facility loans or extended term financing
that lowers the annual debt service. The NPS project costs are generally funded by interest rate
reductions, so that point source rate payers do not experience an increase in their rate burden. The
NPS projects are administered by IDEQ 319 grant staff, and have the same administrative conditions
as any section 319 grant. In SFY2012, DEQ will facilitate the sponsorship of three NPS projects,
totaling approximately $350,000. These projects were selected because they had completed a
technically correct 319 grant application; they were in the same watershed as their sponsor; and,
their sponsor was in support of the NPS effort.
Oregon DEQ's "sponsorship option" financing, available for public agencies, allows a watershed
restoration project to be funded in conjunction with a community's traditional wastewater project.
Examples of sponsorship option NPS projects include: (1) Portland, OR - a sponsorship project in
135
-------
November 2011
September 2003 provided $2.3 million for streambank restoration along the Willamette River and its
tributaries, and (2) in February 2010, the City of Woodburn received $411,000 through the
sponsorship option to fund riparian area enhancements (restoring native vegetation, wildlife
habitat, and providing additional shading) within the Pudding River watershed. The project was
implemented in conjunction with upgrades to the city wastewater collection and treatment facilities
and was paid by sewer rates.
Feature Story - OHIO CWSRF LINKED DEPOSIT LOANS - OVER $120 MILLION SINCE 2000
Ohio created the innovative practice of the linked-deposit loan program and has relied on it since 1993
to fund projects that support county watershed management plans. [A short primer on the Linked
Deposit approach is provided at the end of this feature story.] Since then, other states, such as
Maryland, Idaho and Oregon, have adopted this approach. Ohio's program, called Ohio's Water
Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (WRRSP), is an important enhancement to Ohio's NPS program.
From 2000 to 2010, more than $120 million in WRRSP funds have been provided to address NPS
problems by implementing BMPs for agriculture, forestry, stormwater, and land development, and to
repair failing onsite wastewater treatment systems. To date, this has resulted in the protection and/or
restoration of more than 90 miles of stream corridors and approximately 5,000 acres of high quality
wetlands. WRRSP projects are often linked to specific action items and/or recommendations within
TMDL studies and locally prepared watershed management action plans. Projects proposed under
Ohio's linked deposit program score higher in the application process if they are in watersheds that have
either a completed TMDL and/or state-endorsed watershed action plan. T he financial assistance
provided by WRRSP is critical for local governments, watershed groups and conservation organizations
that are implementing relatively large water quality improvement projects throughout Ohio.
In recent years Ohio has set aside $15 million/year to support priority NPS restoration projects and
priority watershed protection projects$7.5 million for each type. Most of the restoration projects
support the implementation of agricultural BMPs (e.g., manure storage facilities, conservation tillage
equipment, filter strips, grassed waterways, fencing, and alternative watering sources for livestock). On
the priority protection side, WRRSP supports fee simple land purchases and the acquisition of
conservation easements for water quality protection, especially critical in central and northeastern Ohio
where watersheds are experiencing rapid land use conversions.
Soil and water conservation districts (SWCD) for each county assist farmers with needs assessment,
planning & design, and cost estimates. Each county's program is developed with two concurrent steps:
the county SWCD develops a watershed management plan, and the WRRSP and local financial
institutions enter into agreements describing requirements and procedures for linked deposit loans.
Watershed management plans identify and prioritize pollution sources, suggest mitigation actions,
identify funding sources, and establish an implementation schedule for water quality improvements.
Ohio EPA and public review lead to approval of each county SWCD plan. The WRRSP and the SWCD then
sign a memorandum of understanding that describes how these two entities will coordinate their
136
-------
November 2011
implementation of the management plan. As development and review of a watershed management plan
proceeds, SWCDs identify local banks that would like to participate in a linked deposit program. Any
borrower with a project that helps to implement the watershed management plan is eligible for a linked
deposit loan. Participating banks review borrowers' credit using their own credit standards. If a bank
approves a linked deposit loan, the WRRSP purchases a CD of equal value from the bank. The WRRSP
accepts a CD interest rate that is 5% lower than the rate of a U.S. Treasury Note or Bond with the same
term. The bank reduces the borrower's loan interest rate by 5%. The bank makes semiannual payments
of principal and interest to repay the CWSRF for its investment in the CD, even if the borrower defaults
on the linked deposit loan.
Linked Deposit Programs
In a linked deposit loan approach, a state works with local private lending institutions to fund nonpoint
source pollution control. The state agrees to accept a reduced rate of return on an investment (e.g., a
certificate of deposit) and the lending institution agrees to provide a loan to a borrower at a similarly
reduced interest rate. For example, if the typical earnings rate for a certificate of deposit (CD) is five
percent, a state might agree to purchase a CD that earns two percent interest, and in exchange, the
lending institution agrees to provide a loan to a borrower at an interest rate that is three percentage
points lower than the market rate for the borrower. In this program, the CWSRF investment (deposit) is
linked to a low-interest loan, thereby earning the description "linked deposit loan." Linked deposit loan
programs provide benefits for CWSRF programs, local financial institutions, and borrowers. CWSRF
programs can support high priority nonpoint source projects and place risk and management
responsibilities with local lenders. Financial institutions earn profits from the linked deposit agreements
and offer an additional service for their customers. Borrowers save money with low-interest loans and
can comfortably work with their local bank or credit union.
Examples of coordination between state NPS and CWSRF programs:
One example of coordination between state NPS and CWSRF programs is the use of recycled SRF funds
that are provided as match to 319 grant awards. Recycled CWSRF funds are funds that have been paid
back to a state, and that are recycled back into the state's SRF program, and are no longer considered to
be a federal source. Currently, at least four states rely on recycled SRF funds to provide all or part of the
required 40% match for 319 grants: CA, IN, MT (all three in full) and UT (partial match). These and other
examples of coordination between state NPS and CWSRF programs are provided below:
137
-------
November 2011
Feature Story - NPS Incentive Rate in South Dakota
The NPS program in South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) worked
with the Board of Water and Natural Resources to develop an incentive rate to promote the use of SRF
funds for NPS projects in 2004. Any NPS incentive rate loans are in line with SDDENR NPS program goals
because to be eligible, a project must be part of an approved 319 grant project implementation plan.
Since 2004, more than $8 million has been provided for NPS activities as a result of the incentive rate
program.
Traditional wastewater or stormwater projects that include a nonpoint source component may receive
the nonpoint source rate. The annual principal and interest payments are calculated for a loan at the
higher base interest rate. Using the lower interest incentive rate, a loan is sized using the annual
payment previously calculated. The difference in the two loan amounts is the amount of funding
available for the nonpoint source component of the project. For additional information, see
http://denr.sd.gov/dfta/wwf/cwsrf/llcwsrfiup.pdf.
o Minnesota - Minnesota's CWSRF program is highly integrated. Most of the loans go toward
agricultural BMPs. The agricultural BMP loan program, managed by MDA, is unique among CWSRF
programs because of the many partners involved in its operation. Counties receive loans from the
CWSRF, and they manage agricultural loan programs locally. SWCDs assist farmers with needs
assessment and with project planning and design. Minnesota's CWSRF program has funded more
than 1,961 agricultural projects for more than $110 million.
o New York - NPS program staff in the NY Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) coordinate with the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation to review and score all CWSRF applications.
Additionally, the state's Green Innovation Grant Program (GIGP), created in 2009 under the ARRA
Green Project Reserve (GPR), provides grants to municipalities, not-for-profits, SWCDs, and other
eligible recipients for projects that protect water quality and other environmental resources with a
measurable impact on water quality. Project proposals, which are submitted through a separate
application process from the SRF base program, must meet the applicable requirements of both GPR
and the CWSRF program. NPS program staff serves on a multi-agency panel that screens and scores
all GIGP project applications. Approximately $9.4 million in FY2010 GIGP funding supported
nonpoint source projects.
o Washington - The application process for CWSRF is integrated with the state's Centennial Clean
Water Fund and 319(h) funding cycles. A single Request for Proposals (RFP) is administered by the
financial management section of the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program.
CWSRF-funded NPS projects must be in accordance with the state NPS program plan.
138
-------
November 2011
Feature Story - Recent Legislative Changes Increase Utah CWSRF Support for NPS Program
Utah's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is administered by the Utah Water Quality Board
through the staff of the Engineering Section of the Division of Water Quality. There are several ways
that Utah's SRF program supports nonpoint source activities, including projects that reduce/abate
runoff, improve critical aquatic resources, preserve or protect beneficial uses in state waters, improve
watershed management or support TMDL assessments.
The Utah Legislature has designed the Utah CWSRF program to include several funds and subaccounts. A
2007 law revised the existing SRF statute to authorize the Water Quality Board to make fund an eligible
NPS project through a loan the Utah Wastewater Loan program Subaccount or a grant from the
Hardship Grant Program for Wastewater project Subaccount. This change in state law, which was
supported by the Utah DEQ's Division of Water Quality (DWQ), increases the availability of CWSRF
funding for NPS projects. The Hardship Grant Program is financed principally through fees (assessments)
and interest charged on SRF loans. Through collaboration between the state NPS and CWSRF programs,
a portion of the interest from wastewater treatment facility loans is reserved to fund NPS projects. The
NPS reserve is a minimum of $1 million annually for loans (as low as 0% interest for up to 20 years
repayment) and Hardship Grants. With expansion of the Hardship Grant Program over the last four
years to include NPS projects, the program has provided over $7.4 million in direct grants for 97 NPS
projects.
The Water Quality Board also funds other NPS projects, beyond the $1 million reserve. In FY10 the
Water Quality Board approved $1.75 million in additional grants to reduce NPS pollution. The following
projects were supported by the Utah CWSRF in FY09:
South Valley Water Reclamation Facility (SVWRF) provided $2,000,000 for NPS projects within the
Jordan River Watershed. Salt Lake County is working with SVWRF to utilize the funds for water
quality improvement projects and watershed hydrologic and pollutant loading models.
South Utah Valley Municipal Water Association (SUVMWA) set aside $225,000, part of which will be
used for studies on Utah Lake to augment the TMDL.
Central Weber Sewer Improvement District (CWSID) set aside $1,000,000 for NPS projects within its
watershed. CWSID has funded a conservation easement along the upper Weber River and provided
funding for a portion of the Ogden River Restoration.
DWQ NPS program staff have engaged with the Utah Association of Conservation Districts, watershed
coordinators, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to successfully spread the word about the
availability of Hardship Grants and SRF loans for NPS projects. These groups have provided on-the-
ground assistance for land owners and individuals and assisted NPS program staff with identifying
potential loan/grant recipients and help evaluate project eligibility and progress. As provided in Utah's
2009 NPS Program Annual Report. "The philosophy of the DWQ is to provide incentives to 319 grant
recipients to move these projects forward. The DWQ has prepared a list of "targeted" watersheds that
139
-------
November 2011
will be the focus for the NPS and the 319 awards. The hope is to have measurable water quality
improvements within a watershed in a shorter timeframe."
o Pennsylvania - As of March 2010, PennVEST, the agency that manages the state's CWSRF assets,
manages a new separate Nonpoint Source subfund within the CWSRF. Creation and management of
this new NPS subfund was made possible through base 319 funding, which was used to add
dedicated staff to improve the quantity and quality of NPS projects funded with CWSRF (see also
feature story in Chapter 2: Staffing Summary). While $14 million of ARRA funds went toward
agricultural BMPs for manure management in 2010, Pennsylvania intends to continue this program
after ARRA funds expire. A primary driver for the creation of this NPS subfund is to facilitate
nutrient trading between point and nonpoint sources, and in particular to encourage trades with
agricultural operators. Pennsylvania sees point-nonpoint nutrient trading as a central strategy for
implementing the recently finalized Chesapeake Bay TMDL and creating options for renewals of
wastewater treatment plant discharge permits. PennVEST has conducted at least three nutrient
credit auctions to date, and while they have not yet generated much interest in the agricultural
community, PennVEST plans to continue to hold auctions on a regular basis and expects the
agricultural NPS nutrient credit market to grow once implementation of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL
is ratcheted up, as expected (see also feature story in Chapter 2: Staffing Summary ).
o Virginia - The VA DEQ Agricultural BMP Loan Program provides CWSRF loans to Virginia farmers.
From its beginning in January 2000 through June 2010, the DEQ Virginia Ag BMP loan program
provided $34,450,337 in low interest loans to 409 Virginia farmers to improve water quality. In
2010, Virginia passed enabling legislation to allow CWSRF to pay for stormwater projects that
reduce pollution from impervious surfaces.
Feature Story: Iowa CWSRF Programs for On-site Systems and Agriculture
Iowa's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is utilized to finance publicly owned wastewater
treatment, sewer rehabilitation, replacement, and construction, and storm water quality
improvements. Since 1989, the CWSRF has provided more than $1 billion in financing assistance for
water pollution control. NPS program staff in Iowa Department of Natural Resources coordinate with
the Iowa CWSRF program and Iowa Department of Agriculture, Land and Stewardship (IDALS) on
administration of the CWSRF program. The NPS program coordinator directly participates in the on-site
systems component of the SRF program and works with IDALs on SRF program support for the Local
Water Protection Program and Livestock Water Quality Facilities, both agriculture-focused components
of the Iowa CWSRF program. Total FY10 SRF funding for core NPS projects was $18 million.
The Local Water Protection Program (LWPP) offers low-interest loans through participating lenders to
Iowa landowners for projects to control the runoff of sediment, nutrients, pesticides or other nonpoint
source pollutants from entering Iowa waters. The Division of Soil Conservation (DSC) of the Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship administers the program through its local Soil and
140
-------
November 2011
Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). The Iowa Finance Authority (IFA) acts as the financial agent.
Prior to receiving a loan, the landowner must receive project approval from the local SWCD. Eligible
projects include: contour buffer strips, field borders or windbreaks, filter strips, grade stabilization
structures, grassed waterways, terraces, and other practices that are show to improve or protect water
quality.
The Livestock Water Quality Program (LWQ) offers low-interest loans through participating lenders to
Iowa livestock producers for projects to prevent, minimize or eliminate non-point source pollution of
Iowa's rivers and streams from animal feeding operations. Projects eligible for the LWQ include:
development of manure management plans, lagoons, manure management structures, roofed manure
storage structures, and vegetative filters.
o California uses "recycled" (or repayment) SRF investments in NPS projects to count as match to its
319 grant from EPA. The term recycled refers to SRF loans that have been paid back to the state, and
that are recycled back into the SRF program to be used for other projects. Because they represent
repaid monies, the funds are no longer considered a federal source. California tracks these second-
round funds, and makes them available via the SRF program. Those projects funded by second-
round SRF funds can therefore be used as a state match for the 319 grant from EPA. Because
California uses this mechanism to provide the required 40% match up-front, it is able to award
recipients of 319(h) grant funds for projects funded under the state's RFP process, and provide
flexibility in match requirements for target groups such as Disadvantaged Communities and
Environmental Justice communities.
o Indiana, similar to California, relies on recycled SRF funds to meet its federal 319 grant match
obligations. Since 2004, Indiana Finance Authority has a NPS Incentive Fund that focuses on
extending sewers to areas with failing septic systems. Since 2004, $147 million of SRF funds have
been loaned to remove more than 7,400 failing and underperforming septic systems. Approximately
$36 million has been loaned each year between 2005 and 2008, but slowed to roughly $3 million in
2009 and less in 2010 ($539,400 was documented in EPA's NIMS database on unspecified urban NPS
projects, in addition to millions of dollars loaned for restoration of brownfields (a fringe category).
o Kentucky - CWSRF program gives priority funding status to projects that fall within watersheds
where accepted section 319 watershed-based plans have been developed.
141
-------
November 2011
Chapter 9: Current Program Implementation
a. State Nonpoint Source Management Program Plans
The Clean Water Act (CWA) does not require states to revise and update their NPS management
programs. However, as described in "section c" below, updating state NPS Management Program Plans
may be critical in some instances to enable EPA to make satisfactory progress determinations prior to
awarding grants consistent with section 319(h)(8) of the CWA. EPA did require states to update their
NPS management programs in 1999-2000 as a condition for providing a 100% increase in their funding
from $100 million to $200 million. Since that time, some states have updated or even significantly
upgraded their NPS programs, often with considerable encouragement from, and involvement by, EPA's
regional offices. This study found that approximately 28 states' NPS management program plans have
not been upgraded since 1999-2000 and are now significantly out of date. Further, this study found that
these out-of-date program plans play a diminished role or are simply ignored in the current
implementation of the state program, the state's annual application for a 319 grant, and the region's
issuance of the grant. A renewed effort to have all states upgrade their programs at this time could be
an important foundational element of a more effective NPS program.
b. Section 319 Grant Expenditure Rates
Background
The national NPS program received its first funding in Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 1990 at about $38 million.
In FY91-93, Congress provided $50-53 million annually, then $80 million in FY94, $100 million in FY95-97,
and $105 million in FY98. These funds were used by states for the purposes set forth in section 319,
which "include, as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical
assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects."
33 U.S.C. 319(b)(2)(B).
In February 1998, pursuant to the President's announcement of the "Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring
and Protecting America's Waters," the President requested, and the Congress appropriated, an increase
in section 319 funding in FY99 to $200 million. The annual appropriations of section 319 funds have
been as follows since that time:
142
-------
November 2011
Table 9-1: Annual Section 319 Allocations
Federal
Fiscal Year
Appropriation*
1999
$200
2000
$200
2001
$237.5
2002
$237.5
2003
$238.5
2004
$237
2005
$207.3
2006
$204.3
2007
$199.3
2008
$200.9
2009
$200.9
2010
$200.9
2011
$175.5
*in millions of dollars, rounded
As discussed in the Clean Water Action Plan, subsequent guidance documents and the Introduction of
this study, EPA has annually focused $100 million of section 319 appropriations, commonly referred to
as "incremental funds," on the restoration of impaired waters, while the remaining funds, commonly
referred to as "base funds," continued to be spent on the full set of NPS program needs as outlined in
section 319. Beginning in FY02, EPA further specified through grants guidelines that the incremental
funds were to be focused on the development and implementation of watershed-based plans to restore
waters impaired by nonpoint sources. This breakdown of funding amounts was predicated upon the
funding levels provided by Congress at the time and subsequently as well, so that $100 million was
available annually to develop and implement watershed-based plans and at least $100 million remained
available to implement base 319 programs, as had been available since 1995. This assumption recently
broke down in FY2011, when the total funds dropped below $200 million and thus, for the first time in
17 years, it is not possible to provide to states at least $100 million each for both the implementation of
base 319 programs and the development and implementation of watershed-based plans to remediate
impaired waters. This conundrum is a central issue in determining the appropriate balance in the use of
available 319 funds and is discussed elsewhere in this document.
Expenditure Rates
The section 319 grants program is rather unique among major EPA grants programs for states. Typically,
as in CWA section 106 grants and similar grants programs for other environmental media, the grants
support major regulatory programs in which entities are regulated and (with the significant exception of
public entities eligible for State Revolving Loan funds) required to comply with national rules, state
143
-------
November 2011
regulations, and/or permit requirements without federal funding support for construction of facilities or
implementation of practices. Rather, the state grants provide funding that supports state staff and
supporting equipment to implement these regulatory requirements through the development of
regulations, issuance of permits, inspection and enforcement of individual facilities, monitoring for
compliance, and other similar activities.
In contrast to these other environmental media programs, there are generally no federal requirements
and relatively few state requirements for nonpoint sources. In general, individuals and entities are not
required to implement practices, and many of them are individual actors of limited means. Hence, the
section 319 grant program is the only one of the major EPA grant programs that must fund individual
practices in order to achieve the goal of preventing or reducing NPS pollution to protect or restore water
quality. Doing so in a largely nonregulatory environment is a challenge that requires the state to invest
the time and personnel resources to educate the local community as to the nature of the water quality
issue; the need to address it; how it can be addressed; what role individuals in the watershed can take in
solving the problem; the potential cost and the nature and amount of technical and financial assistance
available, etc.
As a result, states generally expend their section 319 funds on two tracks. Much of the base funding is
used to support staff whose activities can be and are implemented within two years of the award of the
grant. A portion of base funds is used for projects that require more time. In contrast, most of the
incremental funding is used to support the implementation of watershed projects, often in the form of
"pass-through" grants distributed locally to prioritized watersheds. In most cases, these watershed-
specific implementation projects require considerably more time to obtain the necessary "buy-in"
(particularly if local entities are on the hook to provide the 40% match requirement) and active
involvement by the local community. This, and other project phasing considerations and monitoring
requirements, often compel the need for project implementation to span more than two or three years.
See the Featured Story above. (Some projects are ambitious and complex enough to require 10 to 15
years of work to achieve enough implementation with available funds to attain clean water - this can be
true even at the "moderate" size of a 12-digit hydrologic unit code. Such projects typically receive
multiple grants over a period of years before they can be completely implemented.) Thus, a grant that is
awarded in late FY11 would likely have most of its base fund activities implemented in FY-12-13, while
most of its incremental funds would be expended in FY13-15.
This unique feature of the section 319 program has focused attention around the question of how long
of an implementation period is appropriate for the implementation of watershed projects. To provide
some information for decision-makers, the analysis below covers the states' expenditure rates in recent
years based on several available tracking tools and data systems. Data available for the analyses come
from EPA's ORBIT (Reporting and Business Intelligence Tool). This tool pulls financial data from a variety
of databases and sources including EPA's Integrated Grants Management System and EPA's Integrated
Financial Management System.
144
-------
November 2011
This analysis is necessarily dependent on data that was developed in the past when "snapshots" of
databases were taken. Historical data pulls from ORBIT are available beginning in June 2007. The most
recent data pull at the time of this study was in June 2011. For this reason, data extracts from June of
each year (2007-2011) were used in the analyses. When data are pulled, it reflects current expenditures
from all the preceding funding years; thus when the June 2007 data pull is conducted, it shows funds
that were expended in that year from grants that were awarded in preceding years. However, there is
one anomaly in the database: the data pull from 2007 did not include 2006 grant information. This is
attributable to human error. At the time the data were pulled, EPA accidentally omitted the 2006 grant
information.
EPA pulled data from ORBIT to analyze the following categories of information:
total 319 funding awarded to states in a specified year (including carryover, as explained below),
total amount of awarded funds that were expended in a specified year, and
total amount of awarded funds that were NOT expended in a specified year.
Carryover is the funding from a previous year that is remaining and rolled into another year's funds. For
example, leftover dollars from aFYOl grant could be reprogrammed into FY02. This FY01 funding would
be considered "carryover" funds in the FY02 grant. Carryover funds help to explain why totals may
appear greater than actual FY funding allocations in a given year.
EPA has charted the rate of fund expenditures over a series of years in order to better understand the
trajectory of funding throughout the life of a particular year's grant as well as to determine whether and
how such trajectories have changed (i.e., improved by expending funds more expeditiously) over time.
Charting out the life of each fiscal year of grant funding is necessary for comparison. Table 9-2 displays
the format used to conduct the analysis. It provides data for each year in which a particular grant has
completed each year of its life span. For example, the FY01 grant will complete its first year in 2002, its
second year in 2003, and so on. This information was developed for all grant years from 2001 to 2011.
By creating this table, EPA can focus comparisons on the same constant (e.g., funds expended in the
third year of grants) over time. The numbers which appear in red bold font represent the years of focus
in the analyses. For example, in Table 9-2, the 2007 row will show in the first column the amount of
FY07 funds that were expended during the first year of the FY07 grant and, moving further along that
row, the table shows that analyses in this study looked at the first through fourth year of FY07 grant
funds, in this case being FY08-11.
145
-------
November 2011
Table 9-2: The Yearly Life Cycle of Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2011 319 Grant Funding (based on an
eight year grant life)
Fiscal Year of
319 Funding
First
Year of
Grant
Second
Year of
Grant
Third
Year of
Grant
Fourth
Year of
Grant
Fifth
Year of
Grant
Sixth
Year of
Grant
Seventh
Year of
Grant
Eighth
Year of
Grant
FY2001 Grant Funds
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
FY2002 Grant Funds
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
FY2003 Grant Funds
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
FY2004 Grant Funds
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
FY2005 Grant Funds
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
FY2006 Grant Funds
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
FY2007 Grant Funds
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
FY2008 Grant Funds
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
FY2009 Grant Funds
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
FY2010 Grant Funds
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
FY2011 Grant Funds
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
146
-------
November 2011
Using the format displayed in Table 9-2 and focusing on one fiscal year of funding at a time and all of its
included data (i.e. the red bolded text across a particular horizontal row) the percentage of funds
expended in each year of that fiscal year's respective grant life was calculated and placed into a
summary table. Using FY07 grant funding as an example, Table 9-3 shows that at the end of the first
year of the grant's life (2008), 30.29% of awarded FY01 grant funds, plus any money carried over from
the previous year had been expended.
The data in Table 9-3 show that as each year of the grant life passes, an increasing percentage of total
funds are expended. This is expected, as states will continue to expend funds in each year of the grant.
Closer examination of Table 9-3 yields other important information. For example, the data for the
"Second Year of Grant" column demonstrate that roughly one-half of all section 319 grant funds have
been expended nationwide for all of the grant years FY05-09. These funds are primarily base funds,
which constituted approximately one-half of the grant funds in these years and which generally
supported full-time equivalents (FTEs) rather than projects (just like funds in other state grant programs
that support mostly FTEs rather than on-the-ground watershed projects). In contrast, the funds
expended in years three through five of the grant are primarily incremental funds that were used to
implement on-the-ground watershed projects which take more time to implement.
Importantly, these data indicate that in the past five years, states have improved their expenditure
rates. This can be observed by comparing the numbers in each column for years three through eight.
The general trend depicts an increase in percentage of funds expended in more recent years; it is thus
clear that, on a nationwide basis, the rate of expenditure is generally increasing with each new year of
funding. It is also true that, while diminishing, there continues to be some remaining unexpended
funding after five years in some states.
147
-------
November 2011
Table 9-3: Percentage of Cumulative Funds Awarded to States that was Expended Nationwide (including carryover funds) in
Years 1-8 of the Specific Grant
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh
Fiscal Year of
First Year
Year of
Year of
Year of
Year of
Year of
Year of
Eighth Year
319 Funding
of Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
Grant
of Grant
FY2001 Grant Funds
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.44%
97.75%
99.93%
FY2002 Grant Funds
NA
NA
NA
NA
87.18%
95.36%
98.80%
99.88%
FY2003 Grant Funds
NA
NA
NA
77.59%
87.56%
93.74%
98.90%
100.00%
FY2004 Grant Funds
NA
NA
64.05%
76.46%
87.64%
95.36%
99.69%
NA
FY2005 Grant Funds
NA
53.57%
67.75%
81.17%
91.71%
97.91%
NA
NA
FY2006 Grant Funds
NA
49.83%
64.21%
81.93%
94.70%
NA
NA
NA
FY2007 Grant Funds
30.29%
48.09%
68.28%
82.71%
NA
NA
NA
NA
FY2008 Grant Funds
24.50%
49.57%
68.49%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FY2009 Grant Funds
30.65%
49.79%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FY2010 Grant Funds
31.49%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
FY2011 Grant Funds
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
148
-------
November 2011
Figure 9-1 compares the rate of expenditure in Year 4 versus Year 5 of the 2002-2007 319 grant awards.
The data show that on a nationwide basis, Year 5 is when expenditure rates of 319 funds are in the high
80%-mid-90%. This is a large improvement from the data on a national basis in Year 4 (data typically fall
between high-70% to low-80%). The Year 5 data also show that with each new year of grant funding,
the rate of expenditure is increasing, indicating that states continue to work to improve their
expenditure rates. Table 9-3 reinforces this point: in Year 4 of 2003 awards, 77.59% of funds were
expended and in Year 5 of 2003 awards, 87.56% of funds were expended. Comparing this with Year 4 of
2006 awards (81.93%) and Year 5 of 2006 awards (94.70%), shows that in more recent years of
funding, funds remaining in the 4th and 5th years are being expended at a significantly faster rate than
previously.
Figure 9-1. Percentage of Funds Expended Nationwide in Year 5 of 319 Grants for FY01-10
Percentage of Funds Expended Nationwide in Year
4 vs. Year 5 of FY 2001-2010 Awarded 319 Funds
"O
Ol
ฆO
c
Ol
CL
X
ฆO
c
Ol
txo
TO
+ฆป
c
Ol
Ol
CL
100.00%
95.00%
90.00%
85.00%
80.00%
75.00%
70.00%
Yea r 4 of Gra nts
Yea r 5 of Gra nts
ฆ 83% Expended Li ne
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fiscal year of 319 Grant Funding
2007
2008
c. Satisfactory Progress Determinations
As outlined in CWA section 319(h)(8), the EPA Regional Administrator may not award section 319 grant
funds to a state unless the Regional Administrator determines that the state has made satisfactory
progress during the previous fiscal year in meeting the schedule of milestones specified in the state's
149
-------
November 2011
NPS Management Program Plan. EPA's section 319 guidelines require that each EPA regional office
issues a written determination that the state has made satisfactory progress during the previous fiscal
year and includes it in each section 319 grant, or in a separate document, prior to award of the grant. In
order to obtain information on section 319 satisfactory progress determinations, EPA relied on the
following sources: State NPS program grant work plans, annual program reports, section 319 grant
award documents, EPA regional documents (including satisfactory progress determination letters to
States and EPA regional criteria used to determine satisfactory progress), and correspondence with EPA
regional and State NPS program staff.
At least one EPA region exercised its authority to determine that a state has not made satisfactory
progress and withheld an entire 319 grant award as a consequence. The lost funds were reallocated
among the other states in that region. This study also found that a few regions have conditioned a
satisfactory progress determination on certain program improvements and have withheld a portion of
the grant until the state addressed the region's concerns.
Two key state NPS program documents that should be available to EPA regions to assist with a
determination of satisfactory progress are: (1) the NPS program work plan that is developed by the state
each year as part of the grant application process and, (2) the state's NPS program's annual report for
the preceding year.
Seven regions indicated that they review both the state's work plan and annual report when
determining satisfactory progress. In addition to these two documents, resources that regions said they
use when conducting satisfactory progress determinations collectively include:
tracking of 319 grant expenditure/drawdown rates
NPS Management Program Plan to review the state NPS program's goals/milestones
NPS Program Grants Reporting Midyear and End-of-Year Report
Review of the state's performance under national measures, including: NPS Success Stories,
Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) reporting (load reductions, etc.)
Tracking of percent of active projects in grants with up-to-date evaluations
Tracking of percent of active projects that are on, or ahead of, schedule
Grant (project) progress and closure reports
Site visits
Standing meetings (typically quarterly) or conference calls between EPA management and state
management to assess progress and discuss performance issues across water programs,
including 319.
Work Plans
All states submit NPS program/319 grant work plans. The work plan, which is attached to a state's 319
grant application, should provide an overview of the 319 (and non-federal match) funded NPS
programs/activities to be implemented in the upcoming fiscal year. The layout and level of detail
150
-------
November 2011
provided in 319 work plans varies from state-to-state. The highest quality state work plans provide a
clear breakdown of how both base and incremental funds will be used on a project-specific level, and
include the following for each project/activity: project description, expected outputs/outcomes, and an
overview of the NPS program plan goals/milestones to be accomplished as a result of the
project/activity. In general, detailed budgets are not provided for projects within Performance
Partnership Grants (PPG).
Alternatively, many state work plans do not clearly indicate the source of 319 funding (base or
incremental) for a particular project. Five regions have states with work plans that lack specificity with
regard to activities performed by staff and anticipated results (outputs/outcomes) for the upcoming
year. This is particularly true for the base operations/NPS program administration portion of these
grants, which typically receive nearly half of a state's grant award (e.g., the work plan does not include
position descriptions for all 319-supported staff). As a result, EPA's ability to efficiently ascertain how
these states used 319 funds as part of this study was limited, and in some cases it was necessary to
conduct significant follow-up with states and EPA regions to better understand state program activities.
Also, project funding amounts presented in state work plans and in GRTS sometimes differed. These
differences may be explained by changes during the grant period; however, it is sometimes difficult to
determine which source of information is the most current and accurate without contacting the state
NPS program coordinator.
Another approach taken by many states is to provide collections of individual work plans for each 319-
funded project (such as Project Implementation Plans) instead of one grant work plan that covers how
the entire annual 319 allocation will be utilized. States that have part or all of their 319 grant included in
a PPG may use a work plan format that is common for all PPG programs.
Annual Reports
All states in six regions submit timely annual reports. There is much variance with regard to the
components and level of detail included in these reports, as well as their length and areas of emphasis.
There are also some states that typically provide annual grant reports but not annual program reports.
An annual grant report would only cover projects funded by that particular grant, whereas a program
annual report covers all NPS program activities over the prior year and other required elements of an
annual report, as set forth in section 319(h)(ll) of the CWA:
Each State shall report to the Administrator on an annual basis concerning (A) its progress in
meeting the schedule of milestones submitted pursuant to subsection (B)(2)(C) of this section,
and (B) to the extent that appropriate information is available, reductions in nonpoint source
pollutant loadings and improvements in water quality for those navigable waters or watersheds
within the State which were identified pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section resulting
from implementation of the management program.
151
-------
November 2011
These reports should provide an overview of program activities/accomplishments for the previous fiscal
year. The information provided in the NPS annual reports should further convey how the state has made
progress toward meeting the schedule of milestones in their NPS Management Program over the past
fiscal year. Based on EPA's review of recent state annual reports for this study, information commonly
provided in these reports includes: program highlights and accomplishments, program expenditures,
overview of statewide programs, best management practice (BMP) implementation and estimated load
reductions for active and recently completed (within the last fiscal year) NPS projects, and some
discussion of NPS program partner activities. (Note that water quality improvements are reported
publicly through EPA's section 319 NPS Success Stories website at www.epa.gov/nps/success).
As discussed above, a state's ability to report on its progress towards accomplishing program goals and
milestones is directly related to the condition of the state's NPS management plan. States whose NPS
management program plans are out of date are hindered in their ability to measure program
accomplishments against current, documented program goals and milestones.
This study found that the degree of detail in annual program reports varies greatly between states. For
example, annual reports range from 20-page documents to several hundred page documents. Also,
regardless of length, some state annual reports consist to a significant extent of boilerplate language
that changes little if any from year to year. This suggests that there is either little variation in program
activities from year to year, or that variations are not fully captured in the annual report.
In light of the varying level of detail and information provided in state NPS program annual reports,
some EPA regional satisfactory progress determination letters include recommendations on how the
state should improve NPS program annual reports so that the region can better assess the state's
progress in accomplishing program goals/milestones over the previous year.
Current State of Regional Satisfactory Progress Determinations
Nine regions indicated that they do not use a checklist or written standard operating procedure when
determining satisfactory progress, though several regions expressly noted that they are either in the
process of developing more formal procedures or would support the development of such a tool to aid
in their satisfactory progress determinations. In response to the need for greater national consistency in
regional satisfactory progress determination protocols, EPA will develop a draft satisfactory progress
determination checklist in FY12 to aid regions in evaluating the states' NPS management programs and
accomplishments (see Appendix Cfor more information).
EPA regional offices employ various methods of communicating a satisfactory progress determination to
the states. Four regions send satisfactory progress determination letters to each state to provide an
overview and/or highlights of the state's program accomplishments in the last fiscal year, as well as
recommendations for NPS program improvements. Another region sends letters to each state that
serves a similar purpose, and where states have had 319 grant performance issues in the recent past,
152
-------
November 2011
they are accompanied by detailed "advanced monitoring reports." Letters from these five regions are
usually incorporated in the state's 319 grant file for the following year. Some of the most common
recommendations included in these letters are:
If out-of-date, the state should update its NPS Management Program to accurately reflect the
program's current structure, priorities, goals/milestones, etc.
The state should maintain/improve its efforts to report NPS projects, load reductions, and other
required information in GRTS.
The state NPS program should continue/improve interagency coordination with NPS partners,
such as USDA.
The state should continue/improve its effort to reduce unliquidated obligations, such as by
decreasing the amount of time it takes to obligate its grant funds into subawards.
Programmatic recommendations related to: implementation of watershed-based plans, water
quality monitoring, prioritization and use of 319 funds, etc.
Three regions implicitly confer determinations of satisfactory progress through the funding
recommendation or the grant award document for the following year. Another region takes the same
approach for half of its states and for the other states, the region consistently writes satisfactory
progress determination letters similar to those described in the previous paragraph. Finally, one region
writes satisfactory progress determination letters to its states more infrequently, such as when there is
a finding of unsatisfactory progress or when the region has concerns about the state's program and
wishes to provide specific recommendations for improvement.
In instances where the region does communicate recommendations for program improvements,
regional follow-up and oversight throughout the grant year is an important element for ensuring
program effectiveness. Most regions described their follow-up activities as centered on frequent
communication with their states. Most EPA regional project officers are in contact with state NPS
program coordinators on at least a weekly basis. Also, several regions have more formal
communications with the state on a regular basis, such as bi-monthly conference calls or mid-year and
end-of-year meetings. Regions can also monitor state progress on some recommended improvements
through GRTS reporting.
Historically, there have been few instances where an EPA region has determined that a state did not
make satisfactory progress towards achieving program goals and milestones. This has occurred in at
least three regions. In one case, the region noted that a state work plan did not sufficiently detail
progress made over the preceding fiscal year. Additionally, the state had a significant unliquidated
obligation. As a result, this state's 319 award funds were reduced the following year. In another
instance, a state repeatedly had difficulty obligating the grant award funds due to a shortage of project
partners who were in a position to provide the required 40% matching funds. After several years of
warnings about unsatisfactory progress, the following year's entire grant was not awarded to that state
153
-------
November 2011
and the lost funds were reallocated among the other states in that region. Performance improved, and
a remediation plan was developed by the state and the region, and continues to be closely tracked years
later. There are also a few regions that have conditioned a satisfactory progress determination on
certain program improvements and have withheld a portion of the grant until the state addressed the
region's concerns.
While most regions conduct annual program reviews based on program documents and the EPA project
officer's interactions with the state throughout the year, Regions 3 and 6 provide examples of more
prescriptive approaches to satisfactory progress determinations. For example, EPA Region 6 hosts or
meets with each state for an end-of-year grant and program review, which is written by the NPS project
officer and signed by the Water Division Director. Region 6 staff conduct several project or watershed
site visits throughout the year, during which project sponsors may be invited to discuss their projects.
Findings from these site visits are also incorporated in the end-of-year review.
EPA Region 3 has developed a thorough three-page standard operating procedure with a checklist for
determining satisfactory progress and conveying that determination to the state. The following targets
for drawing down grant funds are tracked and documented annually for each state in Region 3:
75% of the active projects across all grants have current evaluations.
75% of the funded projects each grant year are on or ahead of schedule.
75% of BMP implementation projects have load reductions
100% of completed BMP implementation projects have WebRIT tags (which facilitates Web-
based mapping of 319-funded projects)
75% of grant money awarded 3 years ago has been drawn down
50% of grant money awarded 2 years ago has been drawn down
25% of grant money awarded 1 year ago has been drawn down
154
-------
November 2011
Chapter 10: State Processes for Solicitation, Prioritization and Selection of 319 Projects
Much of this chapter is focused on how states utilize their core NPS programs, typically supported with
base 319 funds, to fund pass-through projects, which are primarily supported with incremental funds. As
part of this NPS program study, EPA performed a simple evaluation of the processes employed by state
NPS programs to determine which projects to fund from year to year. As summarized below, the study
considered mechanisms for soliciting project proposals, project funding priorities, and decision-making
authority. EPA relied on information from the following sources to develop this chapter: state NPS
management program plans, annual reports, state NPS program websites and request for proposals
(RFPs) or similar project solicitation materials.
With regard to state processes for soliciting, prioritizing and selecting section 319-funded projects,
findings are summarized in the bullets that follow.
Almost all states use a competitive grant application process, such as Requests for Proposals
(RFPs), when soliciting project proposals for incremental 319 funding. Most states use the same
or similar process for a portion of their base 319 funding allocations. See Table 10-1 for details.
New York's NPS program, a PPG state which uses the entire 319 allocation (base and
incremental) to support staff, funds NPS projects through two state funding programs: the
Water Quality Improvement Project (WQIP) Program for non-agricultural NPS projects, and the
Agriculture Nonpoint Source Abatement & Control Grant Program for agricultural NPS projects.
The NY Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is a member of the two
interagency committees that review and select project proposals.
Table 10-1: Project Solicitation Mechanism
Project Solicitation Mechanism
States
State Totals
Use an RFP(or other
competitive
mechanism)
Incremental
and Base
Funds
AK, AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY,
MA, ME, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NV, OR, PA,
Rl, SD, TN, TX UT, VA, VT, WV, WY
33
Incremental
Funds Only
AZ, CA, CT, DC, DE, LA, MD, Ml, MN, MT, NJ,
NM, OH, SC, WA, Wl
16
Use non-competitive mechanism
incremental projects
OK
1
Joint RFP with sister program
AK (with state-funded programs),
IA (with state ag), MD (with 2 state-funded
programs: the Ches. & Coastal Bays Trust Fund
and the Ches. Bay Trust)RI (with state funding
programs), WA (with state grant program and
SRF)
5
155
-------
November 2011
Feature Story: Minnesota's NPS Project Prioritization and Section 319 Funding
Minnesota's 319 funding is competitively awarded and passed through to local governmental units
(LGUs) once a year in two funding categories -TMDL implementation and Developmental,
Education, and Research (DER). Approximately two-thirds of the pass-through funding is for
implementation, with DER receiving roughly a third of the available pass-through funds. Project
selections are based on pre-determined scoring criteria. Those seeking TMDL implementation
funding must address activities outlined in MPCA-approved implementation plans, include civic
engagement to carry out the project, and have demonstrated: previous successes related to TMDL
projects; an ability to make water quality improvements through measured outcomes; and cost-
effectiveness. All DER proposals must address at least one specific Milestone/Action Step in the
state's NPS Management Program Plan. This funding is also coordinated closely with the state's own
sizeable Clean Water Funds (see feature story in Chapter 6: Leveraging of State and Federal Funding
for State NPS Programs). Those applying for 319 funds under the DER program are also encouraged
to address needs identified by the state's Impaired Waters Research Symposium. One example DER
project funded by 319 is Minnesota's road salt and chlorides study, which also included an
education/training component.
Pass-through funding leverages significant dollars from numerous state and local sources. Each
individual project must provide a 45% match; many provide more. In recent years, the average
annual MPCA section 319 NPS pass-through award total is $3 million, which in turn leverages at least
$2.5 million from LGUs. Proposals are reviewed and scored by both the MPCA review team and
members of the state's Project Coordination Team (PCT). The PCT is a public interagency group
established in Minnesota Statute that assists the MPCA in recommending to its Commissioner
projects that should receive financial and/or technical assistance. The MPCA is undergoing an effort
to further plan for and target NPS program work by identifying Priority Management Zones (PMZs).
PMZs are defined as areas or practices that contribute disproportionately high pollutant loads or
have a capacity to greatly buffer pollutants or stressors. They are a useful method to identify and
prioritize these areas or practices as part of watershed restoration and planning efforts. PMZs can
be delineated at a variety of scales from small to large. They may consist of broad areas of highly
erodible soils or a particular geologic landscape like karst that transports pollutants quickly. PMZs
might include particular land use practices scattered throughout a watershed or concentrated in a
particular subwatershed or farm site. In addition to identifying PMZs at a small scale, it can also be
effective and economical to work on priority pollutant source reduction over a large scale, such as a
multiple watershed basin.
In at least 15 states (CA, CO, CT, IA, ID, HI, KS, MA, MS, NC, OK, SC, SD, VA, WV) NPS program
staff work at the local level in NPS-impaired watersheds prior to selecting a project application
to receive 319 funding. This pre-project coordination helps increase local understanding of NPS
156
-------
November 2011
program priorities, identify potential project partners, gauge local capacity/community
receptivity to the project, and thus, overall potential project success. These efforts typically
improve the quality of proposals and, ultimately, water quality results from 319-funded projects.
Among the states that commit 319 resources to pre-project capacity building, some states
conduct this work at the basin or watershed-scale, often times through basin-wide planning
programs. See the Capacity Building Programs section of Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs
and Initiatives for more information on the role of statewide efforts to increase local capacity
for NPS projects. Examples of pre-319 project proposal planning/outreach include:
o The Colorado NPS program works with the Colorado NPS Alliance to conduct outreach
activities focused on identifying local issues so that the right projects in the right places
at the right times are proposed. The NPS program staff also works directly with current
and potential sponsors, providing assistance on proposal development. In addition, the
NPS program provides technical support to develop local watershed groups where
water quality conditions indicate the need for such a group and none currently exists.
o Oklahoma does not use a competitive process for selecting 319-funded projects, so the
state has established a unique approach to pre-proposal coordination that informs how
section 319 funding is distributed. Each year the Oklahoma Conservation Commission
(OCC), the state NPS agency, coordinates with the state's NPS Working Group to
develop five work plans (2 program administration and planning work plans, 1
assessment and monitoring work plan, 1 education work plan, and 1 priority watershed
implementation project work plan), which inform the allocation of 319 funds. Much of
the work accomplished through these work plans is administered by the OCC, in
partnership with conservation districts. Additionally, the OCC prioritizes the state's 180+
HUC 11 watersheds (based on source and causes of pollution; availability of active,
willing partners; whether the proposed project has been identified in the watershed-
based plan as a mechanism for implementation of success, etc.) where greater than 25%
of the assessed waters are 303(d) listed to determine where to direct 319 funds. The
OCC works closely with conservation districts in priority watersheds to keep them
informed of NPS concerns and success in their districts, and provides them with water
quality monitoring data results, including locations of impaired waters and areas where
waterbodies are unimpaired or improving. As a result of this coordination, the
conservation districts consider NPS priorities when applying for annual funding through
programs like the state's locally-led cost share program. As a result of pre-project
coordination, the OCC is able to direct 319 funds to watersheds with the greatest local
capacity and the greatest potential for success.
o California conducts a Basin Planning process to coordinate TMDLs, permits, monitoring,
and regulatory aspects of its Porter-Cologne Act, which sets Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs), Waivers to WDRs, and Basin Plan prohibitions, all of which can
apply to NPS pollution. Once a Basin Plan is adopted by a Regional Water Quality Control
157
-------
November 2011
Board it can be formally amended through a public participation process to adopt and
implement TMDLs through regulatory and voluntary processes. A byproduct of this
planning is that it establishes priority watersheds for 319 funding.
o Virginia has begun to apply a balanced basin prioritization approach within its NPS
management program. For years, Virginia had established and maintained high, medium
and low priority watersheds based on 303(d) impairments, TMDLs, and other factors.
Recently, Virginia is balancing the need for restoration with the need for watershed
protection, with the understanding that it is less expensive to protect watersheds to
preserve water quality and ecological services than it is to remediate the effects of
watershed degradation after they have occurred. Virginia is now undertaking a
comprehensive Healthy Waters Strategy to protect water quality and prevent
impairments. This Healthy Waters Strategy was recently integrated into the state's NPS
Management Strategy. The Interactive Stream Assessment Resources (INSTAR) is a new
database and decision support tool that is used by Virginia to identify healthy waters
resources. INSTAR assesses the integrity of watershed across Virginia based on GIS
coverage and six biological metrics (see http://instar.vcu.edu/watershed.html for more
information). To support implementation, data is being incorporated as a funding
consideration in the state's Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program. As a result of this new
balanced protection-restoration approach, Virginia has changed its criteria for
agricultural BMP cost share funding as well as its funding criteria for 319 projects.
Kansas Strengthens NPS Program through Basin-wide Planning Approach
In recent years Kansas has improved the effectiveness of their NPS program through better utilization of
various state and federal funding sources and the successful implementation of the Watershed
Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) Program. WRAPS was launched in 2004, in part due to the
efforts of 319-funded staff at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), and is a cross-
agency framework that offers opportunities for the public and stakeholders to participate in decisions
about protection/restoration at the watershed level. Through WRAPS, Kansas awards grants for
implementation of nine-element watershed-based plans.
In the winter of 2008, Kansas drafted guidance for projects to write or re-write watershed plans to be
nine-element compliant. In the summer of 2009, Kansas hosted multiple workshops to educate
watershed project coordinators on the planning requirements and made compliance a requirement to
receive future funding through the WRAPS program (http://www.kswraps.org/watershed-plan). One of
the key components of the plan writing process is collaborative partnerships between the state, the
local agencies and local landowners. These partnerships lay the foundation for WRAPS projects to
leverage other resources for implementation.
A multi-agency work group meets bimonthly to foster program implementation partnerships, provide
administrative guidance to the program, and to align program funding with state water quality priorities
158
-------
November 2011
(such as implementation of the Kansas Surface Water Nutrient Reduction Plan). The Work Group (also
known as the KS WRAPS Work Group), is made up of representatives from 13 state and federal agencies.
Representatives of each member agency have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to assure
financial, programmatic and technical assistance resources of their respective agencies are directed to
priority water resource needs. Funds from the following agencies have been leveraged to implement
WRAPS projects: Division of Conservation, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Kansas Forest
Service, Kansas Association for Conservation and Environmental Education, The Kansas Water Office
(KWO), Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Farm Service Agency. For example, the KWO has
recently been the recipient of a Wetland Development Program Grant that will work to incorporate the
protection of identified Heritage Streams into the planning framework. An additional responsibility of
the WRAPS work group is to review and recommend grant applications for funding. Applicants are given
an application funding cap based on state priority, local interest and past project performance (referred
to as a Score Matrix). Based on the Score Matrix, the highest priority watershed projects are eligible for
the most financial assistance. In a short period of time, the WRAPS program grew from six pilot
watershed projects to over 40. The current estimated financial need to implement nine-element
watershed plans is over $7 million annually (more than twice the FY11 319 allocation for Kansas).
Key program improvements:
The WRAPS program has a direct and positive impact on restoring and protecting waters of the
state. Most recently, Kansas celebrated two success stories in which water bodies were removed
from the state's 303d list of impaired waters as a result of collaboration between WRAPS projects
and local partners.
Kansas has emphasized planning and embraced the nine-element approach by, for example,
developing an on-line grant application and tracking system that revolves around the nine elements
and enables a lateral transfer of information from the watershed-based plan to the application.
The multi-agency WRAPS Workgroup structure has resulted in positive synergism among agencies in
addressing water quality issues throughout the state. For example, the WRAPS concept and the
emphasis on developing and implementing watershed-based plans has been woven into the
strategic plans of other state agencies, thus providing a single unified, and stable voice throughout
the state as water quality issues and needs arise. In addition, this collaborative approach has led to
innovative multi-agency partnerships to fill program gaps.
The WRAPS program has resulted in leveraging existing resources toward high priority watersheds
and has laid the foundation for creating new state resources. Kansas Water Plan funds were
allocated for WRAPS projects and additional cost-share in high priority WRAPS watersheds. Also,
WRAPS HUC 12 watersheds are given priority as part of the ranking criteria for projects applying for
EQIP. The Kansas NPS program has recently entered into an MOU with NRCS, the Kansas
Department of Agriculture and other partners to provide financial resources aimed at funding new
positions to meet increasing landowner demand for technical and design assistance. WRAPS
technical assistance needs are estimated annually and are considered in the annual workload
159
-------
November 2011
analysis conducted by NRCS. The project has already resulted in a faster turnaround time in BMP
design and an increase in buffer cost-share applications.
There has also been significant effort to integrate and work collaboratively with other programs
within the KDHE.
1. The TMDL program provides technical assistance in developing and reviewing watershed plans.
2. KDHE's move to allocate 85% of ARRA Clean Water SRF funds to Green Project Reserve eligible
projects resulted in greater emphasis on funding NPS projects with SRF and one FTE (jointly
funded by the SRF and NPS programs) that is responsible for integrating SRF dollars into water
quality projects.
3. The NPS program collaborated with the Bureau of Field Services (BEFS) within KDHE to develop
and initiate a Healthy Watersheds Initiative pilot project that will lead to the identification of the
least disturbed watersheds within Kansas and their listing within the classified waters of the
state. As a result, these healthy watersheds will be afforded protection, and special
consideration in the face of constant land use change. The NPS program also partnered with
BEFS to design and implement a water quality monitoring program to specifically track
improvements of targeted implementation within identified subwatersheds.
For more information on leveraging and USDA coordination, see Chapters 5 and 7 respectively.
Table 10-2: State Criteria for Making 319 Grant Awards
Common Criteria for Project
Selection
States
State
Totals
Implementing WBP
AR, DC, DE, IA, ID, FL, GA, KY, KS, LA, MA, MD, MO, MT, NE,
NH, NM, OK, PA, SC, TCEQ UT, VA, WV, WY
25
Waters on 303(d) list
AK, AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, KY, KS, LA, MD, MO, MT, NM, OK, OR,
SC, SD, UT, TN, TCEQ, VT, WY
22
Local capacity
IA, FL, GA, KY, KS, MA, MS, MT, NC, NH, NM, OK, OR, Rl, SC,
TCEQ, VT, WA, WV, WY
20
Project feasibility (likelihood
of success, pollutant load
reductions, etc.)
FL, KY, KS, MA, MD, MO, MS, MT, NC, NH, NM, OK, Rl, SC,
TCEQ,
UT, VA, VT, WA, WY
20
Developing or Implementing
TMDLs
AL, AR, CO, ID, KS, MO, MS, MT, ND, NM, OR, Rl, SC, SD,
TCEQ, UT, VT, WY
18
Location in priority
watershed or basin
AR, CO, CT, IA, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, ND, NE, OK, OR, SC,
TCEQ, VA
17
160
-------
November 2011
Specific NPS source
categories (e.g., ag, urban
stormwater, etc.)
ID, FL, MO, MT, NE, NH, OK, TCEQ, WA
9
Monitoring component
AR, FL, LA, MT, NC, NM, OK, OR
8
Education component
AR, FL, KY, LA, MT, OK, SC
7
Match > 40%
FL, GA, NC, SC
4
Local project with statewide
applicability and innovative
projects
FL, TCEQ
2
The most common project prioritization or evaluation criteria are that a project proposal relates to
implementing a watershed-based plan or addresses 303(d) listed waters. Whether the project has
sufficient local capacity to be successful is another popular factor for state project selection and
prioritization. See Table 10-2 for details.
As shown in Table 10-3, in the majority of states, it is the NPS program staff or management (such as the
Water Division Director) who make the final decisions about which projects to recommend to EPA for
funding in any given year. A significant minority of states rely on an interagency group, such as NPS task
force or water quality commission, to decide on the final funding recommendations. In these states, NPS
program staff participate in the group and weigh in throughout the project proposal review and
selection process. Regardless of who is making the final recommendations, it is customary for the NPS
program to receive the benefit of input from key NPS partners when evaluating which projects should
be funded. For example:
Idaho -Three key stakeholder groups are involved in 319 project process (potential project
identification/prioritization, review, etc.): Idaho has 18 Watershed Advisory Groups (WAGs),
which include representatives from industry and other interests affected by watershed
management, including Soil Conservation Districts. 319 project proposals must first be
presented to WAGs for approval to allow the application to move forward towards funding
consideration. DEQ, as needed, evaluates each project application to determine technical
completeness. Technically complete project applications are then sent to the respective Basin
Advisory Group (BAG) for review and ranking. BAGs are established in each of the six river
basins, and include NPS stakeholders. The BAG Chairman/designee review project applications
for each ranked project in their basin. BAG chairmen then meet with DEQ staff to discuss a
select group of the highest ranked projects.
161
-------
November 2011
Table 10-3: Final Funding Recommendations
Who makes final project
funding recommendations
to EPA?
States
State
Totals
NPS program staff or mgmt
AR, AZ, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS (for grants
unrelated to WBP), LA, ME, Ml, MN, MO, MS, MT, NC, NE,
NH, NJ, NM, NV, OH, OK, OR, PA, Rl, TN, TX, VA, VT (DEC
Commissioner), Wl
36
Statewide or Interagency
Task Force, Committee,
Commission or Board
AK, AL, CA, CO, KS (for WBP-related grants), KY, MA, MD,
ND, SC, SD, UT, WA, WV, WY
15
As discussed in Chapter 4: Statewide NPS Programs and Initiatives, there are a few states (AR, CT, MA,
MS, UT) that use a rotating basin/watershed approach to awarding 319 grants each year. Wyoming is
considering moving toward such an approach. For example:
Utah has begun to implement a new targeted basin funding approach to help reduce the
impacts of NPS pollution. Fiscal Year 2010 was the first year of a six year cycle that will allocate
the majority of the state NPS funds to a single targeted watershed. The target basin approach
will help identify areas of concern, estimate project effectiveness, and facilitate project planning
and reporting. The Bear River Watershed was the first watershed to receive funds using this
approach, receiving 60% of the funds available for project implementation in 2010. In future
funding years it is anticipated that an even higher percentage of the funds will go toward the
target basin.
Arkansas NPS program's priority watershed program focuses watershed implementation within
priority 8-digit HUC watersheds where there are known impairments or significant threats to
water quality. Watershed projects are then planned and implemented within smaller-sized
watersheds nested within the 8-digit HUCs. Additionally, waterbodies with an approved TMDL
(with an NPS component) will automatically be considered a priority watershed. Only
watersheds identified as priority watersheds are eligible for incremental 319 funds. In 2011,
there were ten priority watersheds.
Mississippi coordinates water protection/restoration efforts through a Basin Management
Approach (BMA), in which nine of Mississippi's major river basins are organized into four basin
groups. Each basin group has a basin team comprised of state and federal agencies and local
organizations, which is led by an MDEQ employee (the Basin Coordinator). These teams provide
opportunities for multiple levels of government and local stakeholders to coordinate their
efforts. Basin team members assess water quality, determine causes/sources of problems, and
prioritize watersheds for water quality restoration/protection activities. The BMA also facilitates
the pooling of technical and financial resources from various agencies and stakeholders to
address priority watersheds.
162
-------
November 2011
Appendix A: Determination of TMDLs Primarily Impacted by NPS (May 2011)
TMDL Study
What percentage of TMDLs are due primarily to NPS?
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to estimate the number and proportion of all TMDLs nationally
that address waterbodies impacted primarily by nonpoint sources. The approach involved reviewing a
random sample of TMDLs sufficient to make this estimate with +/-10% margin of error and 95%
confidence interval.
Method:
1. A data pull from ATTAINS returned 47,459 records. The data pull included TMDL ID, a unique
database-assigned identifier, so the information returned provides an individual record (row)
with all of the information associated with that TMDL ID. Because a pollutant/listed water
combination can have multiple TMDL IDs, each record should not be counted as a TMDL.
2. The data pull represented an estimated 44,500 TMDLs.
3. The data pull included: TMDL ID, TMDL Name, State, Region, TMDL Status, Pollutant Name,
Pollutant Group, TMDL Type, Total WLA, Total LA, TMDL Pollutant Units, List ID, TMDL
Document URL.
4. Using the American Research Group online sample size calculator
(http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/sams.html). it was determined that 96 TMDLs was a
statistically valid sample size for our population (44,500) that would meet a +/-10% margin of
error and 95% confidence interval.
5. Using Excel, a "randomizer" function was applied to the data; this gave us the ability to pull a
completely random selection of 96 TMDLs.
6. Each TMDL document was reviewed to determine whether the impairment was due primarily to
Nonpoint Sources or Point Sources. This was accomplished by verifying that the total Load
Allocation to nonpoint sources exceeded 50% of all the TMDL's allocations, either by
calculations provided or statements to that effect.
7. For TMDLs that did not have a document URL in ATTAINS, a quick search (of about 5 minutes)
was done trying to locate the TMDL document on the Internet; if the document could not be
located, it was eliminated from the sample and a new TMDL from the randomized order was
added to the sample in its stead.
Results:
1. Of the 96 TMDLs that were reviewed, 23 were determined to be primarily impacted by Point
Sources.
2. Of the 96 TMDLs that were reviewed, 73 were determined to be primarily impacted by Nonpoint
Sources.
Appendix - Page 1
-------
November 2011
3. Based on the findings, approximately 76% of the TMDLs were primarily impacted by Nonpoint
Sources.
4. When extrapolated to the total number of TMDLs in ATTAINS as of April 14, 2011, we estimate
that 33,820 TMDLs are primarily impacted by Nonpoint Sources.
Observations:
1. The amount of time required to make a determination of pollution source varied greatly from
document to document (some executive summaries included a breakdown of source of
pollution by List ID).
2. Some of the TMDL listings had the incorrect document URL listed and a search was needed to
find the correct one.
3. Some of the List IDs had to be researched for their water/stream names in order to find
information specific to them in the TMDL documents.
4. Because each TMDL document varies pretty greatly from state to state, the amount of time
required to make pollutant source determination also varied greatly.
Appendix - Page 2
-------
November 2011
Appendix B: Watershed Based Plan Review: Final Report (July 2011)
Watershed Based Plan Review
Final Report
July 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Appendix - Page 3
-------
November 2011
Introduction & Purpose
In 2006, the Non Point Source Control Branch (NPSCB) of the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds completed a review of the "best" watershed plans from each state. The purpose
of the review was to evaluate how well stakeholders were meeting the challenge of developing
high-quality watershed-based plans in accordance with the 9 essential components outlined in the
October 2003 "Nonpoint Source Program & Grants Guidelines for States and Territories". The
2006 review found that while some states were able to develop high quality watershed-based
plans, many plans were still not sufficiently well designed or did not contain sufficient
information to support a fully successful implementation effort that would lead to the attainment
of water quality standards in the waterbodies identified.
Recommendations from the 2006 review included:
Greater oversight by EPA Regions to assure watershed-based plans are adequate
Developing a guidance document providing "best" examples for each of the 9
components
Providing better training and guidance that demonstrates the level of detail needed to
assure water quality standards are achieved in a watershed
Distributing the "best" plans to the Regions as examples of the level of detail required for
a good watershed-based plan.
Since the 2006 review, EPA Headquarters has taken action to provide guidance for developing
effective watershed based plans, including publishing the Watershed Planning Handbook;
releasing the best plans from the last review; posting additional exemplary plans on the EPA
nonpoint source website; and convening workshops addressing watershed-based plan issues such
as modeling.
In 2008, EPA Headquarters decided to conduct a second review of state watershed-based plans
to determine the level of progress that states and their stakeholders have made in addressing the
nine essential components of watershed-based plans. In September of 2008, the NPSCB again
asked each of the regional offices to coordinate with their states and territories to identify and
submit the "best" watershed-based plan from each state. A total of 49 plans were reviewed
during the period 2008 - 2010.
Purposes of this review included:
Improving our understanding of States' ongoing efforts to develop watershed based plans
and identifying needs for improvement.
Identifying effective and innovative approaches to watershed planning and management
that can be shared with states, tribes, and local partners.
Help guide future activities to promote improved watershed planning and management.
Appendix - Page 4
-------
November 2011
Evaluation Method
EPA developed scoring criteria based on the nine components of a watershed based plan, as
identified in the October 2003 Federal Register notice. There are several critical elements
identified for each criterion. In order for a plan to meet a criterion, it should contain each of its
corresponding elements. Upon the review of each plan, each criterion was given a score of 0-3,
3 being the highest score. Scoring is further explained in Table 1.
Table 1: Criterion Scoring
3
Excellent - Criterion was met at a level that
goes above and beyond the minimum and/or
included especially effective approaches to
addressing the criterion.
2
Good - Criterion met an adequate level of
detail; i.e. information provided was adequate
to support successful implementation.
1
Fair - Information provided addressed some
aspects of the criterion, but failed to fully
address it.
0
Poor - Criterion was not adequately addressed
The overall score for each plan was based on a maximum score of 100. Each criterion was
assigned a percent weight, and the weight of each criterion was based upon its relative level of
importance in assuring that implementation of the plan would attain water quality standards. In
particular, 54% of the final score is focused on the first three criteria.
A criterion's score of 0-3 was converted to a percentage, which was multiplied by the weight to
determine how many of the possible percentage points were earned for each criterion. For
example, a plan that achieves a 2 for all criteria would have a total score of 67% and would be
considered by the scoring system to be adequate to support successful implementation. The
overall score was not used to assign a particular "rating" to each watershed plan, or declare that a
plan "passed" or "failed". Rather, it was used to rank all of the watershed plans; i.e. the higher
the score, the higher the rank. This information has been used to identify the merits of those
plans that appear to be of high quality - providing excellent models that states, local
governments, watershed groups can review and learn from and to assess the overall quality of all
of the plans.
The criteria that were used to evaluate the plans are listed in Table 2.
Appendix - Page 5
-------
November 2011
Table 2. Numerical Criteria
A. CAUSES/SOURCES OF POLLUTION ARE IDENTIFIED
Goals for restoration & protection are clearly defined,
quantified & thoroughly explained
8.0%
Impaired, partially impaired, and/or threatened water
bodies on the 303(d) list are identified
Goals are clearly defined, and quantified (if applicable)
Causes/sources of pollution that need to be controlled to
meet goals are identified as it applies to areas for restoration
and protection
14.0%
Sources of pollution, both point and non point, are
mapped/causes identified
Loads from identified sources are quantified
Watershed sufficiently subdivided by landuse type,
cover or other characteristics to enhance the
assessment of sources and strategic placement of
BMP's
Data sources, estimates and assumptions are cited &
documented
Data Gaps Identified if they exist, but data gaps not
significant enough to delay implementation
B. EXPECTED LOAD REDUCTIONS FOR SOLUTIONS
IDENTIFIED
18.0%
Expected load reductions are linked to a pollution
cause/source identified in (A)
Expected load reductions are analyzed to ensure water
quality criteria, and/or other goals will be achieved
Basis of load reduction effectiveness estimates is
thoroughly explained
Significant estimates, assumptions, and other data used
in the analysis are cited & verifiable
C. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT MEASURES IDENTIFIED
14.0%
Management measures needed to address
causes/sources of pollution identified in (A) are listed,
described, and mapped (if known)
Explanation for the selection of measures is included to
ensure they are applicable to the pollutant
causes/sources and are feasible and acceptable
Management measures are prioritized based on critical
pollutant causes/sources, type, and location as well as
compatibility with landowner operations
Significant estimates, assumptions, and other data used
in the analysis are cited & verifiable
D. ESTIMATE OF TECHNICAL & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Estimate of Technical Assistance needed
4.0%
Significant existing sources of technical assistance that
may be needed to implement the plan are accounted
for.
Appendix - Page 6
-------
November 2011
Additional technical assistance needs are identified, and
referenced back to the solutions
Estimate of Financial Assistance Needed
4.0%
General cost estimate is included by task (project work
plans should have more detailed cost information)
Multiple funding sources are listed, as well as an
estimated contribution from each source
E. EDUCATION/OUTREACH
8.0%
Reaches out to the appropriate sectors of the population
in the watershed
Both educates public and encourages participation
Encourages the implementation of BMP's necessary to
fulfill the plan requirements
F. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
6.0%
Timeline presents projected dates for the development
and implementation of the actions needed to meet the
goals of the plan and includes information on how
implementation will be tracked
Implementation of point source and regulatory activities
are coordinated with nonpoint source actions and other
watershed implementation activities
G. MILESTONES IDENTIFIED
6.0%
Milestones are measureable and attainable
Includes expected completion dates to ensure the
continuous implementation of plan
H. SHORT TERM CRITERIA TO ENSURE PROGRESS IS BEING
MADE TOWARDS ATTAINING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
9.0%
Interim numerical criteria present
Expected dates of achievement identified.
Includes a review process to determine if the reductions
are being met
Includes criteria to determine whether the watershed
based plan needs to be revised based upon failure to
make adequate progress in accordance with the
implementation schedule
1. MONITORING COMPONENT
9.0%
Includes description of how monitoring will be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts
There is a routine recording element in which progress
and methodology are evaluated.
Monitoring is tied to a quality assurance plan
Parties responsible for monitoring are identified
Additional details were recorded for each plan to assess any trends across plans. These included:
Organization(s) authoring the document
Predominant pollutants addressed in plans
Appendix - Page 7
-------
November 2011
Watershed size, to determine if there was any correlation between the quality of the plan
and the size of the watershed.
Model used, if applicable, to get a better idea of the models that are being most
commonly used and where.
General Results
Based on the above described scoring system, the average score for all of the plans was 56%.
Figure 1 presents the average score for each of the 9 watershed based plan components required
in 319 plans.
The majority of reviewed plans have done very well with respect to the following components:
Identifying causes and sources of pollution that need to be controlled to achieve
watershed goals (Component A);
Describing the NPS management measures that need to be implemented to achieve
watershed goals (Component C);
Developing an information/education component that will be used to enhance public
understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in
selecting, designing, and implementing NPS management measures (Component E); and
Including a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time (Element I)
However, many states continue to struggle with estimating load reductions expected for the
management measures selected, and setting criteria that can be used to determine whether
loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made towards
attaining water quality standards (components B and H). Components B and H were found to be
problematic in the 2006 review and again were often addressed inadequately in the plans
reviewed for this study. These two components go hand in hand; without adequate load
reduction estimates, a state cannot develop criteria that can be used to determine whether load
reductions are being achieved at an adequate rate over time.
While plans in small watersheds were usually easiest to review, there appeared to be no
correlation between size of watershed and overall quality of the plans (Figure 2). However, 40
of the 49 plans submitted were less than 1000 square miles and most of these were significantly
smaller than that. Table 3 lists which models were used for components A-C. 13 of the plans
reviewed relied solely on monitoring data, and used no formal model for estimating pollutant
sources or reductions expected from management practices. Where a model was used, the model
used was as varied as the plans themselves.
It is notable that the average score of the plans that used some kind of model (61%) was
substantially higher than the average score of those plans that did not use a model (44%).
Appendix - Page 8
-------
November 2011
FIGURE 1
-=m/o-
69%
38%
65%
52%
50%
64%
-47-%-
24%
E F
Element
H
Appendix - Page 9
-------
November 2011
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
JO. 00%
o
io.oo%
4
<2
(ง0.00%
4
O
$0.00%
a>
-i
ง0.00%
Q.
20.00%
!>
10.00%
0.00%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Watershed Area (sq mi)
Table 3: Models used in Watershed Based Plans
Model Name
Use
[No Model]
13
Soil & Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
4
[Revised] Universal Soil Loss Equation ([R]USLE)
3
ArcView Generalized Loading Function (AVGWLFj
3
Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC)
3
Speadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL)
3
Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)
3
Automated Geospatial Watershed Tool (AGWA, uses Kinematic Runoff and Erosion
2
Model (KINEROS2) and SWAT)
Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF)
2
Long Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA)
2
Pollution Reduction impact Comparison Tool (PreDlCT j
2
Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model (Ann AGNPS)
1
AVNPS
1
Bacteria Indicator Tool
1
Bacteria Source Load Calculator
1
BATHTUB
1
Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC)
1
Appendix - Page 10
FIGURE 2
~
~
~
~
~
~
>
~
" ~
~
~
~
~. ~
~
t ~
~
> *
~
~
~
~
I I I I I I
-------
November 2011
FLUX
1
Impervious Cover Model
1
Integrated Pollutant Source Identification Pollutant Loading Model (IPSI/PLM, from TV A)
1
Method for Assessment, Nutrient-loading and Geographic Evaluation of watersheds
(MANAGE)
1
BASINS Nonpoint Source Model (NPSM)
1
Nonpoint-Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (NSPECT)
1
PLAT/NLEW
1
Pollutant Load Screening Model (PLSM)
1
QUAL2E
1
R5 Pollutant Control Model
1
SELECT
1
Site Evaluation Tool (SET)
1
Stream Network Temperature model (SNTEMP)
1
Watershed Management Model
1
Watershed Treatment Model
1
Delaware Inland Bays Model (Based on CB Model)
1
Sediment Delivery Calculator
1
CE-QUAL-ICM
1
Sediment, bacteria, and nutrients were the most common pollutants addressed in the plans (Table
4).
Table 4: Pollutants Addressed in Watershed Based Plans
Pollutant
# Addressed
Sediment
24
Bacteria (Fecal Coliform & E.Colij
19
Nutrients (Both Nitrogen & Phosphorus)
16
Phosphorus
8
Metals (Cadmium, Zinc, Lead, Mercury, Copper)
8
Temperature
7
DO
6
impaired Aquatic Communities
5
Herbicides/Pesticides (including Atrazine, DDT)
4
BOD
3
PH
3
Nitrogen
2
Water Quantity
2
Aromatic Hydrocarbons
1
Oil & Grease
1
Trash
1
Salinity
1
Selenium
1
Noxious Aquatics/Exotic Species
1
While many plans were developed under the supervision of a technical committee, the "author"
is the person or group that is named as the actual writer of the plan. As seen in Table 5, private
consultants, hired by local watershed groups, states, and other stakeholders authored a greater
Appendix - Page 11
-------
November 2011
number of plans than other groups, followed closely by state environmental agencies and
miscellaneous entities, such as local planning commissions, large nonprofits, and other state
agencies.
Table 5: Watershed Based Plan Authors
Author
# Addressed
Consultant
11
State Environmental Agencies
10
Etc (Inci. State NRCS, Area Planning Commissions and Environmental Councils)
7
Multiple Authors
6
Local Watershed Group
6
SWCD
4
Extension
3
Local Government (city or county)
2
Summary of Findings for Each Component
Component A
An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be
controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in the watershed based plan (and to achieve
any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan). Sources that need to be
controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to
which they are present in the watershed.
It is difficult to remediate an impaired waterbody without first identifying the causes and sources
of impairment. Identification of pollutant sources and reductions needed to meet water quality
standards (component A) are the essence of TMDL's; in a number of cases, TMDL's had already
addressed this component to a significant extent, thereby setting a foundation for the plan. In the
few plans that did not satisfy this component, load estimates from significant source categories
were absent, or the sources of pollution that need to be controlled were not quantified at a level
that is useful for waterbody remediation.
Component B
An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures selected
Without load reduction estimates, it is not possible to determine whether or not the proposed
management measures are sufficient to meet the water quality goals set in component A. As
mentioned previously, many states had difficulty addressing component B. Many plans simply
did not provide any load reduction estimates. Others provided estimates, but made no attempt to
show that the management measures chosen would lead to meeting the overall goals described in
component A.
Appendix - Page 12
-------
November 2011
Quantifying expected load reductions is difficult, requiring both sufficient data and an analysis
leading to a judgment as to what assumptions are appropriate to make for the situation. The
processes that planners need to take into account are complex, and therefore difficult to translate
to a simple numerical endpoint. While there are a myriad of tools available, from complex to
simple spreadsheets, as EPA discusses in considerable detail in the "Handbook for Developing
Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Water" (2008). it requires considerable analysis
supported by experience and training to determine which one will suit the needs of a specific
watershed.
However, the watershed planning process isn't necessarily about getting exactly the right answer
the first time. Rather, it is about successfully employing an adaptive management approach in
which available information and analytical tools are used to support the best planning decisions
that can be made. The best plans were not necessarily relying on the most sophisticated
watershed models or making any claims that their load estimates are 100% correct. In fact, some
plans contained explicit discussions stating factors that may lead to errors in the estimates.
However, it is critical that the best effort be made to develop good estimates; set a bar to measure
whether or not the proposed measures are adequate; and establish a feedback loop to determine if
there are additional issues in the watershed that may have been missed when the plan was first
written.
Component C
A description of the NFS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the
load reduction estimated in component B, and an identification of the critical areas in which
those measures will need to be implemented
After the causes and sources of pollution are identified, the next step is to identify management
measures that will reduce the pollutant loads from these sources to the extent necessary to meet
water quality goals. Most states were able to do this without significant difficulties. However,
some states failed to adequately explain why certain management measures were chosen over
similar alternatives.
The discrepancy between the level of satisfaction in components B and C suggests plan writers
can successfully identify best management practices to address pollutants, but many are having a
difficult time quantifying the expected load reduction from these practices.
Component D
An estimate of the amounts of technical andfinancial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or
the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan.
Component D was met with a moderate degree of success. The best plans were able to list the
partners that would be called upon to complete each action in the plan, and included a full cost
estimate, including possible sources of funding. Other plans were commonly missing one or
more of these pieces of information or included all of this information at a level of detail that was
much lower than the best plans.
Appendix - Page 13
-------
November 2011
Component E
An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented.
Actions to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution are usually voluntary; therefore, effective
education campaigns are extremely important to watershed based plans. A good educational
campaign helps to ensure that needed management measures will actually be implemented. Most
of the time, some kind of education campaign was included (passing out flyers, PSA's etc) but an
explanation of how these campaigns would enhance public understanding or encourage
involvement was absent. In these cases, there is a serious question whether adequate community
understanding of and support for the watershed plan and its implementation have been
established.
Component F
A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in the plan that is
reasonable expeditious.
A schedule helps ensure that the plan's developers have thought about the feasibility of their plan
in relation to its objectives and available resources. It also helps to ensure the continuous
implementation of the plan. In many cases, plans failed to include a schedule beyond a year of
implementation, or had a much less detailed schedule compared to the best plans reviewed.
Component G
A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
Component F and G are closely related. Most states received the same scores for both
components, and had the same issues with component G as they did with component F, namely,
one, or in some cases, no interim milestones, and a lesser level of detail than the best plans
reviewed.
Component H
A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether load reductions are being achieved over
time and substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards, and, if
not, the criteria for determining whether the watershed based plan needs to be revised or, if a
NPS TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised.
Components B and H go hand in hand; without adequate load reduction estimates, a state cannot
develop criteria that can be used to determine whether load reductions are being achieved at an
adequate rate over time. Therefore, it is unsurprising that states which are struggling with
Component B are also struggling with Component H. Most of the time, Component B was not
mentioned in the context of Component H, or there seemed to be confusion between what was
required with respect to components G and H. Many times, the criteria that would be used to
Appendix - Page 14
-------
November 2011
determine whether loading reductions were being achieved were actually milestones; this
indicates that there was confusion surrounding the difference between the two. The criteria
should be expected levels of pollutants of concern in the waterbody at different points in time,
whereas milestones indicate achievement of implementation steps like the number of BMP's that
will be installed in a certain year. Many plans also failed to identify how often progress would
be reviewed, and who would actually be responsible for reviewing the plan to determine this
information. This would likely result in a lack of implementation of this important step and
perhaps lead to continued implementation along a path that needs to be modified.
Component I
A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time,
measured against the criteria established under component H.
Most plans were relying on the implementation of existing state monitoring programs, which
have well established procedures, so component I is relatively straightforward. In a very small
number of plans, responsibility for monitoring was unclear, as well as how often monitoring
would take place.
Best Watershed Plans
These are the plans the received the highest scores of all rated plans. EPA recommends that state
and EPA nonpoint source staff review these plans to gather some ideas regarding effective ways
to address watershed based plan development. None of these plans is perfect, yet each represents
a concerted effort to understand and address information and factors that affect the watershed's
problems.
Kansas: Lower Big Blue/Lower Little Blue River
Contact: Donald Snethen
KS Dept. of Health & Environment
Division of Environment
Bureau of Water - Watershed Management Section
1000 SW Jackson St. Suite 420
Topeka, KS 66612-1367
Phone: (913) 296-5567
Fax: (913) 296-5509,
dsnethen(a),kdhe. state, ks. us
http://www. kcare. ksu. edu/DesktopModules/View Document, aspx ?DocumentID=4055
The Lower Big Blue/Lower Little Blue River watershed is a transboundary watershed (Only ~
25% of watershed is in Kansas, the rest is in Nebraska) and drains into Tuttle Creek Lake, a
flood control reservoir in Kansas. The lake is impaired by phosphorus, total suspended solids,
and atrazine. While the plan only addresses Kansas portion of the watershed, it is overall an
excellent watershed-based plan. Every required component was fully addressed, and the
information for components B-I were presented in an especially effective manner. The tables
Appendix - Page 15
-------
November 2011
and maps made the information easy to read and digest and all of the information was tied back
to meeting the goals of the plan; there was little extraneous information. It was also one of the
few plans that included a brief explanation of the model used in the analysis, including why the
model was selected, major assumptions, and data sources used. Specific highlights include:
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to determine loading rates and
locations of pollutant causes and sources. Pollutant source analysis is further explored
pollutant by pollutant in the critical areas identified in the modeling process.
The plan explicitly compares load reductions expected from management measures with load
reductions prescribed in the TMDL, to ensure that management measures chosen will meet
the goals of the plan. Also, there is a section that clearly explains the load reduction estimate
methodology.
Using the model with some ground-truthing, the plan identifies "areas or subwatersheds with
the top 20-30% of the highest loads among all areas within the watershed" as critical
(targeted) areas for BMP implementation.
The plan broke cost estimates down to BMP's per year; provided the source of information
for these costs; and also included the estimated cost of technical assistance.
Target audiences are identified for different education/outreach activities, and the plan
includes an outline for evaluating these activities.
The implementation schedule covered the entire life of the plan, and included milestones (#
of acres of BMP, miles of streambank stabilization, etc) and interim water quality milestones.
The plan includes a strategy for reviewing the plan over time, complete with a schedule,
delegation of responsible parties, and a list of indicator and parameter criteria and data
sources that will be used to assess progress.
Overall, the Lower Big Blue/Lower Little Blue River plan was one of the best reviewed, and it
provides an excellent example of how to develop and write a watershed based plan.
Oklahoma: Lake Eucha/Spavinaw
Contact: Dan Butler, Director
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
Water Quality Program
2800 N. Lincoln Blvd., Room 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4110
Phone: (405) 522-4730
Fax: (405) 522-4770
dan, butlerฎ,conservation, oksov
Appendix - Page 16
-------
November 2011
http: ifH'w.environment.ok.gov documents ("WA GrantWorkpktns I Cue ha -
Spavinaw %2 0 Watershed%2 0Riparian %2 OProtection %2 Olmtiative/EuchaSpav WBPRev2-0 7.pdf
The Lake Eucha/Spavinaw watershed is a transboundary watershed (60% in OK, the rest in AR,
see figure) and has been the subject of conflict, including litigation, regarding its many point and
nonpoint sources of pollution. The lakes supply drinking water to approximately 1 million
people and are impaired by phosphorus and low dissolved oxygen.
Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed, Oklahoma
Jay
Cr
(nff
Colcord
The watershed based plan addresses each of the 9 components and includes adequate specifics
for each. In particular:
The plan contains clear quantitative goals complete with an explanation for choosing those
goals and how the goals correspond to the load reduction goals and interim water quality
criteria.
All of the information in the plan was tied back to the goals of the plan, so there was very
little extraneous information which made the plan very easy to read and comprehend.
SWAT was used to determine sources of phosphorus, including point sources of phosphorus,
and was calibrated with soil test phosphorus results. The model was also used to identify
critical areas in the watershed to target implementation.
Information used for the SWAT analysis was clearly documented, and information not
crucial to the WBP was included in a separate report of the modeling efforts. Results were
summarized in an easy to understand table in the report, with references to a separate report
if more detail is needed.
Appendix - Page 17
-------
November 2011
Assumptions of the analysis are clearly stated and explained.
Barriers to attainment of goals are discussed (for example, soils supersaturated with
phosphorus may take decades to deplete) but these barriers are not presented as an excuse for
inability to attain standards, rather as something to be aware of throughout the
implementation of the plan.
Reasoning for the selection of BMP' s is included with the corresponding estimated load
reduction. In addition, several simulations were performed to see which practices might have
the greatest impact on water quality.
The cost estimate included BMP's, education, and monitoring, and included the responsible
parties for each task. The delegation of work is particularly well explained in the educational
activities, which lists each group involved and clearly states what the group will be doing.
The implementation schedule includes load reduction goals associated with planned activities
and a schedule for evaluating the actions to determine if any adjustments need to be made.
One possible improvement for the plan would be to include more interim water quality
criteria.
The monitoring plan lists what parameters will be measured and who will be responsible for
which monitoring activities, as well as a map where monitoring will take place.
Overall, the Lake Spavinaw/Eucha plan was one of the best reviewed, and should be shared as
another example of an excellent watershed based plan.
Virginia: Hawksbill & Mill Creek
Contact: Richard Hill
Nonpoint Source Program Manager
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Department of Conservation and Recreation
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23129-2094
Phone: (804) 786-7119
Fax: (804) 786-1798
rick. hill(a),dcr. virsinia. gov
http://www.deq. state, va. us/export/sites/default/tmdl/implans/hksmillip.pdf (Does not include the
technical report)
Hawksbill & Mill Creek are tributaries of the South Fork of the Shenandoah River, located in the
northern part of Virginia. Both waterbodies are impaired due to violations of the State's water
quality criteria for fecal coliform and E. Coli. In Virginia, TMDL Implementation plans are
Appendix - Page 18
-------
November 2011
required to be written for each TMDL and this plan was written under that requirement, taking
into account watershed plan requirements from other programs, such as 319. The watershed plan
for remediating Hawksbill & Mill Creek satisfies all 9 components of a watershed based plan.
Highlights of the plan include:
Several stakeholders in the watershed were involved in developing this plan. In addition to
general public meetings, 3 specialized working groups (agricultural, residential, and
government) were assembled to seek public input from specific stakeholders and a steering
committee collected information from the different groups and guided the overall
development of the plan. Throughout the rest of the plan it was clear that these groups were
all very involved in the process.
The assumptions of pollutant source analysis are clearly stated and discussed.
Selection of management measures needed to control sources of pollution was well
explained, and the public was included in selection of management measures to ensure
implementation.
The quantity of management measures needed to meet water quality goals was estimated
using modeling, spatial analysis, and input from the public, and possible locations for these
measures were identified in the plan.
Education strategies that proved successful in other watersheds, which were identified by the
working groups involved in plan development, were used in the implementation plan.
This is one of the few plans that included a cost efficiency analysis of the BMP's selected;
which consisted of a breakdown of pollutant removed per $1000 spent, as well as an
explanation of the non-monetary benefits of the selected BMP's. This information, along
with information gathered from a land use analysis, was used to prioritize implementation.
All information, from pollutant reduction of BMP's to costs of implementation, was clearly
referenced.
A suggestion for improvement to this plan is to explain how this plan will be reviewed over
time, specifically, who will be responsible for reviewing the plan to determine whether or not
changes need to be made?
Hawksbill & Mill Creek plan is another excellent example of a watershed based plan.
Maryland: Lower Monocacy River
Contact: Kenneth Shanks
Acting NPS Program Manager
Maryland Department of the Environment
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540
Appendix - Page 19
-------
November 2011
Baltimore, MD 21230-1718
Phone: (410) 537-4216
Fax: (410) 537-3873
kshanks(a),mde. state, md. us
http://www.watershed-alliance.com/mcwa pubsWRASsupplement.html
The Lower Monocacy River plan is a supplement to the original Watershed Plan completed in
May 2004. The Lower Monocacy River and its subwatersheds are listed as impaired for: fecal
coliform (2002), nutrients (1996), sediment (1996), and impacts to biological communities
(2002, 2004, and 2006). However, there is only 1 TMDL that has been approved and adopted in
the watershed (Phosphorus & Sediments in Lake Liganore, an impoundment within the
watershed). One TMDL has been submitted but has not been approved, and the rest were
scheduled for development in 2008 and 2009. In the absence of completed TMDL's, the plan
developers used stream corridor assessments and the Impervious Cover Model to identify causes
and sources of pollution and estimate loads. This illustrates that an excellent plan can still be
written with simpler models. Additional highlights of the plan include:
The plan was successfully able to integrate information from several sources (such as
TMDL's and Tributary strategies from the 2000 Chesapeake Bay agreement). The plan
contained a lot of information, but it was easy to read because everything was summarized
well and contained clear references to other documents.
The chosen management measures were adequately described, and included assumptions
about their operation and effectiveness.
This was another one of the few plans that included a benefit cost ratio of pollutant removal
to aid in prioritizing implementation actions.
A responsible party is identified for each implementation action, and all actions are clearly
tied back to the goals of the plan.
Education and outreach efforts are linked to implementation actions and goals, and each
activity has measureable outcomes.
The watershed has an extensive and well organized network of watershed groups. Plan
includes a list of all groups with contact information and a summary of the type of assistance
each group can provide.
Implementation schedule reports the status of implementation, as well as the schedule for
future implementation.
The County has an electronic implementation database to track the progress of the plan. The
database also calculates expected pollutant removal for each BMP entered.
Appendix - Page 20
-------
November 2011
The monitoring plan includes project level and watershed level monitoring. All monitoring
efforts list who is responsible, and the monitoring parameters that will be measured at each
monitoring location.
The plan includes a section dedicated to discussing issues requiring further study, and
strategies for resolving these issues in the future.
This plan would benefit from additional details on the implementation of agricultural BMP's, but
it is mentioned that new goals are being adopted by the Tributary Strategy program and this
information will be included in the next revision of the plan. Also, there is no explicit plan for
reviewing and revising the watershed based plan, but considering this is a supplement of the
original plan, it is clear that this work is being done.
Overall, the Lower Monocacy River plan provides an excellent example of a watershed based
plan.
Best Examples for Individual Plan Components
Several plans reviewed, while not overall "the best", did excellent jobs addressing some of the required
components of a watershed based plan. Appendix B-2 lists these examples by plan component, and
hopefully can be used by plan writers in the future.
Plans In Need of Some Improvement
The purpose of this report is to provide information that can be used to help move State watershed
planning and implementation programs in the right direction. Identifying and describing some of the
chief deficiencies found in some plans helps to achieve this purpose. In contrast, identifying specific
States' plans as having specific deficiencies would not help achieve this purpose. Therefore, the
discussion in this section and the following section does not provide names of specific States but does
provide descriptions of shortcomings that should be avoided by all States.
Overall, one plan suffers from a lack of detail in certain components, but contains an excellent example of
how to identify the causes and sources of pollution (component A of the 319 requirements.) The plan
contains an excellent summery of existing data, and a great summary of management measures and why
they are chosen. However, more information is needed to determine if the management measures chosen
will achieve the pollutant reduction goals. There are no interim water quality goals, or any details on how
the implementation of this plan will be assured, although the plan refers to several data sets that would be
useful for further efforts.
A second plan was very easy to read because it was well laid out. For example, the 9 components of the
plan are summarized in the appendix, and the plan includes a "using this document" section with
summaries of each part of the plan right up front. However, there are several major flaws. While the
whole plan is focused on future growth and how it will impact the stream, there doesn't seem to be any
mention of revisiting the plan once it is implemented to make sure the plan is adequately meeting the
water quality goals. There is no detail on reducing the impact of agriculture on water quality, even
though it is a significant portion of the watershed.
Appendix - Page 21
-------
November 2011
A third plan suffers most from a lack of quantitative data. The plan does not include load estimates for
identified sources of pollution, or load reduction estimates for the nonpoint source management measures
selected to address pollutant sources. This might be because there is no TMDL in place. The state
provides the option of a locally led watershed management planning effort in place of a full TMDL.
However, while specific interim numerical water quality criteria were absent, there is a clear procedure
for periodically reviewing plan progress. The implementation plan was very strong, and the management
measures were listed with the specific overall goals, funding mechanisms, responsible parties, and
information/education activities that would be used to promote the adoption of the measure. This made it
very clear how every action proposed in the plan fit together. The monitoring plan was also very clear.
Plans in Need of Significant Improvement
One plan suffers from a lack of quantitative detail, especially regarding the expected pollutant-reduction
benefits from management measures. There is also very little detail in terms of implementation. The
evaluation of the plan that was conducted by the state DEQ, which was included with the plan,
summarizes the issues best: "The TMDL provides specific numbers and pollutant reductions targets for
the general basin. The (plan) provides information on general BMP's that will address pollutants in the
TMDL, but they don't link specifically to load reductions or water quality numbers"
A second plan is missing several critical pieces of information required of a watershed-based plan, most
notably the extent of management measures implementation needed to meet the goals of the plan, and
load reduction estimates for the management measures that are identified. Without this information, there
is no way to tell whether or not the proposed management measures are sufficient to meet the goals of the
plan. There is also very limited implementation detail.
A third plan provided very little information, and the state supplemented this through a web- link to the
statewide watershed based plan website to find any information missing from plan submitted. Few of the
data gaps in the submitted plan were addressed in the documents on the website, since those documents
focused on a much larger spatial scale (HUC 12 level) and none of them discussed the watershed in the
submitted plan. Thus no information is provided in the plan regarding the watershed's water quality
impairments, the types and quantities of sources, and all other similar relevant information. After
reviewing the grant application and the other documents provided, an overall plan for addressing the
water quality impairments in the watershed could not be determined. Actions are proposed in a grant
application to address the water quality issues in the pond, but the expected impact is not. The amount or
percentage of water quality impairment of this pond to be addressed by these projects is unstated. In
addition, there is no discussion of a feedback loop and relevant monitoring related to this watershed.
Conclusions & Recommendations
This review of watershed plans from around the country indicated that while it is possible to meet the
challenge of developing high quality watershed based plans, many plans fail to rise to that level. There is
not a single clear reason for this; some plan developers may lack the expertise needed to develop a high
quality plan, while others may be suffering from the lack of availability to sufficient information and
resources. In some cases it may simply be the lack of sufficient effort or resources devoted to the
development of the plan. It is clear that more needs to be done so all plans are of a quality that will
support a successful implementation effort to restore impaired waterbodies. Specific recommendations
are listed below:
Appendix - Page 22
-------
November 2011
EPA Regional offices should use the results of this review to discuss with States the specific
components that the states are struggling with, and to also share information from States that have
successfully addressed those components.
EPA Regions should work more closely with the States to assure that the States and their
watershed partners have sufficient technical capacity and are investing sufficient funds to develop
robust watershed-based plans that will lay a good foundation for a successful implementation
effort that will restore the waterbodies being addressed to meet water quality standards.
States' should take greater care in their development of watershed-based plans to assure that the
plans truly address all nine components of EPA's guidelines and provide as good and specific a
guidepost to future actions in the watershed as reasonably possible. The Section 319 program and
grants guidelines allow each State to use up to 20% of its "incremental" watershed-based plan
implementation funds to develop watershed-based plans. States should dedicate sufficient funds
to the development of each watershed-based plan to assure that they will successfully address all
nine components of these plans in a thoughtful and useful manner that will support successful
implementation.
EPA should follow up with the developers of the best watershed plans. Interviewing writers of
successful plans would provide insight from those "on the ground" as to what resources
contribute most to a successful plan. This information can in turn be used by EPA to prioritize
training and tool development.
EPA should make the best watershed plans, as well as the best examples of different components
of watershed based plans, available online and in tools such as EPA Plan Builder. Overall, there
seems to be confusion on "how much is enough". Several plans included extraneous information
that made the plan hard to review and, most likely, less useful to those using the plan. Providing
more examples of what is considered adequate will clarify what an excellent WBP should look
like. EPA should also take actions to promote the resources available for WBP's.
States should focus on developing plans at a scale that allows for the development of the right
level of detail. This means, for example, that even if a State develops an integrated watershed
plan at an 8-digit HUC level, it may, and likely will, need to develop a more detailed watershed-
based plan at a smaller scale (e.g., HUC-12).
Appendix - Page 23
-------
November 2011
Appendix B-l: List of Watershed Based Plans Reviewed
Region 1
State
Contact
Watershed
CT
Sandra Fancieullo
Coainchaua River
MA
Fancieullo.sandra@epa.gov
Martins Pond
ME
Spruce Creek
NH
Webster-Hiahland Lake
Rl
Green Hill & Niniaret Ponds
VT
Lake Carmi
Region 2
State
Contact
Watershed
NJ
Donna Somboonlakana
Mulhockawav Creek
NY
somboonlakana@epa.gov
Chemuna & Upper Susauehanna River
PR
Rio Grande De Loiza
VI
Coral Bav
Region 3
State
Contact
Watershed
DC
sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
DE
Fred Suffian
Indian River, and Indian River, Rehoboth and Little Assawoman Bav
MD
Suffian.fred@epa.gov
Lower Monocacv River
PA
Mill Creek
VA
Hawksbill & Mill Creek
WV
Martin Creek
Region 4
State
Contact
Watershed
AL
Yolanda Brown
Indian Creek
FL
Brown.yolanda@epa.gov
Lower St. Johns River
GA
Two Mile Branch
KY
Corbin Citv Reservoir
MS
Bee Lake
NC
Smith Creek
SC
May River
TN
Oostanaula Creek
Region 5
State
Contact
Watershed
IL
Thomas Davenport
Bull Creek/Bull's Brook
IN
Davenport.thomas@epa.gov
Salt Creek
Ml
Paw Paw River
MN
Lake Independence
OH
Bokes/Mill Creek
Wl
Appendix - Page 24
-------
November 2011
State
Contact
Watershed
AR
Brad Lamb
Bayou Bartholomew
LA
Lamb.brad@epa.gov
Bavou Plaauemine Brule
NM
Jemez River
OK
Lake Eucha/Lake Spavinaw
TX
Plum Creek
Region 7
State
Contact
Watershed
Peter Davis
IA
Davis.peter@epa.gov
Lake Hendricks
KS
Lower Bia Blue River & Lower Little Blue River
MO
Brush Creek
NE
Carter Lake
Region 8
State
Contact
Watershed
Peter Monahan
CO
Monahan.peter@epa.gov
Coal Creek
MT
Rubv River
ND
Beaver Creek and Seven Mile Coulee
SD
Belle Fourche River
UT
San Pitch
WY
Flat Creek
Region 9
State
Contact
Watershed
AS
AZ
Tina Yin
Aaua Fria
CA
Yin.christina@epa.aov
Aaua Hedionda
Guam
HI
Ko'olaupoko Moku
NMI
NV
Stephanie L. Wilson
Carson River
TT
Region 10
State
Contact
Watershed
AK
Rick Seaborne
Lower Kenai River
ID
Seaborne.rick@epa.gov
Pack River
OR
Willamette River Basin: City of Lowell
WA
Stillaauamish River
Appendix - Page 25
-------
November 2011
Appendix B-2: Best Component Examples from Watershed Plans
Puerto Rico's plan provides an excellent example of an approach to successfully implementing
component A. Unlike most plans, model selection criteria are identified to guide model
selection. Model input assumptions are clearly explained, and assumptions are supported with
appropriate references. Explanation of the calibration process clearly lays out what information
was used and data gaps that limited the analysis. The modeling results are presented by
subwatershed, and each section includes a pollutant source assessment, priority ranking (with
explanation), a breakdown of loading by source, and an analysis of seasonal variations or other
critical factors that may exacerbate pollution issues. Link: Rio Grande De Loiza, pp. IV-1 - IV-2;
IV-18 - IV-28, V-2-V-164
The New Hampshire plan provides great examples for components A-C. The New Hampshire
plan outlines different pollutant estimate approaches that apply to their watershed, clearly stating
the limitations and assumptions of each. The pollutant source analysis begins with an in-depth
study of the watershed completed several years ago using one of the more complicated
approaches. Simplified approaches were then used to assess how conditions may have changed
since the original study was completed.
STEPL was used to estimate the loads from individual sources of pollution in the watershed. All
of the sources for information used in the modeling are listed, and while the model was not fully
calibrated, an attempt was made to compare how the model results differed from monitoring
results. Each possible pollutant source is further explored in the following sections, including
relevant studies and visual evidence of problems that could not be taken into account using
STEPL. Also included are measures to control the individual sources of pollution and estimated
load reductions, explicitly linking pollutant control measures to specific sources of pollution.
The information about pollutant source loads and control measures are summarized in a table as
an easy reference. Link: Coginchaug River, p. 7-47
The Mill Creek plan from Pennsylvania does a good job of identifying NPS management
measures that need to be implemented to meet the goals of the plan. Plan writers not only have
an idea for which BMP's to install (component C), but where they should be installed and to
what extent (acres treated by a cover crop, length of fencing, etc). This level of specificity
suggests that plan writers are intimately involved in this watershed and provides confidence that
the plan, once it is implemented, will succeed. The Mill Creek plan also provides a detailed cost
estimate for each proposed BMP (component D). .Potential funding sources are also identified
for the different types of BMP's. Link: Mill Creek p. 24 - 46
The Coal Creek plan from Colorado addresses component C with a short table that summarizes
the appropriate management measures and how those measures work to reduce pollution. The
Coal Creek plan also uses a summary table to illustrate gaps in the monitoring data used for
quantifying the causes and sources of pollution. Link: Coal Creek pp. 8 - 9; 49
The Washington State Stillaguamish plan follows a similar format as New Hampshire to address
component C, providing a section to discuss each source of pollution, specific problem areas
Appendix - Page 26
-------
November 2011
and the management measures that should be used to address each source. The watershed
characterization in this plan is very thorough and allows for the ability to very specifically target
sources of pollution with management measures. This is also one of the few plans that addresses
temperature, and does a great job explaining suspected causes of impairment and targeting
specific areas for management actions.
The plan also does an excellent job identifying sources of technical assistance, which is part of
addressing component D. Partners are identified from the federal to the local level and specific
actions are identified for each partner. These expectations are described in text, and then
summarized in an "Implementation Tracking Sheet" to easily keep track of the tasks that need to
be accomplished by which partner. This differs from most of the plans reviewed; most identified
partners but did not specify what these partners were expected to contribute. Link: Stillasuamish
River, pp. 14 - 87; D-3 - D-7
The Agua Hedionda watershed plan from California does an excellent job describing the NPS
management measures that will need to be implemented to meet the goals of the plan
(component C). Each management measure includes a detailed explanation for why it was
chosen and where exactly it would be implemented, and most measures also include a strategy
for prioritizing implementation. Maps of critical implementation areas enhance the presentation
of this information, and cost estimates are included. A discussion of potential funding sources is
also included (component D). The education/information component identifies target audiences
and activities to reach these audiences, and it outlines specific goals for outreach activities
(component E). The monitoring component of this plan is very clear (component I).
Monitoring indicators are specifically linked to plan objectives. The plan also lays out the
groups responsible for the different pieces of the monitoring plan and recommends specific
monitoring locations that would enhance the ability of watershed managers to determine if the
implementation efforts are working over time. Link: Agua Hedionda, see Chapter 6
The implementation piece of Wyoming's plan for Flat Creek is very strong. The management
measures are broken down by the goal the measure is meant to address along with cost estimates,
possible funding sources, responsible parties and information/education activities that would be
used to promote the adoption of the measure (components D, E, F, G) This made it very clear
how every action proposed in the plan fit together. The implementation summary table also
makes clear how the monitoring efforts will be used to ensure goals are being reached
(component I). Many of the plans reviewed contained a lot of information, and it was not
always clear how the information would be used to implement the watershed plan. By
summarizing information in this way, it is clear how each and every piece of information in the
plan fits into the overall watershed goals. The Flat Creek Plan also outlines a clear procedure
periodically reviewing the plan to ensure progress is being made and that the plan is revised as
new information is collected. Link: Flat Creek p. 30-37
The education/information section (component E) in the Lake Hendricks plan from Iowa is
presented in a question and answer format that clearly illustrates the decision process the plan
writers followed to choose information/education activities that would be effective. Unlike most
other plans, barriers to practice adoption are identified in advance along with strategies to
Appendix - Page 27
-------
November 2011
overcome those barriers. Also, plan writers interviewed landowners in person to get a better idea
of how to target the information/education campaign. Link: Lake Hendricks See Information &
Education Section.
The education and outreach strategy (component E) in the Bee Lake watershed plan from
Missouri includes indicators for success, which is not present in other plans. The plan also
assigns responsibility for each education/information activity to a specific party, and provides a
detailed cost estimate for each activity. The Bee Lake plan also includes a good summary of
data used for quantifying causes and sources of pollution. Link: Bee Lake pp. 11 - 13; 40 - 51
Tennessee's watershed plan for Oostanaula has a clear implementation schedule (component F)
and does a good job describing measurable, interim milestones in addition to the implementation
schedule and setting criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
met over time (components G, and H). Link: Oostanaula Creek pp. 55 - 57; 60 - 62
The Lower St. John's River Basin watershed plan from Florida contains one of the most detailed
sections on how the monitoring component would be used to evaluate effectiveness of the plan
over time (component I). An explanation why different modeling stations and parameters were
chosen is included, in addition to a map of monitoring stations (that also illustrated which
subbasins the stations corresponded to). Most other plans reviewed did not go very far beyond a
map of stations, if a map was included at all. The monitoring efforts are summarized in a table
that listed the monitoring stations, what parameters would be monitored at each station and how
often, and who would be responsible for carrying out the monitoring. The plan also explains
how the monitoring database would be managed, which is another factor missing from most
other plans. The plan also includes a thorough discussion of the assumptions made in the
analysis of causes and sources of pollution. Link: Lower St. Johns River, pp. 8 - 12; 80 - 90
Indiana presents its causes and sources of pollution in a table, complete with an explanation for
suspecting each source. It is very clear what previous monitoring was used to verify/quantify
each pollutant source. Link: Salt Creek p. 97 - 101.
Hawaii developed a unique way to prioritize project implementation in the Koolaupoko
watershed plan that takes into account factors such as landowner support, as well as factors such
as BMP efficiency. This plan also includes a really good discussion of the model used for
watershed analysis that includes assumptions and limitations. Link: Ko'olauyoko Moku. p 3-7 -
3-11; Appendix B
The Carter Lake plan from Nebraska is one of the only plans that included an economic
valuation of the waterbody. Link: Carter Lake, p. 8 - 11
The Chesapeake Bay Tributary strategy from New York has a very detailed section discussing
the information needed to refine the plan in future iterations. Link: Chemung & Upper
Susquehanna River . p. 76 - 83
Appendix - Page 28
-------
Appendix C: Potential Recommendations from the EPA/State Water Division Director Workgroup
Regarding Section 319 NPS Program Improvements
I. Overall Themes
Accelerate water quality improvements and restoration through greater program integration
and more timely implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) controls.
Increase accountability through greater use of satisfactory progress reviews, improved
measures and updated NPS Management Program Plans.
Continue to make progress in restoring specific waterbodies/watersheds while strengthening
state approaches that can achieve more rapid improvement on a broad (geographic or
categorical) scale.
Increase leveraging of Section 319 NPS funds with other federal, state, local, and private sector
funding.
II. Recommendations to Improve Strategic Program Directions for 319
1. Use Satisfactory Progress Provision to Strengthen and Update State NPS
Management Program and Improve Accountability
Re-invigorate "Satisfactory Progress" determinations to improve accountability and establish metrics to
better assess state program performance:
Improve Agency's NPS Management Program and Process
In FY12, EPA will develop a draft "satisfactory progress" check list in the first quarter to aid the
regions in evaluating the states' NPS management program and accomplishments in FY11. Also in
FY12, EPA will complete new "Satisfactory Progress" Evaluation guidelines which would focus on:
o Environmental results
o Program status- including determining if a state NPS Management Program update is
needed
o Funds utilization
In FY13, Regions would make Satisfactory Progress determinations based on the new guidelines and
states would begin submitting updated State NPS Management Programs. States would have the
option to include an updated NPS Management Program in their State Water Quality Management
Plan.
Also in FY13, EPA will develop a final checklist for Regions to use that provides an overall structure
and consistency for evaluating and documenting satisfactory progress determinations each year
which is directly linked to the award of subsequent grants. The checklist would require specific
review and findings of a detailed set of criteria for performance measures (including funds
-------
management, expenditure rates, implementation rate of projects, achievement of outputs and
outcomes from 319 funds.)
In FY13 and beyond, in some cases, EPA would make a determination that a state's NPS Program
was NOT making satisfactory progress thus making it potentially ineligible for some portion or all of
the funds. A competition or redistribution of funds may occur as a result of this provision (see
"Regional Competition/Reallocation" section below).
Update/Improve State NPS Management Program Plans
In FY13, States will update their NPS Management Program Plans to focus them in a manner that
maximizes program effectiveness and results. Comprehensive updates will be required for any state
with an outdated plan (of 1998-2001 vintage) to align with all operative 319 guidelines (including
any new guidelines that emerge in 2012/2013).
Beyond FY13, States would update their programs on a periodic basis (e.g., a 5-year basis, or
rotating for different components/sections of the program), which is reviewed and approved by EPA
Regions.
2. Regional Competition/Reallocation of (1) funds that have not been
expended bv the end of the grant period and (2) a portion of new fiscal year
funds
In FY12, EPA will develop guidelines to establish an approach for Regions to compete and reallocate two
potential sources of funding: (1) funds that have not been expended by the end of the grant period due
to project period expiration or non-performance and have become available for re-award when they are
deobligated from grants; and (2) new fiscal year funds that are subtracted from states who are not
liquidating obligated funds at a reasonable rate or from states who did not make satisfactory progress in
the previous year.
Priorities for use of competitive funds may include:
o Implementation of watershed-based projects that have a 9 element watershed plan
o Projects jointly funded with USDA in 12-digit HUC's
o Implementation of Statewide categorical approaches to address key NPS problems
o Activities that promote protection of healthy waters.
3. Achieving Environmental Results and Improving Program Management
In FY13, to accelerate the achievement of environmental results, the Agency will specify that at least
50% of 319 funds should be used to support on-the-ground restoration or protection projects to
implement watershed plans. Furthermore, to improve program management, the Agency will work with
states to identify priority watersheds for watershed-based plan development and implementation. For
example, States can improve the processes/approaches for prioritizing watersheds for watershed-based
-------
plan (WBP) funding by considering factors such as the importance and severity of impairment or
protection need being addressed as well as likelihood for projects to succeed. These priorities would
drive funding decisions.
The Agency will also work with states to find opportunities to promote and implement statewide
approaches or across large portions of a state, including for example:
o Support development and implementation of statewide nitrogen and phosphorus pollution
frameworks called for in March 16, 2011 memo from Nancy Stoner, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water,
o Statewide enforceable programs that require implementation of NPS BMPs for nutrient
management, Agricultural BMPs, stormwater runoff, etc.
o Statewide restrictions on use of certain products/activities that contribute to NPS pollution
such as restricting use of phosphorus and nitrogen in lawn fertilizer,
o Statewide requirements for nutrient controls for septic systems and/or setbacks from
waterways.
Another component to improving program management is to improve tracking and reporting for NPS
activities. For example, EPA will work with states to track and report on the use of all matching funds in
the same manner as for 319 funds, as they are intended by law to share the cost of the program and
thus are integral to the program's implementation and accountability. Furthermore, EPA will consider
requiring a detailed quantitative accounting, in grants applications and in annual reports, of the
outputs/outcomes/activities of staff funded with both 319 dollars and State match.
4. Increase Use and Leveraging of Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs)
and/or Other Sources of State Funding
States have used approximately $3.5 billion of Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs) to date to
implement NPS projects, accounting for approximately 4% of all CWSRF lending. While this is a start,
EPA needs to encourage even greater use and leveraging of these funds CWSRF funds as well as use of
other sources of State funds to implement watershed-based plans. In FY12, EPA will develop guidelines
to allow greater flexibility in use of 319 funds for states that use SRF or other State funds for
implementation. For example, States that demonstrate that they have two to three times the amount
of funds (CWSRF and/or State funds) being used to implement watershed-based plans would have
greater flexibility to use the 319 funds to support other state nonpoint source priorities.
5. Measuring Success and Improving Program Accountability
Continue to track WQ 10 watersheds acknowledging that these waters that are partially or fully restored
are a good measure of the success of state NPS program. The current number of 355 such waters is
impressive - see NPS Success Stories at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/ . However,
there is concern that we also need to be able to show "incremental progress" in addressing water
quality issues in NPS impaired waters. In FY12, EPA HQ and Regions will work to develop measures of
-------
incremental progress for review by states and inclusion in the FY13 National Water Program Guidance.
Some measures to be explored include:
o Percent load reductions for a specific pollutant
o Count number of BMPs/projects implemented in a watershed with a watershed plan,
o Measure/monitor water quality improvement.
6. Improve Partnership and Collaboration with Federal Agencies Such as USDA.
DPI, and OTHERS to More Effectively Tackle NPS Pollution
Continue to work with other federal agencies such as United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, Fish and Wildlife
Service) to encourage firm commitments to reducing NPS pollution caused by agriculture (cropland,
animal agriculture including confined operations and grazing), forestry, surface mining, and other
nonpoint sources of pollution. Build on existing work with USDA and DOI, including work with the Forest
Service (FS) MOU and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to continue to develop and implement TMDLs
on FS and FWS public lands.
Expand EPA partnership to include local conservation districts, counties, regional planning commissions,
and nonprofit organizations at the state and national level, e.g., NACD, The Nature Conservancy, CTIC,
etc.
In FY12, EPA will continue to work with USDA, other federal agencies and others to increase activities
and funding to implement watershed-based plans to address NPS pollution problems.
-------
Appendix D: Water Quality Priority Goal, FY 2012-2013
February 2012 Addendum to the FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan,
Water Quality Priority Goal:
Improve, restore, or maintain water quality by enhancing nonpoint source program
accountability, incentives, and effectiveness. By September 30, 2013, 50% of the states
will revise their nonpoint source programs according to new Section 319 grant
guidelines that EPA will release in November 2012.
This Priority Goal advances the Strategic Plan objective of protecting the quality of rivers, lakes, streams,
and wetlands on a watershed basis, and protecting urban, coastal, and ocean waters. It also supports
the strategic measure on attaining water quality standards for all pollutants and impairments in
waterbodies that were identified as not attaining standards in 2002. Nonpoint source pollution
principally nitrogen, phosphorus, and sedimentshas been recognized as the largest remaining
impediment to improving water quality. Recent national surveys have found that the Nation's waters
are stressed by nutrient pollution, excess sedimentation, and degradation of shoreline vegetation, which
affect upwards of 50% of our lakes and streams. Section 319 of the Clean Water Act is one of EPA's core
water programs to help protect, restore, and improve water quality by providing grants to prevent or
reduce nonpoint source pollution.
EPA's implementation strategy for accomplishing this Priority Goal will focus primarily on developing
new Section 319 grant guidelines by November 2012. By the end of 2013, EPA will provide assistance to
states to revise their nonpoint source programs in order to accelerate water quality improvements and
restoration with a focus on increased accountability and enhanced targeting of the funds to ensure
timely implementation of nonpoint source controls.
To achieve gains under this Priority Goal, EPA will work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior (including the Bureau of Land Management, Office of Surface Mining, and
Fish and Wildlife Service), to encourage collaborative efforts that reduce nonpoint source pollution
caused by agriculture, confined animal operations, grazing, forestry, surface mining, and other sources.
Specifically, EPA will jointly identify with U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service at least 50 critical watersheds for coordination of conservation and monitoring investments.
Additionally, EPA works in partnership with states and tribes to develop and implement nonpoint source
pollution prevention programs and will expand partnerships to include local conservation districts,
counties, regional planning commissions, and nonprofit organizations at the state and national levels.
------- |