Nonpoint source management program, state of South Carolina

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

NONPOINT SOURCE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
For The State Of
SOUTH CAROLINA

April, 1989
;outh Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
181 Bureau of Water Pollution Control
is ~.S6
N66 2600 Bull Street
1989 Columbia, SC 29201 COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

Property of CSC Libraxy

NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

propertY of CSC Liba

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

August 1988

(Revised April, 1989)

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
Prepared by CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

the

Water Quality Planning and Standards Section

Bureau of Water Pollution Control

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
~<3-~~ ~ ~2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
01::st~' ~CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

'-o
cr

CO a0
Ir+
_H/N

,,5aft of A*os CTarfin

CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, JR. (fiPOST OFFICE BOX 11369
GOVERNOR COLUMBIA 29211

May 1, 1989

Mr. Greer Tidwell, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Dear Greer:

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
has completed the Statewide Nonpoint Source Manaaement Proaram in
accordance with Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The
document recommends best management practices (BMPs) to control
nonpoint source pollution identified in the state's Nonpoint
Source Assessment and the programs that will be used to implement
those BMPs. An opinion from the General Counsel of the
Department concerning the adequacy of State law to carry out the
program is included.

This Management Program is hereby submitted to you for approval
in fulfillment of Sec. 319 and EPA regulations. A summary of
public participation activities can be found in Chapter XVIII.
Opportunity for public comment on the Plan was given by the
Department and EPA. Comments were received and considered for
inclusion in this revised document.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. John McMillan of my
office or Mr. Douglas Fable, NPS Coordinator, Environmental
Quality Control, Department of Health and Environmental Control.

With best regards, I am

Sincerely,

C . Campbell, Jr.
Governor

CAC;jr/jdh

enclosures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, in South Carolina, is described as
pollution contained in stormwater from agricultural, urban, forested, and other
land uses. NPS pollution emanates from diffuse sources in contrast to "point"
sources which are discharged through a pipe or outlet. Both surface and
groundwater may be impacted by NPS. More than 330 waterbodies or portions of
waterbodies in the State are estimated to be impacted by some form of nonpoint
source pollution.

The South Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program describes how the
State will address NPS pollution problems identified in a companion document
titled Assessment of Nonooint Source Pollution (SCDHEC, 1988). Technology based
best management practices (BMPs) and regulatory controls are the tools most
widely used for controlling NPS, thus improving water quality.

The State NPS Management Program fulfills certain requirements of
P.L. 100-4, the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, by listing BMPs used to
control NPS pollution, identifying agencies and their programs that will be used
to implement the BMPs, targeting priority watersheds for NPS control efforts,
and outlining a four-year action plan. These components are discussed for seven
categories of NPS pollution that are believed to impact South Carolina waters.
They include agriculture, forestry, construction, urban runoff, mining, land
disposal, and hydrologic/wetlands modification.

A major part of the Program is evaluation of its effectiveness. One method
of evaluation is the completion of well-designed water quality and biological
monitoring investigations. Biological studies, physical/chemical sampling, and
predictive modeling will be carried out on selected waterbodies to indicate NPS
impacts and water quality improvements.

The key to South Carolina's NPS management strategy is the participation
and cooperation of the several State, local, and federal agencies that are
responsible for NPS related management programs. Their roles are spelled out in
the Program. Also, representatives of agencies and groups with an interest in
nonpoint source control make up a State NPS Task Force. This body provides
direction for the Program and review of outputs.

Educational programs and information campaigns play an important role in
the overall strategy. Citizens must be educated about their responsibility in
controlling NPS pollution and contributing to the maintenance and improvement of
water quality. Technical assistance and demonstrations will be provided to
landusers in applying best management practices. Informational campaigns will
be directed at the general public in an effort to reduce and clean up NPS
pollution.

Finally, sources of funding are identified. Funds from a variety of State,
local, and federal sources will be combined and utilized to implement the
Program. It is pointed out that the unavailability of federal funds would be an
obstacle to implementation of many of the activities to control NPS that are
discussed in the Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . .... ............. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...1.1.1.................

LIST OF FIGURES .......... ... .......... iv

I INTRODUCTION ..... 1

II MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ................ 4

III TARGETING AND MONITORING WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS . . ... 8

IV ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION OF THE

NPS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................. 24

V OVERALL PROGRAM GOALS AND MILESTONES ........... 26

VI AGRICULTURAL NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............. 31

VII FORESTRY NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............... 77

VIII CONSTRUCTION NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............ 90

IX URBAN RUNOFF NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............. 103

X MINING NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ................ 120

XI LAND DISPOSAL NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN ............. 146

XII HYDROLOGIC/WETLANDS MODIFICATION NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN . . . 157

XIII OTHER NONPOINT SOURCE RELATED PROGRAMS .......... 171

XIV EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS ............ 177

XV CERTIFICATION OF ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS .......... 182

XVI FEDERAL CONSISTENCY .................... 184

XVII FUNDING SOURCES ...................... 192

XVIII PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................... 201

APPENDIX I . . ...................... 205

APPENDIX 2 . . ..................... 213

APPENDIX 3 . . .................... 224

APPENDIX 4 ........................ 226

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table 1 WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS TARGETED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION ACTION ................ 12

Table 2 WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS TARGETED FOR
FURTHER EVALUATION ................. 13

Table 3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY ........ 32

Table 4 BMPs FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND LAND USE ..... 52
Table 5 AGRICULTURE PROGRAMS AND COOPERATING AGENCIES ..... 67

Table 6 FEDERAL PROGRAMS BELIEVED TO IMPACT THE STATE'S
NPS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .............. 189

Table 7 NPS TASK FORCE .................... 202

Table 8 STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EROSION
AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION ............... 204

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure I PROCESS FOR PRIORITIZING TARGETED WATERBODIES
IN NPS ACTION PLANS ............... 11

Figure 2 AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ..................... 34

I. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Cl ean Water Act estabi i shed the goal that allI waters of the

United States should be fishable and swimmable. The State of South Carolina,

recognizing this goal, included the following policy as part of the South

Carolina Water Pollution Control Act (S.C. Code of Laws 48-1-10, 1976):

"It is declared to be the public policy of the State to
maintain reasonable standards of purity of the air and
water resources of the State, consistent with the public
health, safety and welfare of its citizens, maximum
employment, the industrial development of the State, the
propagation and protection of terrestrial and marine flora
and fauna, and the protection of physical property and
other resources. It is further declared that to secure
these purposes and the enforcement of the provisions of
this Act, the Department of Health and Environmental
Control shall have authority to abate, control, and prevent
pollution."

Traditionally, efforts to attain this goal through improved water quality

have been directed toward the treatment of point source problems, such as

municipal and industrial effluents. In recent years though, it has become

increasingly evident that pollution caused by nonpoint sources (NPS) is one of

the major contributors to water quality degradation.

Nonpoint source pollution is caused by diffuse sources that are not

generally regulated and are normally associated with stormwater runoff from

farming and forestry activities, urban development, and construction activities.

Nonpoint source pollution does not result from a discharge at a specific point

source (such as a single pipe) but generally results from land runoff,

precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or percolation. Thus, NPS pollution has

an adverse impact on both surface and groundwater.

Typically, NPS pollution occurs in the following manner. When land is

disturbed, especially sloping land, and then precipitation occurs, some of the

loosened soil is washed toward the nearest waterbody. Soil particles and

stormwater itself may carry pollutants such as bacteria, nutrients, and

pesticides and other toxic materials which can ultimately reach the stream,

lake, or estuary. Pollutants could also enter the groundwater through

percolation or seepage.

Nonpoint source pollution creates many of the same water quality problems

as point source pollution. Heavy metals, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals

washed off streets, farms, and lawns can cause adverse impacts to fish and other

aquatic wildlife; decomposition removes dissolved oxygen necessary for the

survival of valuable fish species; and nitrates and other nutrients can cause

extensive algae blooms or the rapid eutrophication of lakes and estuaries.

Also the vast amounts of sediment released from nonpoint sources can cause

a host of other problems--covering spawning beds of fish, exacerbating flood

damage, and filling in reservoirs, drainage ditches, and irrigation canals.

Nonpoint source pollution can also cause serious groundwater contamination

problems. Nitrates and some pesticides can seep into groundwater from cropland

and suburban lawns. Leakage from septic tanks and seepage from chemical spills,

landfills, and a host of other sources can contaminate shallow groundwater

supplies. Many other of the same sources that affect surface water can affect

groundwater as well, particularly if the contaminants dissolve in water.

Finally, some of the measures that can be taken to lessen surface water

pollution may result in making groundwater contamination more serious.

Recent amendments to the Federal Clean Water Act mandate that States assess

nonpoint source pollution and commence a management program to control and abate

it by August 1988. To meet this federal mandate, the South Carolina Department

of Health and Environmental Control has embarked on a three stage program to

-2-

conduct a confprehensive NPS assessment, develop management strategies, and

implement these strategies. -

A separate Assessment Report of NPS problems in South Carolina was

prepared, and this Management Program document describes what will be done by

the State in the next four years to address NPS problems. It includes

recommendations of best management practices (BMPs) to control impacts on the

waterbodies named in the Assessment and the programs, both regulatory and

non-regulatory, that will be employed in order to implement the BMPs.

The State of South Carolina is committed to nonpoint source pollution

Control. The NPS Management Program will be implemented to the furthest extent

possible using available sources of funding, i.e. EPA grants appropriated under

the Clean Water Act Amendments and available State funds. Funding for

implementation will also be sought through the various federal, State, and local

agencies with programs related to NPS control and integrated into the State's

NPS Management Program.

1I. MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

The Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA) states,:

"It is the national policy that programs for the control
of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and
implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the
goals of this Act to be met through the control of both
point and nonpoint sources of pollution."1

This goal focuses on the importance of controlling nonpoint sources of

water pollution. With the enactment of Section 319 of the CWA, new direction

and significant federal financial assistance for the implementation of State

nonpoint source (NPS) programs has been authorized. The CWA requires two major

reports to be completed by August 4, 1988: a State Assessment Report describing

the State's NPS problems and a State Management Program explaining what the

State plans to do in the next four fiscal years to address their NPS problems.

The CWA authorizes financial assistance for developing these reports and for

implementing the State's NPS Management Program.

To meet this federal mandate, the Environmental Protection Agency

promulgated final guidance in December 1987 that elaborated on the requirements

of Section 319 of the CWA. A major part of this guidance refers to the

Management Program. This portion is exhibited in Appendix 1. The guidance

states that State Management Programs shall include six categories of4

information:

1. Best management practices and measures which will be used to reduce

pollutant loadings resulting from each category, subcategory, or

particular nonpoint source designated in the State's Assessment

Report, taking into account the impact of the practice on groundwater

quality. I
-4-

2. Programs (including, as appropriate, non-regulator or r egulatory

programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance,

education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)

to achieve implementation of the best management practices designated

above.

3. A schedule containing annual milestones for utilization of program

implementation methods and implementation of best management practices

by the categories, subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources

designated in the State's Assessment Report.

4. A certification by the attorney general of the State or States (or the

chief attorney of any State water pollution control agency which has

independent legal counsel) that the laws of the State or States, as

the case may be, provide adequate authority to implement such

management program.

S. Sources of Federal and other assistance and funding [other than

assistance provided under subsection (h) and (i)] which will be

available in each of such fiscal years for supporting implementation

of such practices and measures.

6. The federal financial assistance programs and federal development

projects for which the State will review individual assistance

applications or development projects for their effect on water quality

pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372.

South Carolina's NPS Program incorporates these requirements.

In the fall of 1987 the South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control (the State's Water Quality Control Agency) applied for and

received EPA funds to commence the NPS effort. The first phase of this effort

involved the preparation of a statewide assessment report that described

existing and potential NPS problems. A draft version of the Assessment was

submitted to EPA in June 1988 and simultaneously made available for public

review and comment. It lists- over 300 waterbodies that are believed to be

impacted or potentially impacted by nonpoint source pollution. The list is

presented in Appendix 2. It includes the water quality problems associated with

the impact such as nutrients, toxic materials, or bacteria contamination, and

the source (or category) of the impact such as agricultural or urban stormwater

runoff.

Our management strategy is two pronged. DHEC will coordinate the

implementation of programs on a watershed level based on the prioritized list of

targeted waterbodies found in Chapter III of this document. Participation by

all agencies and groups having programs to deal with NPS problems identified in

the watershed is essential. Depending on the nature and extent of the NPS

problem(s) and the makeup of the watershed, a mix of BMPs selected from those

recommended in this document (or others if shown to have a favorable impact an

water quality) will be implemented through applicable federal, State, and local

programs. Types of programs include technical , assistance, regulation

enforcement, financial assistance, and education/information. Local

coordination of program implementation will be stressed; in most cases the

local Conservation District will be the key contact with the District

Conservationist providing leadership in assisting the District. Public

involvement will be sought. Awareness programs will be implemented and aimed at

landowners/landusers and other members of the public residing within the

watershed. Schedules identifying target dates for accomplishing tasks over the

next four fiscal years will be prepared.

We will also recommend and implement general NPS programs to include

education, technical, and financial assistance and regulations that are

applicable statewide. Progress in implementing the program will be described

via annual repdrts to EPA/Congress, and periodically updated NPS Assessment and

Management Plan documents.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is

charged with the responsibility of implementing the NPS program mandated in

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and with protecting water quality in the

State. DHEC will assure that the NPS Management Plan is implemented so as to

meet federal and State water quality goals. However, due to the many federal,

State, and local agencies involved with nonpoint source control, a successful

program will depend on a partnership between DHEC and these other agencies. DHEC

will serve as the lead agency for all seven identified NPS categories but has

requested that the cooperating agencies assist in completion of the various

categorical plans.

A Nonpoint Source Task Force has been formed to make recommendations of the

content and implementation of the Management Program. It is composed of

representatives from governmental agencies having programs related to nonpoint

source control, water quality, or water resources. The group held its first

meeting on July 22, 1988, and provided helpful guidance on Management Program

preparation. The Task Force has met several times since then and will continue

to meet on a regular basis during the life of the NPS program. The group has

identified a list of targeted waterbodies scheduled to receive high priority for

impl ementat ion programs.

Nonpoint source assessment and management are an integral part of Water

Quality Management (208) Planning. Nonpoint source was comprehensively

addressed as part of the South Carolina Water Ouality Manaaement Plan, completed

in the late 1970's. The current Assessment Report and Management Program serve

to update the NPS portion of the Water Quality Management Plan. Therefore, they

will be incorporated into the State's 208 Plan upon approval by the

Environmental Protection Agency.

III. TARGETING AND MONITORING WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS

Objective

South Carolina's NPS Assessment report lists the waterbodies or segments of

waterbodies in the State that are impacted (or potentially impacted) by nonpoint

source pollution. This Assessment list and a legend appear in Appendix 2.

Because of fiscal and time constraints, it is necessary to select a subset of

waters for concerted action over the next four years. Such targeting provides

the greatest opportunity for achieving water quality improvements. The guiding

principle in targeting the State's waters using priority ranking is to maximize

environmental and use benefits by devoting resources to control NPS in a

priority order that recognizes the values of the waterbody in question, the

benefits to be realized from various control actions, and the controlability of

the problem(s). Selected waterbodies may include those already impacted by NPS

pollution or high quality waters where a potential for degradation without NPS

management exists.

Given the limited resources available to effectively solve all the NPS

problems identified, targeting waterbodies/watersheds is an important component

of South Carolina's NPS program. Targeting establishes a prioritization for

implementation of NPS efforts. By focusing on a smaller number of watersheds,

water quality improvements will be more recognizable and support for the NPS

program will be more likely to succeed. As the cooperating agencies work

through the list of targeted watersheds, those remaining will be prioritized in

a similar manner.

Procedures for Tarcietinc Waterbodies

Initially in the NPS program, a methodology was developed by DHEC NPS staff

to prioritize the waterbodies/watersheds named in the Assessment. This

methodology relied on three overall factors, each given a numerical rating:

1. Waterbodies with dearadation by NPS based on data from DHEC's ambient

water aualitv monitorina network - A severity index was devised based

on the number of violations of various criteria such as dissolved

oxygen, nutrients, and or bacteria, and the severity of the

violations.

2. Watersheds with a hiah Dotential for erosion - Highly erodible

watersheds were indicated by a computer generated model and assigned a

numerical value based on the severity of the erosion.

3. "Hiah aualitv" waterbodies that are threatened by NPS - "High quality"

waterbodies included Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) such as trout

streams and coastal shellfish waters, and waterbodies of other State

of South Carolina classifications that were attaining their designated

uses. A numerical value was assigned based on the water's

classification.

This methodology produced a ranked list of twenty-six waterbodies. It was

not used, however, because of several built-in shortcomings. First, the

methodology excluded waterbodies without monitoring stations or that are

classified by name. Secondly, coastal plain and coastal waterbodies tended to

be under-represented because of less potential for erosion. Thirdly, the

methodology did not satisfactorily account for non-numerical factors such as

public support, likelihood of implementation, existence of other programs, etc.

Therefore, the collective knowledge and expertise of the State Nonpoint Source

Task Force was called upon to target high priority waterbodies/watersheds. The

-9-

following selection criteria were developed by the working group. The&criteria

included:

1. Waterbodies/watersheds where severe NPS problems are known to be

occurring.

2. Watersheds with some type of ongoing or planned NPS management program

such as ASCS Cost Share, PL566, Watershed Protection, 314 Clean Lakes

Grant, in-place regulatory program such as local sediment control

ordinance, etc.

3. Watersheds with a high potential for runoff.

4. Threatened ORW waters, popular recreational waterbodies, waterbodies

used for drinking water supply, wetlands, and watersheds harboring

endangered species.

5. Waterbodies prohibited for the collection of shellfish due to NPS

pollution.

Taking these factors into consideration, the Task Force generated two lists

of targeted waterbodies/watersheds. The first list contains the names of

waterbodies/watersheds where adequate information and/or data are available to

indicate a NPS problem and implementation plans could immediately commence.

There are twenty-five waterbodies/watersheds on this list. The second list

contains the names of watersheds or larger drainage basins where evidence of NPS

pollution problems exists, but further evaluation or assessment is needed before

implementation plans could commence. By necessity, large drainage basins would

be broken down into smaller watershed units. There are twenty-one watersheds

included on the second list.

A decision-tree analysis, shown in Figure 1, was then employed to

prioritize the two lists. The final two lists exhibit in priority order the

waterbodies/watersheds targeted for implementation of control programs (Table 1)

and further evaluation (Table 2). Watershed identification numbers (ID#) are

-10-

FIGURE 1

PROCESS FOR PRIORITIZING TARGETED WATERBODIES IN NPS ACTION PLANS
Priority for
Implementation
Action
mgt. tools 1
*higher value ---- available (highest)
waterbody
Major NPS problem mgt. tools 4
clearly identified unavailable
with extensive-------------
- use impairment mgt. tools 2
- pollutants/sources **lower value----- available
- water quality and/or waterbody
biological degradation mgt. tools 5
Information and unavailable
data adequate to-----
evaluate problem mgt. tools 3
*higher value----- available
Minor NPS problem waterbody
Targeted NPS with limited---------------- mgt. tools 6
Waterbodies/---- - use impairment unavailable (lowest)
Watersheds - pollutants/sources
- water quality and/or
biological degradation **lower value----4 no ranking
waterbody
Priority for
Further
Evaluation
impact expected 1
to increase (highest)
*higher value---
waterbody impact not expected 2
Information and to increase
data inadequate -----
to evaluate impact
impact expected 3
to increase
**lower value--
waterbody
impact not expected 4
to increase (lowest)
* Higher value waterbody = SCDHEC Class SAA, AA, SA, A, SB
** Lower value waterbody = SCDHEC Class B, SC

TABLE I

WATERBODY/WATERSHEDS TARGETED FOR IMPLEMENTATION ACTION

Name Watershed ID#

Group I Lake Bowen 03050105
(First Priority) Camping Creek 03050109
Kinley Creek 03050109
Murrells Inlet 03040207
Salkehatchie River 03050207
Lower Saluda River 03050109

Group 2 Black Creek 03040201
(Second Priority) Gills Creek 03050110
Intracoastal Waterway 03040206
(Horry County)
Long Cane Creek 03060103
Lynches River 03040202
North Pacolet River 03050105
Reedy River 03050109
Scape Ore Swamp 03040205

Group 3 Beaverdam Creek 03060102
(Third Priority) Upper Coosawhatchie River 03050208
Halfway Swamp 03050111
Pawleys Inlet 03040207
South Fork Edisto River 03050204
Three Creeks 03040201

Group 4 Lake Wylie 03050101
(Fourth Priority)

Group 5 Ashley River 03050202
(Fifth Priority) Clark Sound 03050202

Group 6 Chauga River 03060102
(Sixth Priority)

Group 7 Brushy Creek 03050109
(No Rating) Clouds Creek 03050109

TABLE 2

WATERBODIES/WATERSHEDS TARGETED-FOR FURTHER EVALUATION

Name Watershed ID#

Group 1 Chattooga River 03060102
(First Priority) Lake Marion 03050111
Trenchards Inlet 03050208
Tugaloo River 03060102
Wadmalaw Sound 03050205

Group 2 Congaree Creek 03050110
(Second Priority) Edisto River Basin 03050205
Lake Lanier 03050105

Group 3 Crowders Creek 03050101
(Third Priority) Jeffries Creek 03040201
Little River (Fairfield Co.) 03050106
Little River (Laurens Co.) 03050109
Sampit River 03040207
Lower Savannah River 03060109
Smith Branch 03050106
Tyger River 03050107

Group 4 Broad River Diversion Canal 03050106
(Fourth Priority) Enoree River (Newberry Co.) 03050108
Lake Greenwood 03050109
Little Pee Dee River 03040204
Stevens Creek 03060107

also provided 'in Tables 1 and 2. These IDs correspond to those given in the

Hydrologic Unit Map for South Carolina prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey.

Those listed in group I have the highest priority, those in group 2 the next

highest, etc. The lists are not static and may change over time. The nature of

the targeting process allows for adjusting' priorities based on new data or

information. The NPS Task Force will provide for periodic review and revision

of the two lists as needed.

Monitorina and Assessment

The waterbodies or watersheds targeted for the implementation of management

strategies and BMPs include streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and wetlands

(Table 1). Being located throughout South Carolina, these aquatic ecosystems

are naturally diverse with respect to their physiography, hydrology, biological

community and habitat structure, and chemical/physical water quality

characteristics. The diversity of nonpoint source categories, impacts, and

pollutants indicate that flexible site-specific procedures are critical for NPS

monitoring and assessment. The success of this monitoring program is dependent

upon well defined, measurable goals and objectives. The primary goals of

monitoring in targeted watersheds will be to:

1. Evaluate, using biomonitoring and water quality based approaches, the

presence and degree of NPS related biological (aquatic life) and

habitat impairment, and/or water quality degradation. Once

impairment/degradation is detected, additional monitoring

(biological/physical/chemical) is usually necessary to identify the

cause of the problem, pinpoint its source or sources, and implement

appropriate controls. After controls are in place, biomonitoring

again becomes important for evaluating the ultimate effectiveness of

such controls.

-14-

2. Evalfiate and verify the effectiveness of NPS management strategies and

BMPs in producing. positive environmental results. Positive

environmental results include significant biological (aquatic life),

habitat or water quality/groundwater improvements; gains toward use

attainability; use maintenance or protection in existing high quality

waters; and significant reductions in NPS pollutant loads or instream

concentrations. It is understood, however, that the time required to

demonstrate positive environmental results may often exceed four

years, which is the time frame specified in Section 319 for the 1987

Clean Water Act

Effective implementation of such a multi-faceted monitoring approach

requires that various monitoring techniques be considered within a large context

of water resource management. Both biological and chemical methods have

critical roles to play in a successful NPS pollution control program. They

should be considered complementary rather than mutually exclusive approaches

that will enhance overall program effectiveness. Thus emphasis will be placed

on the development and application of a flexible and integrated biomonitoring

and water quality based procedure. In targeted waterbodies, evaluation of

biointegrity using biosurveys will be emphasized over traditional efforts which

have focused on chemical monitoring for assessing regulations related to point

source permits and concentrations of toxic chemicals.

Some of the advantages of using biomonitoring for addressing program

objectives are:

1. Biointegrity, or a balanced biological community, is probably the best

indicator of overall waterbody health (ecological integrity). From an

ecological perspective, a high quality biological community can only

occur in a high quality chemical/physical environment. Conversely,

-15-

watertbodies exhibiting biointegrity can be assumed to have chemical

and physical integrity.

2. Biomonitoring (biosurveys, toxicity testing) provides a practical tool

for assessing toxic impacts on aquatic life for the over 120 priority

pollutants now regulated. For many of these pollutants, analytical

methods are either too crude or expensive to detect ambient

concentrations that are potentially harmful.

3. Assessing impacts from nonpoint sources requires a monitoring approach

which integrates the effects of both long-term, low-level pollutant

inputs and unpredictable but potentially catastrophic pulses.

Biological communities integrate the effects of different pollutant

stresses, and thus provide a total measure of the aggregate impact.

Communities also integrate the effects of stress over time, and thus

provide a single measure of fluctuating environmental conditions.

This capacity of biological communities to integrate the effects of

highly variable inputs makes them a particularly useful tool for

monitoring nonpoint source impacts and the effectiveness of certain

Best Management Practices.

4. In times of dwindling resources, there is increasing public and

legislative pressure to rationalize pollution control expenditures in

terms of environmental results. This requires the targeting of

resources, through screening and priority setting, on clear problems,

then documenting the resolution of these problems in terms of

demonstrable improvements. Biointegrity is a direct, comprehensive

indicator of ecological conditions, and as such, may be the best

measure of both water quality impairment and pollution control

effectiveness.

-16-

5. Routfne monitoring of biological communities can be relatively

inexpensive, particularly when compared to the cost of assessing

chemical specific toxic pollutants, either chemically or with toxicity

tests.

6. The status of biological communities is of direct interest to the

public as a measure of pollution control effectiveness, while

reductions in chemical pollutant loadings are not as readily accepted

by the layman as positive environmental results. For example,

citizens in general are more likely to understand information about

the condition of a fish and macroinvertebrate community than data on

biochemical oxygen demand, nutrients, or suspended solids.

7. Where chemical specific parameters for measuring ambient impacts do

not exist (e.g., nonpoint source impacts that degrade habitat or cause

flow alterations) assessing biological communities may be the only

rational means of evaluating controls.

8. In situations where specific chemical stress agents are either too

esoteric or too varied to assess individually, bioassays can be used

to either focus specific chemical investigations or to characterize

generic stress agents such as stormwater or effluent toxicity.

These advantages strongly support the primary use of biosurvey methods for

monitoring. However, in the NPS pollution control process, identifying the

causes and limiting sources will require some chemical and physical data. These

data are needed to:

I. Identify the specific stress agents causing impact. This can be a

relatively simple task; but given the array of potentially important

pollutants (and their possible combinations), it is likely to be both

difficult and costly.

-17-

2. Identify and limit the specific sources of these agents. Although

biosurveys can be used to hel,p locate the likely origins of impact,

chemical analyses and/or bioassays are usually necessary to confirm

the responsible sources and develop appropriate discharge limits.

3. Design appropriate BMPs or treatment to meet the prescribed limits and

monitor compliance.

In summary, the nonpoint source monitoring program in targetedwatersheds

will involve a flexible site-specific approach. Procedures will focus on

biomonitoring, habitat, and water quality evaluation. Biomonitoring may involve

one or more taxonomic groups including fish, macroinvertebrates, or algae.

Selection will be based on the advantages of using a particular group(s) for the

targeted waterbody and the objectives being assessed. One of three types of

monitoring designs may be employed to deal with sampling and statistical

analysis. These monitoring designs include:

1. Before and after time trend - this design aims to show a decrease in

biological or water quality impact over time, following NPS pollution

control implementation.

2. Above and below - this design assumes that the biota or water quality

above and below the influence of a NPS pollutant source should be the

same unless the pollutant concentration is higher below the source.

Upstream variability and the NPS pollution source can be documented

with this design.

3. Paired watershed design - this design assumes similar hydrologic and

land use areas for two watersheds. Simultaneous monitoring, a

calibration period, and at least one control are required. Advantages

are that meteorological variability is controlled, monitoring is

minimized, and a short time is required to document change. Also,

land treatment can be strongly linked to water quality improvement.

-18-

Major disadvantages include the need for similar drainage patterns in

each watershed and coordination among those planning and implementing

the project.

Within each of the monitoring designs outlined above, effort will be made

to incorporate the "Ecoregion Concept" into 'the assessment process. Geographic

patterns of similarity among ecosystems are called ecoregions. The different

ecoregions are determined by environmental variables such as climate, soil type,

physiography, and vegetation, which vary across the country. Naturally

occurring biotic assemblages, as components of the ecosystem, would be expected

to differ among ecoregions but be relatively similar within a given ecoregion.

The ecoregion concept thus provides a geographic framework for more efficient

management of aquatic ecosystems and their components. This, in turn, implies

that similar water quality standards, criteria, and monitoring strategies are

likely to be valid throughout a given ecoregion, but should be tailored to

accommodate the innate differences among ecoregions.

Substantial data on biological assemblages in South Carolina, such as those

available through the S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and

the S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department can be integrated and used to

establish optimal biological criteria within each ecoregion. While such

criteria may not be as important if an unimpacted control station can be

sampled, when a synoptic- ("snapshot") survey is being conducted or an

appropriate control does not exist in the immediate study area, use of idealized

criteria may be the only means of discerning use impairment or assessing impact

or improvements.

One method of demonstrating water quality improvement through increased

implementation of both structural and management BMPs is monitoring pollutant

loadings from specific sites where practices have been implemented. Such

evaluation may show not only that BMPs are effective in preventing sediment

-19-

runoff, etc. but will also be cost effective in the long run. Monitoring

efforts of this type are described in the Agricultural Four Year Action Plan.

Another method of assessing NPS impacts is through predictive modelling. A

model can analyze past data, assess present conditions, or project future needs.

A water quality model can predict NPS impacts' in a waterbody based on quantified

inputs. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized model that can

incorporate large volumes of spatial data into a single or series of outputs

which, subsequently, can be used to make predictions. Land use data from

satellite images, aerial photographs, or maps are entered into the computer by

importing or digitizing the datasets and storing them in the computer. The

computer records the digitized features as a series of X,Y coordinates and,

using the GIS software, converts the data into grid cells. These are then

analyzed to depict contributions of the various land areas to nonpoint source

pollution. The model can identify, delineate, and rank land areas with the

highest NPS impacts on a waterbody and provide a basis for relating water

quality measurements to land conditions within watersheds so that predictions

concerning water quality in a watershed can be made.

Planned Activities

The Santee Cooper Project, a Division of DHEC's Bureau of Water Pollution

Control will study NPS pollution contributions to Lake Marion, a large reservoir

in lower South Carolina, and their impacts on lake water quality. The study

will be carried out under contract with researchers form the University of

Georgia Laboratory for Remote Sensing and Mapping Science.

The purpose of this study is to develop a technique that can be used in

other watersheds. It will be used as a model and pilot project for similar

assessments statewide. The methodology can easily be generalized to other

watersheds, and none of the components of the simulation are specific to the

Lake Marion drainage area in conceptual design.

-20-

The overall objective of the pilot study is to generate map products and

statistics for the land areas contributing sediment, fertilizer, and toxic input

to the Congaree and Wateree Rivers and to Lake Marion. These data will then be

used to establish a modelling approach for assessing the impact of nonpoint

source pollution of the wetlands bordering~the rivers and on the quality of

water and aquatic macrophyte growth in Lake Marion.

The recommended technical approach involves four steps: (1) collection of

SPOT satelite image data, available aerial photographs and topographic and soils

maps of the study area; (2) development of land use/cover maps of the study area

by automated digital classification of the SPOT data; (3) integration of the

land use/cover data with soil and slope information to create an ARC/INFO

geographic information system (GIS) database for map production and modelling of

nonpoint source pollution; and (4) development of statistics and derived map

products that clearly depict critical areas and quantify nonpoint source

pollution inputs to the wetlands and Lake Marion. Each of these steps is

briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.

Topographic (1:24,000 scale) and solid (1:15,840 scale) maps of the study

area will be provided by DHEC. Multispectral SPOT image data in digital format

will be obtained from SPOT Image Corporation.

The watershed study units in order of priority are understood to be as

follows:

1. Congaree-Wateree Rivers

These units extend southward from Columbia and Camden to Lake Marion

and include the wetlands along the Congaree and Wateree Rivers. The

total area is about 3,100 km2 (1,200 mi2).

2. Lake Marion

This unit includes Lake Marion and its surrounding watershed. It

encompasses approximately 1,400 km2 (540 mi2).

-21-

Land use/dover maps of the watershed units will be prepared from the SPOT

20 m multispectral data by computer-assisted classification techniques. The

following land use/cover classes will be employed:

1. Forest

2. Urban

3. Agriculture-fallow

4. Agriculture-vegetated

5. Water

6. Wetland

For each watershed study unit, a GIS database with layers for soils, slope,

and land use/cover will be constructed and referenced to the Universal

Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. Soils data will be digitized from

existing USDA soils maps, whereas slope information can be computed from digital

elevation models (DEMS) developed from the 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic maps

or by photogrammetric means from high altitude aerial photographs. In addition,

information on precipitation will be collected for incorporation into the

database.

Maps of 1:50,000 or 1:100,000 scale will be produced for each of the layers

in the database by computer-assisted cartographic techniques using the ESRI pc

ARC/INFO GIS software available at the LRMS. The database and maps will

document soils, slope, and land use/cover conditions at the outset of the study

and provide the basis for the preparation of statistical and derived map

products indicating areas of high runoff, critical soil erosion, and toxic

waste.

The layered database of soils, slope, and land use/cover data, in

conjunction with information on precipitation and pollutants will be analyzed

using GIS techniques to develop map products and statistics depicting

contribution of the land areas to nonpoint source pollution. To perform this

-22-

analysis, individual polygons in the soils, slope, and land use/cover data

layers will be weighted according to ,,their contribution to nonpoint source

pollution. The weighted polygons will then be aggregated to create a composite

map of polygons color-coded according to their impact on water quality. A

similar procedure has been previously documented by Slack and Welch (1980).

These derivative map products and statistics will allow DHEC personnel to

identify, delineate, and rank land areas impacting wetlands along the Congaree

and Wateree Rivers. It will also provide a basis for relating ground

measurements of water quality to land conditions within the watershed and permit

projections on sedimentation, macrophyte growth, and water quality in Lake

Marion. The study is estimated to last eighteen months, meaning that results

will be available early in 1991.

-23-

IV. ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION OF THE NPS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Due to the several categories of NPS pollution, there are a wide variety of

agencies and programs available to control it. A successful NPS Management

Program will require the cooperation of the numerous federal, State, and local

agencies and the involvement of the general public. The NPS lead agency, the

Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), NPS staff will serve as

the program coordinator and liaison among these groups and will also serve as

Program administrator.

Because of the number of separate activities involved and the diffuseness

of the problem, there will inevitably be the need for the refinement and

adjustment of the NPS Management Program. Feedback, once implementation has

begun, will indicate areas where fine tuning is necessary. The DHEC NPS staff

will work with the cooperating agencies and the State NPS Task Force to evaluate

effectiveness and direction of the Program. If evaluation indicates a need,

mid-course corrections will be made in a feasible, publicly acceptable, and

cost-effective way.

The following specific tasks are the responsibility of DHEC NPS staff and

are to be implemented over the life of the Program.

1. Assure Plan implementation through:

a. Provision of assistance to cooperating agencies toward implementing

specific categorical programs;

b. Coordination of implementation projects in targeted watersheds;

C. Continued use of the NPS Task Force to assist with policy decisions.

-24-

d. Provision of communication and coordination between NPS Program staff

and regulatory Divisions of the Department's Office of Environmental

Control in order to promote compliance with the NPS Management

Program. These Divisions include, but are not limited to, Industrial

and Agricultural Wastewater, Domestic Wastewater, Water Quality and

Shellfish Sanitation, and Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste.

2. Evaluate effectiveness of the Program and implement mid-course corrections.

Based on the evaluation, consider replacing voluntary programs with

regul atory programs.

3. Develop and implement water quality monitoring programs to further define

NPS impacts and to evaluate effectiveness of NPS best management practices

and control measures.

4. Develop and implement general NPS educational programs and information

campaigns employed to inform the public an NPS issues and encourage the use

of BMPs.

5. Develop and prepare annual workplans and grant applications for the

expenditure of EPA funds used to implement the Program. Actively seek

funds from other sources that would complement the Program.

6. Prepare and submit annual progress reports, updated Assessment Reports, and

others as needed.

7. Implement "federal consistency" provisions of the Program.

a. Review proposals from federal agencies that impact this program for

consi stency.

b. Make comments where necessary.

C. Assure that comments are addressed by federal agency.

-25-

V. OVERALL PROGRAM GOALS AND MILESTONES

As described in this report, many agencies and organizations are currently

involved in the development and implementation of the South Carolina NPS

Management Program. It is a dynamic program, and the number of participants is

expected to increase. In particular, local government, special interest group,

and public involvement will increase as implementation proceeds.

Individual schedules of annual goals and milestones are included in a

four-year action plan to implement the program. Each agency having primary

responsibility for the various NPS categories has included a schedule containing

annual goals and milestones for their specific NPS category. For example, the

S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission will have primary responsibility

for mining activities in the State and has provided a schedule of annual

milestones in the mining section of this report.

In addition to the individual schedules of annual goals and milestones, the

following schedule outlines the overall goals and milestones of the NPS

Assessment/Management Program. This is a tentative schedule, and it may be

revised periodically over the four-year program.

Goal s/Mi I estones

Calendar Year

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

1. Prepare and submit to the EPA a draft X

NPS Assessment Report

a. Identify State and local programs

for controlling NPS pollution

-26-

Calendar Year

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
b. Describe process for identification

and selection of BMPs

c. Identify State waterbodies impacted'

by NPS pollution and the sources

of such pollution

d. Identify navigable waters which do

not support designated uses if NPS

pollution controls are not

implemented. Also, identify high

quality waters potentially

impacted by NPS if BMPs were not

implemented.

2. Prepare and submit to the EPA a draft NPS X

Management Program Report to include the

following functional components

a. Participation of the public and NPS

related management agencies

b. Program Management/Policy Development

c. Education/Information/Demonstration

Projects

d. Monitoring and Research

e. Technical/Administrative/Financial

Assistance

f. Regulation and Compliance

-27-

Calendar Year

.o~ ~ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

3. Identify programs to achieve implementation X X

of BMPs on Statewide basis

4. List BMPs used to reduce pollution loadings X X

for each NPS category and, as necessary,

develop new BMPs for each NPS category

5. Develop an integrated/cooperative strategy X X

for selecting and funding targeted

watersheds

6. Develop integrated program for selecting, X X

reviewing, and funding research projects

7. Finalize and obtain EPA approval on the X

State's NPS Assessment Report

8. Finalize and obtain EPA approval on the X

State's NPS Management Program Report

9. Prepare a NPS annual progress report X X X X

10. Assess and increase public awareness of X X X X X

NPS water pollution

11. Encourage voluntary use of BMPs for X X X X X

non-regulated categories of NPS

pollution

12. Develop and implement new educational, X X X X X

technical assistance, demonstration, and

financial assistance programs for each

NPS category

-28-

Calendar Year

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

13. Enforce regulations, permits, and X X X X X

contract conditions concerning NPS

pollution control and the use of

required BMPs

14. Determine if new programs, laws, or X X X X X

regulations should be considered for

each NPS category

15. Develop a Statewide groundwater monitoring. X X X X X

network to assess NPS pollution impacts

and water quality improvements resulting

from BMP implementation

16. Develop and implement a comprehensive and X X X X X

flexible biological and water quality

monitoring program to evaluate the impact

of NPS pollution and the effectiveness of

BMPs in improving degraded water quality

or preventing NPS impacts

17. Select target waterbodies/watersheds for X X X X

implementation of NPS management and

abatement projects

18. Evaluate improvements/benefits in X X X X

biological communities and/or water

quality, or water use in targeted

watersheds

19. Determine numbers and types of BMPs X X X X

implemented by NPS category

-29-

Calendar Year

1988 1898 1990 1991 1992

20. Evaluate and revise, as necessary, programs X X X X

for each NPS category

21. Evaluate overall effectiveness of the NPS X X X

Management Program through water quality and

water use benefits/improvements

-30-

VI. AGRICULTURAL NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

Agriculture in South Carolina is a diverse industry. Production includes

conventional row crops, fruits and vegetables, livestock and poultry, freshwater

fish, and horticultural crops. In 1987 there were 2,031,000 acres of crops

harvested in South Carolina, which constituted 11 percent of the total land area

of the state and meant $489,030,000 in raw product sales.

Livestock production has a large economic impact on the state. In 1987

there were 17,000 cattle farms with a total of 620,000 head which included all

cows and calves. Of that amount there were a total of 284,000 production brood

cows. Also during 1987 there were 200 dairy farms with 44,000 milk cows which

produced 547 million pounds of milk. In addition, there were 11,500 hog farms

in the state with 39,000 sows which produced 584,000 pigs.

Poultry also continues to have a significant impact on South Carolina

agriculture. In 1987, 1.6 billion eggs were produced from 6,305,000 layers,

ranking South Carolina thirteenth in the nation for total egg production. South

Carolina poultry farmers also produced 68,051,000 broilers and raised 3,950,000

turkeys in 1987. Total sales of livestock and poultry are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3

ECONOMIC VALUE OF LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY

Production 1987 Value ($1.O00s)

Cattle $275,900

Milk 85,214

Hogs 28,600

Eggs 69,507

Broilers 72,134

Turkeys 37.210

TOTAL - $568,565

The impacts of agricultural production on surface and groundwater are

diverse. The agricultural community continues to diversify to meet market

demands and economic pressures. Sources of nonpoint source pollution originate

from land use and production activity. In South Carolina, herbicides,

pesticides, fertilizers, animal wastes, and sediment are potential sources of

nonpoint source pollution. The management of land use activities involving

agricultural production affects nonpoint source pollution. For example,

application of herbicides and pesticides for row crop production can affect

surface water runoff depending an the amount and timing of application.

Therefore, management practice, type of production, and control practices used

can affect agriculture's contribution to nonpoint source pollution.

-32-

There are'a number of impacts that can be associated with nonpoint source

pollution. The Assessment of NonDoint Sour-ce Pollution for the State of South

Carolina listed over 332 water bodies that are believed to be impacted by

nonpoint source pollution. There are 217 water bodies listed in the category as

impacted by agricultural nonpoint source pollution. There are 280 watersheds in

the state (SCS Hydrologic Unit Map). Of these, 53 have 50 percent or greater

land use for agricultural production. Nonpoint source problems range from muddy

water in waterbodies to fish kills and adversely polluted drinking water

supplies. Clean water is an important and necessary natural resource. Economic

and environmental considerations must be given to the development of agriculture

in South Carolina so that it can remain a viable industry in the state.

State and federal agencies have joined as a team to compile their resources

and expertise to develop this Management Plan for agriculture. Figure 2 shows

the flow path of each organization in developing this plan. Input was obtained

as shown from each agency; efforts were made to channel existing programs into

the areas of water quality and nonpoint source pollution abatement. The concept

of the plan calls for the maximum use of all existing programs and the

development of new programs where they are needed when funding is available.

-33-

FIGURE 2

Agricultural Nonpioint Source
Management Plan Development

EPA

SCDHEC 4 !4u=fI-AGmNCY
TASK FORCE

14 I I I I CLEMSON I I SC IIsDWIWLIFEI
II IjSnFj IAJA I I UNIVERSITY I IARSI IFORESTRI I & MARINE
IC" I I RESOURCES

-34-

FIGURE 2..

Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Management Plan Development

I I
EPA
I IT

I EDHSC KM MULTI-AGENCY i
TASM FOPCE

SCLRICC

14 II II CLEMSON II II SC IISCWILDLIFEI
isr-l I IJDJ ICS I tJNIVERSIT I ARSI IFORESTII I & MARINE I
CO I I RESOURCES I
-3DEW

-34-

Aciricultural NPS Problems

The impact of nonpoint source pollution from agriculture on surface and

groundwaters of South Carolina is unclear due to lack of quantitative data.

Many waterbodies were identified in the assessment as potentially impacted, all

or in part by agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Of the 217 water bodies

identified, 123 based on land use are impacted exclusively by agricultural

nonpoint source pollution. These were determined either by monitored or

evaluated data. The other 94 water bodies which were identified have

agricultural land uses as well as other land uses within the watersheds which

may serve as a contribution to the pollution problems. It is difficult to

separate these causes. However, most nonpoint source problems can be associated

with the following descriptions of pollutants:
*Sediment

Sediment pollutes by filling channels, streams. and reservoirs, impeding

the passage of sunlight through water, and hindering microscopic plant growth.

It also transports pollutants such as chemicals, nutrients, and pesticides. It

may clog the gills of fish, smother macroinvertebrates, or otherwise interfere

with biological activities of living organisms in water. Furthermore, sediment

causes excessive wear on pumps, valves and gates used in water control systems.

*Nutrients

Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are significant nutrients in terms of NPS

pollution because of their effect on plant growth in surface waters and the

possible resulting degradation of these waters for recreation, industry,

irrigation, and as a drinking supply.

Nutrients in the soil are part of very complex cycles. Fertilizers are

among several sources of nutrients necessary for plant growth. Rainfall and

organic matter are natural inputs. Nutrients from natural sources are

-35-

susceptible to''the same transformations as nutrients from fertilizers and can be

retained or leached from the complex biolog'ical-environmental system.

Proper use of fertilizers to achieve maximum yields and correct application

rates and schedules do not appear to contribute to water pollution. Problems

from nonpoint source pollution are more,-likely to arise from excessive

application rates or improper timing of application.
*Pesticides

The primary requirement for any pesticide is control of the target

organism. In response to the need for pest management in agriculture, there

have emerged a large number of synthetic organic compounds which control a broad

spectrum of undesirable insects, plants, and plant pathogens.

The most significant causes of nonpoint pollution from agricultural

Pesticides are from wind and water erosion, and on the farm practices of

handling pesticide containers and dilute rinse solutions. Since most pesticides

are largely bound to organic matter and clay in the soil, most movement from the

application site in the field to surface water is by soil erosion. Losses of

surface applied pesticides are many times greater in periods immediately

following application than a week or more later. Nutrient and pesticide losses

are closely correlated to soil management practices.

*Animal Wastes

Management of animal waste has received considerable attention in recent

years as potential sources of pollution. Potential pollutants in animal wastes

include fecal coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and organic

matter. This concern was stimulated because of the trend toward large confined

livestock and poultry units which result in increased accumulations of manure

and other wastes. In South Carolina, NPS pollution from animal wastes has been

-36-

noted in some" watershed. The sources include runoff from feedlots" earthen

exercise or watering areas, pastures, .and' fields on which manure is spread.

Groundwater contamination has also been identified as being associated with

agricultural waste treatment lagoons.
*Impacts of Certain Agricultural Best Management Practices on Groundwater

Some of the best management practices being utilized today in the

agricultural nonpoint source category are designed to prevent or reduce erosion

and sediment-bound nonpoint source pollutants. Protection of the soil surface

by residue cover from raindrop impact and runoff is highly effective in reducing

soil loss and sediment loads. During the last decade, there has been a major

shift by U. S. farmers away from inversion tillage, such as moldboard plowing,

toward systems with reduced tillage. Conservation tillage is defined as a form

of non-inversion tillage that retains 30 percent of residue mulch on ground

surface throughout the year.

This practice has been shown to be effective in decreasing erosion and

sediment loads from agricultural land including sediment-bound nonpoint source

pollutants. The ability to achieve significant reductions in these important

pollutants has led to the promotion of conservation tillage as a best management

practice for nonpoint source pollution control that can benefit the farmer,

conserve the soil resource, and protect the environment.

However, increasing use of conservation tillage has caused considerable

concern relative to potential contamination of groundwater by nitrates and

pesticides. This concern primarily revolves around three issues: (1) Does

residue cover in conservation tillage reduce surface runoff and increase

-37-

infiltration, With a resulting potential increase in groundwater contamination

by soluble agricultural chemic~als, chiefly' nitrate and some pesticides? (2)

Does elimination of tillage for weed control increase use of herbicides that may

leach to groundwater? (3) Does increased residue cover provide a refuge for

insects which will increase insecticide use?-

These questions regarding the environmental soundness of this important BMP

are significant considering the large quantities of agricultural chemicals used

by farmers and because of the high mobilities of nitrate and some of pesticides

in sail . Research has been conducted on conservation tillage in the United

States since the early 1960's and various systems have been developed for use by

farmers since the late 1960's. Many of the assertions made about potential

environmental effects of conservation tillage have resulted from a tendency to

generalize regarding effects observed over a wide range of soil, climate, crop,

and tillage management conditions.

Many of the effects on the environment attributed to conservation tillage

are based on research which compared the two extremes of the tillage

continuum--clean inversion tillage and no-till. Conservation tillage as

practiced by many farmers involves much less residue corer than no-till, perhaps

closer to the minimum of 30 percent cover by which conservation tillage is

defined. The degree of tillage can greatly reduce the differences between

no-till and inversion tillage of sail properties and processes that affect

environmental quality.

The primary concerns mentioned earlier are countered by claims that reduced

runoff occurs only on more permeable sails with low hydraulic conductivities;

that the rates and kinds of herbicides used in conservation tillage are no

different than those used with clean tillage; and that pest control can be

achieved with integrated pest management programs and crop rotations without'an

increase in insecticide use. Additional field study and modeling are needed in

-38-

South Carolina' to evaluate the groundwater impacts and other NPS aspects of

conservation tillage and other BMPs.

Existina Proaram DescriDtions

* South Carolina Land Resources Commission

The South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission (LRCC) is the

implementing agency for the S.C. Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act (Ch. 18,

Title 48, Code of Laws 1976) and, as such, is designated as the State agency

responsible for developing, coordinating and promoting erosion and sediment

reduction in the State. Under the law, the Commission must develop general

guidelines for reducing erosion and sedimentation to be used by conservation

districts, local governments, landowners and users in the state; publicize and

promote these guidelines through education and information programs; conduct

surveys, investigations and assessments of erosion, sediment, and stormwater

problems; make available technical assistance upon request to local governments,

landowners and users; and promulgate regulations on erosion and sediment

reduction and stormwater management on land owned and managed by the State.

In addition, LRCC administers the South Carolina Soil and Water Conserva-

tion Districts Law and assists in the implementation of State Conservation Tax

Credit legislation. Through the Soil and Water Conservation Law, the LRCC

coordinates the activities of the 46 Soil and Water Conservation Districts

(SWCD) and implements soil and water conservation programs in conjunction with

SWCD, local governments, and other entities through educational, technical, and

financial assistance.

The South Carolina Watershed Conservation District Law authorizes the

creation of Watershed Conservation Districts (WCD). Fifty-eight WCDs have been

established pursuant to the Law. Each WCD lies within a specific watershed and

is a subdivision of State government. They are organized under the supervision

-39-

of Soil and Water Conservation Districts with the LRCC providing technical and

administrative assistance.

State Conservation Tax Credit legislation provides State income tax credits

for the purchase of conservation tillage planters and drip irrigation and for

the construction and restoration of water imlpoundments including those for the

purpose of erosion and sediment control. The LRCC developed technical criteria

for the South Carolina Tax Commission for implementation of this legislation and

provides technical and regulatory assistance to landowners and users in the

planning and installIati on of the practices. Applicants for the water

impoundment tax credit must either obtain a construction permit (pursuant to the

S.C. Dams and Reservoirs Safety Act) from LRCC on a certificate of exemption

which may be issued by either LRCC or the SWCD in which the impoundment is

located.

In addition, a $488,158 grant was obtained by the LRCC through Petroleum

Violation Escrow funds to provide SWCDs with conservation tillage and drip

trickle irrigation installation equipment. Thirty-three conservation tillage

drills, 5 conservation tillage planters, and 19 pieces of drip irrigation

installation equipment will be available for use by farmers through the SWCDs.

A second grant has been requested in the amount of $489,430 for 38 conservation

tillage planters and drills and 15 pieces of drip irrigation installation

equipment.

These projects enhance LRCC demonstrations of conservation technology.

Innovative practices such as reservoir tillage and conservation systems

(including interseeding) are currently being tested and demonstrated.
* USDA - Soil Conservation Service Programs

A. Conservation Operations Programs:

Conservation operations programs account for the major part of Soil Conservation

-40-

Service (SCS)" efforts in South Carolina. Conservation operation programs

include the following:

1. Conservation Planning and Application

The SCS provides technical assistance to landusers at the local level

through Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). Each county in

South Carolina has a SWCD. SCS in South Carolina has an office

staffed with technical specialists to serve each Conservation

District. Technical assistance from SCS involves help to individual

landusers in understanding natural resources and natural resource

problems, planning for the protection or improvement of natural

resources through the use of BMPs, designing BMPs, and supervising the

construction of BMPs to ensure proper installation.

Agricultural Stabilization Service (ASCS) funds may be available

to landusers for financial assistance for the application of BMPs

planned by SCS. SCS also provides assistance to ASCS with identifying

and carrying out special cost-sharing projects for water quality.

The conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 have

added new emphasis to resource protection. The Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) provides financial incentives to landowners to take

highly erodible cropland out of production. Land is put into

non-eroding uses such as woodland, grassland, or wildlife land for ten

years. Also filter strips may be placed next to streams, and land

with scour erosion may be stabilized under CRP for water quality

purposes. The Conservation Compliance, Sodbuster, and Swampbuster

provisions encourage farmers to meet certain standards under penalty

of loss of government payments.

2. Soil Surveys

Soil surveys have been made in 44 of the 46 counties in the State.

-41-

Surve'ys of the remaining two counties will be completed in 1989. Soil

survey reports are available to 36 counties. Each soil survey

describes the physical and chemical characteristics of the soils in

the county. It names and classifies the soils according to a

nationwide system and provides information on the potential and

limitations of the soils for various uses. Detailed maps show where

each soil is located. In making the survey, soil scientists determine

the soils' texture, structure, chemical composition, depth, slope,

degree of erosion, and other features that affect their response to

various uses and kinds of management. These surveys are essential to

planning best management practices. SCS provides funds for soil

surveys which are cost-shared with other federal and State agencies.

3. Resource Inventories

SCS conducts inventories of land use and condition and special

inventories where needs exist as a part of the National Resource

Inventory. A site-specific inventory of erosion problems has recently

been made. Environmental values are monitored to determine the

impacts of best management practices.

4. The Resource Conservation Act (RCA)

RCA helps set direction for SCS programs through the involvement of

the public. Every five years SCS elicits the assistance of all people

with developing a new national conservation program.

5. Plant Materials Program

Under the Plant Materials Program, SCS operates plant materials

centers throughout the United States to find plants that can help

solve soil and water resource problems. Plants are tested locally,

then developed for widespread use.

-42-

B. Water Resources Programs:

SCS cost-shares in the form of technical-and planning assistance or construction

cost for most of the water resources programs offered. Water resources projects

include river basin studies, flood plain management studies, and P.L.-566 Small

Watershed Projects. Land treatment watershed projects are included as part of

P.L.-566 Flood Control for Small Watersheds. Through this program, SCS provides

financial assistance to landusers in addition to technical assistance for the

installation of BMPs. There are thirteen active land treatment watersheds in

South Carolina. The S. C. Water Resources Commission provides assistance to the

Governor for administration of water resources programs. By Executive letter,

the Commission is responsible for review, prioritization, and approval of

planning starts for P.L.-566 projects in South Carolina.

C. Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program

The purpose of RC&D is to provide help to communities with economic development

through the wise and environmentally safe use of natural resources. Rural

development activities are carried out under RC&D. There are four RC&D areas in

operation in the State. Each area has a coordinator supplied by SCS, and

specialists in all disciplines help with this program. Each RC&D area is

directed by a council of Soil and Water Conservation District Commissioners and

local government leaders who provide guidance for the program. Much of the work

is done through the cooperation of many agencies, groups, and individuals. Many

projects undertaken through RC&D are directly related to reduction of nonpoint

sources of pollution. SCS funds are available for RC&D technical assistance and

for cost-share for construction projects.

* Clemson University

Clemson University, the State's land grant institution, conducts several

activities directly related to nonpoint source pollution. The research program

in the College of Agriculture develops new technology for environmentally sound

-43-

agricultural 'production. In addition, data for these new practices are

collected and analyzed. For example, the integrated pest management program and

the Low Input Sustainable Agricultural program complement the nonpoint source

management plan. Both of these programs are developing practices to enhance

water quality and reduce production costs. In concert with research programs is

the Cooperative Extension Service. The link between these two entities is the

Experiment Stations where a large portion of research is conducted. The

Extension Service provides technical assistance and serves as a vehicle for

technology transfer through educational demonstrations and individual contact

with farmers.

The Clemson Extension Service has established committees (i.e., Land and

Water Resources) to address the emphasis on water quality. For example, they

are providing training to farmers for conservation compliance under the 1985

Farm Bill. By establishing core groups of professionals within the University,

Clemson is able to concentrate and target its program through extension and

research to areas affected by nonpoint source pollution. This can be

accomplished on the local level through the County Extension Office. The local

Extension Office can coordinate with other local entities to target problem

areas. Educational information on sound environmental practices is distributed

through local extension offices.

Included under the Public Service programs offered through Clemson

University is the administration of the South Carolina Fertilizer Law, Liming

and Materials Act, Pesticide Control Act, and Chemigation Act. The Department

of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control at Clemson University is responsible for

education of the public and enforcement of these Acts.

The Fertilizer Law and Liming and Materials Act are designed to ensure the

quality of lime and fertilizer received by the consumer. The Pesticide Control

Act regulates storage, sale, use, quality control, and numerous other areas.

-44-

The Chemigatidn Act regulates application of chemicals through irrigation

equipment.

Under Rules and Regulations of the South Carolina Pesticide Control Act,

all applicators who apply restricted use pesticides, all pesticide dealers, and

all structural pest control operators most pass a rigorous licensing

examination. The Department has seven pesticide/ fertilizer inspectors who

sample the pesticides being sold in South Carolina. These samples are analyzed

at Clemson to ensure that pesticides are not misbranded or mislabeled and

contain the ingredients stated. Six regulatory specialists and one field

supervisor are involved in complaint and compliance inspections regarding

pesticide use and enforcement of the Chemigation Act. They inspect pesticide

users to ensure that the manner in which pesticides are being used is consistent

with label directions, and they also check irrigation equipment to ensure that

growers who are chemigating follow the backflow prevention requirements of the

Chemigation Act. Pesticide dealers are inspected to ensure that only licensed

applicators purchase "restricted use" pesticides. Dealer establishments are

inspected to ensure that proper display and storage regulations are followed.

Violators of the Act are prosecuted vigorously. Civil penalties are levied

when pesticides are misused. If an individual's health or the environment is in

danger, more stringent enforcement matrix parameters are involved. Overall

compliance with the act by members of the agribusiness industry has been

excellent.

The Clemson Department of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control believes that

education is a key to preventing violations of the Act and contamination of the

environment. Therefore, a great deal of effort is utilized through preventative

education including instruction of pesticide applicators on proper pesticide

application techniques.

-45-

In an effort to improve its education and enforcement capabilities, this

Department has pursued external sources'-of funds where possible without

decreasing the flexibility of the pesticide program. These efforts have

resulted in two grants from the Environmental Protection Agency. The Department

has also made a concentrated effort to increase efficiency by using

state-of-the-art data management.

In 1987, 771 companies registered 7,928 pesticide products for sale in

South Carolina. A total of 956 pesticide samples were collected and analyzed;

five were found deficient in the guaranteed percentage of one or more

ingredients. Stop-sale notices were issued on all deficient products.

Registration fees totalling $135,307 were deposited. Pesticide specialists made

frequent contact with the pesticide users community which included dealers,

growers, applicators, and consumers.

The structural pest control area requires particular attention. Chlordane

and Heptachlor were removed from the marketplace. Inspections with dealers and

meetings with pest control operators were scheduled as necessary to assist with

this transition. The Chemigation Act increased regulatory efforts to protect

groundwater and much effort was directed into this area.

Recertification of pesticide applicators began in 1989. This program

requires that pesticide applicators obtain ten additional contact hours of

pesticide training in ten areas: calibration and maintenance of application

equipment, groundwater protection, worker safety, chronic toxicity and ways to

reduce exposure, transportation and disposal of pesticides, label

interpretation, new pesticide technology, new pesticide application technology,

chemigation, protection of endangered species. It should be noted that

groundwater and chemigation are two areas of primary importance in training

pesticide applicators. There are over 1,900 commercial and non-commercial

applicators and 10,000 private applicators who will participate in the

-46-

recertification program. Private applicators must complete five contact hours

of training in similar recertification. tojoic areas. This widespread move to

educate applicators in protecting groundwater will help reduce the possibility

of groundwater contamination in South Carolina. The Department of Fertilizer

and Pesticide Control will continue to wvork with the Clemson University

Cooperative Extension Service in these training efforts.

Regulations are being developed at this time for the Chemigation Law.

Essentially these regulations will further detail steps growers must take to

ensure groundwater contamination does not occur when using fertilizers or

pesticides in irrigation water. A brochure has been developed for growers who

are chemigating.
*USDA - Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

ASCS administers several programs which are directly related to nonpoint

source pollution problems. ASCS has the responsibility for administering the

following programs:

1. The Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) provides financial

incentives and technical assistance to encourage agricultural

producers to voluntarily perform enduring soil and water conservation

and pollution abatement measures. The program is administered in all

South Carolina Counties by local ASCS County Committees who are

elected by producers in the County. The Soil Conservation Service

provides technical assistance to landowners under this program.

Conservation practices for the ACP have been developed at the national

level by the National Conservation Review Group. State and county

practices are selected from the list of national practices, and

specifications for practices are developed in consultation with State

and County Conservation Review Groups. Special practices may be

developed at State and county levels, subject to approval at the

-47-

nati'6nal level. Through the ACP, two special water quality 'projects

will be funded during 1989, one 'in Abbeville County and one in Horry

County.

2. The Emergency Conservation Program provides cost-share funds for

emergency assistance designed to-meet only the critical needs of

agricultural producers due to severe drought or other natural

disasters. Some of the practices included in the program are:

a. Removing debris from farmland;

b. Grading, shaping, releveling, or similar measures;

C. Restoring structures and other installation;

d. Emergency wind control measures;

e. Drought emergency measures.

3. The Forestry Incentives Program provides cost-sharing for eligible

landowners to encourage forestry practices that are designed to ensure

a continuing supply of timber and timber products. Practices and

practice specifications are designed in consultation with State

Conservation Review Groups. The South Carolina Forestry Commission

provides technical assistance to landowners under this program.

4. The Conservation Reserve Program authorized ASCS to make annual

payments to landowners and users under ten-year contracts. The

purpose of this program is to convert highly erodible cropland to less

intensive use. In South Carolina, this usually means permanent

grasses or trees. In addition to annual payments during the ten-year

contracts, cost-share payments are made to producers to establish the

required cover. The Conservation Reserve Program is conducted through

the cooperative effort of ASCS, SCS, soil and Water Conservation

Districts, S. C. Commission of Forestry, and the Clemson University

Extension Service. SCS determines land eligibility and erosion rates,

-48-

develops conservation plans, and certifies practice completion. The

U. S. Forest Service., through,,the S. C. Forestry Commission, develops

tree planting plans on designated eligible acres. Soil and Water

Conservation Districts review and approve completed conservation

plans. The Extension Service assitts with information and educational

programs related to the program. The Conservation Reserve Program,

through 1988, has removed approximately 230,000 acres of highly

erodible land from crop production in South Carolina. Continuing

registration will be held through 1990, or until the Secretary of

Agriculture determines the program has reached the goal set forth

under the Food Security Act of 1985.
*ARS -Agricultural Research Service Programs

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) primarily conducts basic and

applied research for agricultural industry. ARS has made significant

contributions which apply to South Carolina. The Piedmont area is served by the

Research Station in Watkinsville, Georgia, and the Coastal Plains area is served

by the Research Station in Florence, South Carolina. Both stations have

programs which are related to soil and water management research.

ARS provides applied research in cooperation with university research

teams. The programs concentrate on developing new techniques for management of

natural resources.
*South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

DHEC's Bureau of Water Pollution Control administers the Agricultural Waste

Management Program in cooperation with the USDA Soil Conservation Service.

Management of agricultural wastes is rapidly emerging as one of the major

problems facing South Carolina farm producers. The use of confinement type

houses for the production of eggs, milk, and meat, coupled with confined animal

breeding/feeding operations and the discharge of wastewater from peach packing

-49-

hydra-coolers 'tend to intensify waste handling problems and thus increase the

probability of causing localized nuisance and NPS pollution problems. To

prevent these wastes from entering waterbodies, DHEC required that both solid

and liquid agricultural wastes from covered facilities be collected, treated,

and disposed of in an environmentally 'safe manner. This is primarily

accomplished through a permitting and inspection program that requires

landowners to apply certain best management practices for waste control.

For new operations, DHEC issues a State construction permit to a farm

producer and he may request that the Soil Conservation Service provide technical

assistance in the design of a waste management plan to fit his operational

needs. The waste management plan describes the method of waste disposal. It

may call for a simple method of disposal such as spreading on the land utilizing

appropriate best management practices or require a more elaborate system such as

holding tanks, holding ponds, stacking pads, or lagoons. Any appropriate method

of disposal is acceptable provided it is approved by the Department and prevents

wastes from degrading the environment. When construction is complete, SCS

certifies to DHEC that it meets specifications and DHEC then issues an operating

permit. Operating permits may be issued to existing facilities providing they

have an approved waste handling and disposal system. DHEC Environmental Quality

Control offices conduct periodic inspections to ensure permit compliance.

BMPs for Protectinci Water Oualitv From Aciricultural Activities

Best management practices are conservation and management practices which

have been demonstrated to effectively control movement of pollutants from a land

area, prevent degradation of soil and water resources, and are compatible with

the planned land use. Individual best management practices may not provide

sufficient control of pollutants to protect the environment. Thus, these

practices should be applied as combinations of practices into resource

management systems with consideration for erosion control; management of

-50-

nutrients, pesticides, and other chemicals; water disposal; resource man.agement;

water management; and off-site, effects.

The water quality impacts of any practice will vary with specific site

conditions and with the other supporting practices in a system of practices.

Therefore, planning for water quality improvement must be site-specific and

consider the protection of existing water quality (surface and subsurface) as

well as the improvement of impaired water quality. In other words, there is no

cookbook method of devising BMPs for use in all situations. A great variety of

site-specific factors, experience, and good judgement enter into correct

planning for water quality protection and improvement. Further, new techniques

are constantly being developed. For example, the creation of new wetlands to

filter NPS runoff from agricultural areas may be researched and evaluated.

Other BMPs will continuously be evaluated requiring that the list be updated

periodically.

TABLE 4

BMPS FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND LAND USE

Land Use Sediment Control Nutrient Control Pesticide Control Bacteria Control

Crop and Pasture Avoid converting wetlands to Grasses and Legumes in Rota- Pesticide Management or
Lands agricultural production tion Control
Chiseling and Subsoiling Nutrient Management or Avoid spraying pesticides
Conservation'Tillage Control over waterbodies
Systems
Contour Farming
Cover Crops
Critical Area Planting
Cropland Conversion
Diversion
Field Border
Filter Strip
Grade Stabilization Struc-.
ture
Grassed Waterway or Outlet
Grasses and Legumes in
Rotation
Mulching
Pasture and Hayland
Planting
Pastureland Conversion
Lii Reservoir Tillage
Rock-lined Waterway
Row Arrangement
Sediment Control Struc-
ture
Sod-based Rotation
Stripcropping
Terrace
Water Control Structure

Planned Grazing System Adherence to regulatory
Production guidelines in constructing
waste treatment lagoons to
minimize adverse ground-
water impacts.
Grade Stabilization
Structure
Heavy Use Area Protection
Livestock Exclusion or
Fencing
Spring Development
Stock Trails and Walkways
Trough or Tank
Waste Management System
Waste Storage Pond or
Structure
Waste Treatment Lagoon
Waste Utilization or Land
Application of Waste
Water Control Structure

TABLE 4 (Continued)

BMPS FOR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND LAND USE

1. Adherence to regulatory guidelines in constructing waste treatment lagoons

to minimize adverse groundwater effects.

2. Avoid converting wetlands into agricultural production.

3. Avoid spraying pesticides over waterbodies.

4. Chiselina and Subsoilinc

Deep tillage to shatter compacted soil layers or traffic pans. This BMP

permits more effective development of plant roots, increases water

infiltration rates and reduces runoff. This practice is most effective on

sandy soils with traffic pans. Small storm runoff and erosion is reduced.

The practice improves soil drainage and aeration, decreasing the potential

for denitrification. This may result in nitrates being leached deeper into

the soil. The plant's roots are able to go deeper so the nitrates may

still be taken up by the plants. The time of year and extent of plant

growth will need to be considered.

5. Conservation Tillaoe System means a form of non-inversion tillage that

retains thirty percent protective amounts of residue mulch on the surface

throughout the year. Types of conservation tillage systems include no

till, minimum tillage, and interseeding. Generally conservation tillage

requires more pesticides and better management skills than conventional

tillage. This practice reduces soil erosion, detachment and sediment

transport, and transport of nutrients and pesticides attached to sediment

by providing soil cover during critical times in the cropping cycle.

Surface residues reduce soil compaction from raindrops, preventing soil

-53-

sealing, "and increasing infiltration. This action may increase the

leaching of agricultural c-hemicals into the groundwater.

6. Contour Farminci

Crops are cultivated across slopes with the contours of the land instead of

up and down slopes. This BMP includes-'farming along established grades of

terraces or contour strips. Soil loss can be reduced by fifty percent on

moderate slopes of two to seven percent and less on other slopes. This

practice reduces erosion and sediment production. Less sediment and

related pollutants may be transported to the receiving waters. Increased

infiltration may increase the transportation potential for soluble

substances to the groundwater.

7. Cover Crops

Crops of close-growing grasses and legumes used for erosion control during

the winter and early spring months and for sail improvement, grazing, and

hay production. Soil aeration, permeability, organic matter, and tilth are

improved, and successive nitrogen demand will be 'reduced where legumes are

grown as cover crops. Erosion, sediment, and absorbed chemical yields

should be decreased in conventional tillage systems because of the

increased period of vegetal cover. Plants will take up available nitrogen

and prevent its undesired movement. Organic nutrients may be added to the

nutrient budget reducing the need to supply more soluble forms. Overall

volume of chemical application may decrease because the vegetation will

supply nutrients.

8. Critical Area Plantinci means planting on critically eroding agricultural

areas in order to reduce erosion. Establishment of permanent vegetation or

temporary covers of close-growing plants that have quick growth

characteristics for short-term, seasoned soil protection on critically

eroding areas. This BMP requires greater amounts of fertilizer and lime,

-54-

higher sed~ing rates, and more seedbed preparation than normal vegetation

operations and is often used in combination with structural practices such

as grade stabilization structures. This practice is excellent for erosion

control. However, fertility and soil moisture are normally low in

critically eroding areas, and intensive maintenance is often required after

vegetation is established. Examples of applicable critically eroding areas

include drainageways, access roads, denuded areas in the Piedmont and Upper

Coastal Plain, streambanks, farm and logging roads, construction sites, and

abandoned mine sites.

9. CroDland Conversion means the establishment of perennial grasses, trees, or

permanent wildlife plantings an excessively eroding cropland.

10. Diversion

A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across the

slope to divert excess water from cropland areas. This practice allows

interception and disposal of runoff at a selected location. Diversions

serve to reduce the length of slopes and to channel surface runoff to

suitable outlet locations. A primary purpose of this BMP is protection of

land below the structure. In certain cases the practice is effective in

diverting animal waste runoff from streams and may be used in combination

with sod to filter out nutrients and fecal bacteria. Diversions reduce

soil erosion on cropland and critically eroding areas of all land uses.

This practice will assist in the stabilization of a watershed, resulting in

the reduction of sheet and ril erosion by reducing the length of slope.

Sediment may be reduced by the elimination of ephemeral and large gullies.

This may reduce the amount of sediment and related pollutants delivered to

the surface waters. This practice diverts surface runoff away from

particular areas and prevents the incorporation of any pollutant within

-55-

these areas into the runoff and the transport of these pollutant's to the

receiving waters.

11. Field Border

A strip of vegetation established on field borders or edges to control

erosion. This is a relatively inexpensive method of filtering sediment,

nutrients, and fecal bacteria from runoff and is often used in combination

with other practices such as terraces and grassed waterways. Research

indicates that strips of vegetation around field borders can remove the

majority of sediment and nutrients in surface runoff.

12. Filter Strir,

A strip or area of perennial vegetation for removing sediment, organic

matter, and other pollutants from cropland or as part of waste management

systems for treating runoff from concentrated animal areas. Filter strips

for sediment and related pollutants meeting minimum requirements may trap

the coarser grained sediment. They may not filter out soluble or suspended

fine-grained materials. When a storm causes runoff in excess of the design

runoff, the filter may be flooded and could cause large loads of pollutants

to be released to the surface water. This type of filter is effective as

long as the flow through the filter is shallow sheet flow. Filter strips

for runoff from concentrated livestock areas may trap organic materials,

solids, materials which become absorbed to the vegetation or the solids

within the filter. Often they will not filter out soluble materials. This

type of filter is often wet and is difficult to maintain. Filter strips

for controlled overland flow treatment of liquid wastes may effectively

filter out pollutants. The filter must be properly managed and maintained,

including the proper resting time. This may improve the quality of surface

water and has little effect on soluble material in runoff or on the quality

of groundwater.

-56-

13. Grade Stabilization Structure m eans a structure to stabilize the'grade of

agricultural cropland or pasture land'Where concentrated and high velocity

runoff occurs. Structures designed to stabilize erosion occurring in

natural and artificial channels where erosion occurs due to significant

elevation differences are designed to-either reduce any sharp change in

elevation or grade or to provide a stable area where the change in

elevation takes place. These structures substantially reduce erosion and

off-site sediment damage associated with channel and gully erosion.

14. Grassed Waterway means a natural waterway or outlet shaped or graded and

established in suitable vegetation which is used to route excess water from

cropland. Natural or constructed open drains, shaped and vegetated with

close-growing sod and designed to prevent erosion in drainageways where

runoff water concentrates. This practice is most often used in row crop

fields to provide a runoff outlet for terraces or diversions. This BMP is

effective in reducing channel or gully erosion and serves the same

filtering function as a filter strip.

15. Grasses and Leciumes in Rotation

Rotating field crops with sequences of grasses and legumes. This is an

excellent non-structural method for reducing erosion and related sediment

and nutrients. Total soil loss is greatly reduced for the rotation cycle

as compared to continuously tilled field crops. However, soil loss is

unequally distributed over the rotation cycle. Reduced runoff and

increased vegetation may lower erosion rates and subsequent yields of

sediment and sediment-attached substances. Less applied nitrogen may be

required to grow crops because grasses and legumes will supply organic

nitrogen. During the period of the rotation when the grasses and legumes

are growing, they will take up more phosphorus. Less pesticides may

similarly be required with this practice.

-57-

16. Heavy Usd'Area Protection

Stabilizing high concentration a~rea:� for livestock to reduce stream

loading of sediment and/or animal waste. Protection may result in a

general improvement of surface water quality through the reduction of

erosion and the resulting sedimentation. Some increase in erosion may

occur during and immediately after construction until the disturbed areas

are fully stabilized. Some increase in chemicals in surface water may

occur due to the introduction of fertilizers for vegetated areas and oils

and chemicals associated with paved areas. Fertilizers and pesticides used

during operation and maintenance may be a source of water pollution. Paved

areas installed for livestock use will increase organic, bacteria, and

nutrient loading to surface waters. Changes in groundwater quality will be

minor. Nitrate nitrogen applied as fertilizer in excess of vegetation

needs may move with infiltrating waters. The extent of the problem, if

any, may depend on the actual amount of water percolation below the

rootzone.

17. Livestock Exclusion or Fencinci

Permanent fencing used to exclude livestock from an area and is to be used

in conjunction with livestock waste treatment systems, stream crossings,

streambank protection or other areas as needed to protect surface water

quality. Livestock exclusion may improve water quality by preventing

livestock from being in the water or walking down the banks, and by

preventing manure deposition in the stream. The amount of sediment and

manure may be reduced in the surface water. This practice prevents

compaction of the soil by livestock and prevents losses of vegetation and

undergrowth. This may maintain or increase evapotranspiration. Increased

permeability may reduce erosion and lower sediment and substance

transportation to the surface waters. Shading along streams and channels

-58-

resulting' from the application of this practice may reduce surface water

temperature. -

18. Mulching

Application of a biodegradable material, such as hay, straw, animal manure,

poultry litter, or wood shavings to erosive areas that have been newly

planted with grasses or legumes. Mulching helps ensure an adequate stand

of vegetation by retaining soil moisture, retarding weed growth,

controlling soil temperature, and reducing erosion and is especially

applicable on critically eroding areas. Primarily used as a component

practice of Critical Area Planting. This practice may reduce the delivery

of sediment and related chemicals to surface water by reducing runoff and

erosion. The temperature of the surface runoff may be lowered.

19. Nutrient Mananement or Control

This involves such practices as setting realistic crop yield goals,

fertilization rates, application, and timing. By applying this system,

nutrients in surface water and groundwater are reduced.

20. Pastureland and Havland Planting

Long-term stands of perennial, biennial, or reseeding forage grasses and

legumes are established to provide livestock food, protect soil from

erosion, and reduce runoff. The long-term effect will be an increase in

the quality of the surface water due to reduced erosion and sediment

delivery. Increased infiltration and subsequent percolation may cause more

soluble substances to be carried to groundwater.

21. Pastureland Conversion means establishing trees or perennial wildlife

plantings an excessively eroding pastureland that is too steep to maw or

maintain with conventional equipment.

22. Pesticide Mananement or Control

This involves using alternative pesticides and applying pesticides in the

-59-

correct formulation, amount, placement, timing, and frequency. It al so

involves using resistant -crop varieties, optimizing crop planting time,

plant pest quarantines, and integrated pest management. Through the use of

these practices, pesticides in surface and groundwater are reduced.

23. Planned Grazinci Systems means the management of grassland or grass-legume

pastures to provide sustained production of livestock while minimizing soil

erosion. Two or more grazing units are alternately rested and grazed to

maintain and improve existing cover; to reduce erosion and improve water

quality; to increase efficiency of grazing to ensure a supply of forage

throughout the grazing season; to increase quantity and quality of forage;

and to enhance wildlife habitat.

Planned grazing systems normally reduce the time livestock spend in each

pasture. This increases quality and quantity of vegetation. As vegetation

quality increases, fiber content in manure decreases which speeds manure

decomposition and reduces pollution potential. Compacted layers of the

soil tend to diminish because of the opportunity for freeze-thaw,

shrink-swell, and other natural soil mechanisms to occur that reduce

compacted layers during the absence of the grazing animals. This increased

infiltration, increases vegetation growth, slows runoff, and improves the

nutrient and moisture filtering and trapping ability of the area.

Decreased runoff will reduce the rate of erosion and movement of sediment

and dissolved and sediment-attached substances to downstream water courses.

No increase in groundwater pollution hazard would be anticipated from the

practice.

24. Reservoir Tillacie means creating small dams or dikes between rows of a crop

to retain water.

-60-

25. Rock-lined Waterways or Outlets means a waterway or outlet having an

erosion-resistant lining or permanent7'material used to provide for safe

disposal of runoff.

26. Row Arranuement

Arranging row patterns to provide drai-nage toward a desired outlet. The

practice is effective on flatter slopes for draining runoff water through a

grassed filter strip or grassed waterway prior to entering a stream. This

BMP can often provide a more efficient pattern for farming operations.

When this practice is part of a drainage system, the accelerated runoff may

have the potential or carrying more dissolved pollutants into the receiving

waters. There may be a small increase in the amount of sediment removed

from the field. Other applications of this practice may reduce runoff,

reduce erosion, and increase infiltration. There may be less pollutants

transported to the surface waters, and the possibility of pollutants

entering the groundwater may be increased.

27. Sediment Control Structure means a temporary or permanent basin constructed

to collect and store sediment. Construction of dams across drainage

courses to help filter out sediment, related nutrients, and other

pollutants. The velocity of runoff water is reduced, permitting much of

the sediment and nutrients to settle onto the basin bottom while runoff is

temporarily detained.

28. Sod-based Rotation means establishing perennial grasses and/or legumes or a

mixture of them on excessively eroding cropland and maintaining at least a

four-year rotation.

29. Snrinci Develooment means improving springs and seeps by excavating,

cleaning, capping, or providing collection and storage facilities.

30. Stock Trails and Walkways

A system used to control erosion where livestock cross ditches, streams, or

-61-

other areas where surface water qual ity needs to be protected. ''Must be

used in conjunction with livestock exclusion. Water quality impacts from

this practice, under range conditions, are negligible, although improving

grazing distribution on any area usually improves water quality. Increased

bedding on the walkways will increase manure concentrations, but nutrient

content of manure will only reflect nutrient content of the vegetation

unless supplemental feed is being fed to grazing animals.

31. StriDcroDDina means growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or

bands across the general slope. The crops are arranged so that a strip of

grass or close-growing crop is alternated with a clean-tilled crop or a

crop under a conservation tillage system. Soil loss is reduced by about 25

to 50 percent over the same cropping system utilizing contouring alone.

The alternation of grass or close-growing crops also act as filter strips,

removing sediment, nutrients, and pesticides. The site must be suitable to

establishment with grasses, legumes, and/or close-growing annuals. One

disadvantage is that typically half the field is removed from row crop

production.

32. Terraces

Earth embankments or ridges with a channel constructed across the land

slope at suitable spacing and an acceptable grade to reduce erosion damage

by intercepting surface runoff and conducting it to a stable outlet. These

structures function much the same as diversions, except that terraces are

usually constructed closer together, support less total watershed, are

smaller than diversions, and are not vegetated. This measure is one of the

most widely used structural erosion control practices on cropland. Fields

where terraces are applied, can usually be maintained in productive

condition and maximum yields can be sustained. This practice reduces the'

slope length and the amount of surface runoff which passes over the area

-6 2-

downslope~from an individual terrace. This may reduce the erosion''rate and

production of sediment within the terrace interval. Terraces trap sediment

and reduce the sediment and associated pollutant content in the runoff

water which enhances surface water quality. Terraces may intercept and

conduct surface runoff at a non-erosive velocity to stable outlets, thus

reducing the occurrence of ephemeral and classic gullies and the resulting

sediment. Increases in infiltration can cause a greater amount of soluble

nutrients and pesticides to be leached into the soil. Underground outlets

may collect highly soluble nutrient and pesticide leachates and convey them

directly to surface waters. By collecting surface runoff and conveying it

directly to an outlet, terraces may increase the delivery of pollutants to

surface waters. Terraces may have detrimental effect on water quality if

they concentrate and accelerate delivery of dissolved or suspended

nutrients or pesticide pollutants to surface or groundwaters.

33. Trouah or Tank

A device constructed for livestock watering in conjunction with livestock

exclusion from streams. By excluding livestock from waterbodies, erosion

and bacteria runoff are reduced.

34. Waste Manauement System means a planned system for managing liquid and

solid waste runoff from concentrated animal areas.

35. Waste Storacie Pond or Structure

A structure in which animal waste or other agricultural waste is safely

stored until proper disposal. This may be a concrete tank or an earthen

pit, dam, or embankment. Earthen structures are lined with an impermeable

clay liner to prevent groundwater contamination. The waste material must

be periodically removed, usually to be applied to the land. Proper

disposal equipment should be a part of the complete system.

-63-

36. Waste Treaitment Laooon

An impoundment made by excavation or earthfill for biological treatment of

animal or other agricultural waste. The lagoons are lined with a clay

liner to prevent groundwater contamination. Lagoons receive animal waste

directly from the source of concentrated livestock or poultry. The waste

is treated biologically by bacteria existing within the lagoon. Lagoons

may need occasional waste removal as with a waste holding pond or tank.

Animal waste treatment lagoons do not provide sufficient treatment to allow

discharges of wastewater. This practice may reduce polluted surficial

runoff and the loading of organics, pathogens, and nutrients into the

surface waters. It decreases the nitrogen content of the surface runoff

from feedlots by denitrification. Runoff is retained long enough that the

solids and insoluble phosphorus settle and form a sludge in the bottom of

the lagoon. There may be some seepage through the sidewalls and the bottom

of the lagoon. Usually the long-term seepage rate is low enough so that

the concentration of substances transported into the groundwater does not

reach an unacceptable level.

37. Waste Utilization or Land ADolication of Waste

Application of animal or other agricultural waste to agricultural land.

The waste is disposed of while improving plant resources through increased

fertility. This practice increases soil tilth, lowers erosion hazard, and

is most effective for reducing pollution potential of animal waste

nutrients and fecal bacteria when the waste is incorporated into the soil.

Application rates are based on plant nutrient (usually nitrogen)

requirements. Waste utilization helps reduce the transport of sediment and

related pollutants to the surface water. Proper site selection, timing of

application, and rate of application may reduce the potential for

degradation of surface and groundwater. This practice may increase

-64-

microbial" action in the surface layers of the soil, causing a *.reaction

which assists in controlling pesticides and other pollutants by keeping

them in place in the field. There could be potential groundwater impacts

associated with this practice.

38. Water Control Structure means a manmade structure installed in on-farm

water management systems to reduce the delivery of nonpoint source

pollutants into main water courses.

Four Year Action Plan

Table 5 is a summary of cooperating agencies and activities identified to

meet goals established for the category of agricultural nonpoint source within

the sections identified by the cooperating agencies. These activities are

scheduled over the next four years and are designed to reduce contributions of

nonpoint source pollutants to waterbodies from agricultural operations. The

activities listed are the major functions; however, subsets of these functions

that will be done on a day to day basis are not shown in Table S.

These activities will be continuously reviewed by the cooperating agencies

and will be modified to meet changing demands.

-65-

AGENCY ABBREVIATIONS SHOWN ON FOLLOWING CHART

1. USDA - United States Department of Agriculture

2. EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

3. USDA-SCS - Soil Conservation Service

4. USDA-ASCS - Agricultural Stabilization Service

5. USDA-ARS - Agricultural Research Service

6. USGS - United States Geological Survey

7. SWCD - Soil and Water Conservation Districts

8. WCD - Watershed Conservation Districts

9. CU - Clemson University

10. SCLRCC - South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission

11. SCDHEC - South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

12. SCDWMRD - South Carolina Department of Wildlife and Marine

Resources

13. SCFC - South Carolina Forestry Commission

14. CES - Cooperative Extension Service

-66-

Table 5

MPS CATEGORY: AGRICULTURE

Programs and Cooperating Agencies

Education Assistance
Subcateaorv Nonitorina Research Information Demonstration Technical Financial Reaulatians Compliance

Sediment EPA ARS I CES SCLRCC 1 SCLRCC ASCS SCLRCC (State Lands) SCS
i USGS CU 1 SCLRCC CES I SCS EPA I DREC ASES
DHEC SCS SCS CES SCLRCC 1
CU 1 ASCS ASCS i SCFS SCS
i SWCD 1 SCWMRD
SCFC
a I I i SCWNRD EPA
Nutrients i i DHEC a I SCLRCC SCS I
a I I I
i SCS ASCS I
CES SCLRCC 1
I I I I I Ia
a I I I I I I
I I a I I i I
a a a a I I I I
Pesticides I I a i CES ASCS CU
a i a a a a I SCS SCS O OHEC
1 I i I I I EPA EPA
a aa a aSCLRCC

Animal Wastes a CES a a a
aSCS
ASCS SCS ASCS
a i DHEC a CES aa S L DHEC
a a a a a UIL. a
~~~~1DHEC EPA
I I a a a
Groundwater E a I a
a a a a IIlA I a
( i I I ~~~~~~~~~~SCLRCC
a a a i a I U.I
SCS SESLREC
SWCO 1 CES DHEC
a ABSCS I SCS
a a DHEC DHEC

at a

t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a

FOUR YEAR ACTION PLAN

Calendar Year
1989 1990 1991 1992

Section: Monitoring and Research
Goal: 1. Develop BMP systems that will minimize water quality
impacts of NPS pollution.
2. Develop expanded water quality program

Cooperating Agencies: CU, SCLRCC, SCS, ARS, DHEC

Activities
Goal 1
a. Evaluate existing BMPs by moni-
toring or modeling in conjunc-
tion with specific land use X X X

b. Compile list of applications for
existing BMPs to minimize NPS
pollution X X

c. Develop and evaluate new tech-
nology applications for mini-
mization of NPS pollution X X X X

d. Compile water quality data bases
for use with GIS X X X X

e. Develop and use models to
evaluate BMP effectiveness of
application for conditions
prevalent in the Piedmont and
Coastal Plains of South Carolina X X X X

f. Calibrate models where data bases
exist X X

g. Study the effect of BMPs especially
conservation tillage on groundwater
quality X X X

h. Quantify the efficiency in uptake
of nutrients for crop varieties X X X X

i. Conduct research in integrated pest
management (IPM) programs for high
pesticide use areas (e.g., cotton,
tobacco, vegetables, orchards) X X

-68-

.j. Improve mfethods of handling the
volume of animal wastes produced
and applied through land appli-
cation systems to prevent over-
application and identify sites
that are not appropriate X X X X

k. Integrate disposal of animal
wastes into animal housing
designs so that it is contained
in a manner which will allow
full utilization of the
nutrients in appropriate land
application systems X X X

1. Characterize chemical decompo-
sition as a function of soil,
crop, and climatic conditions
using field, laboratory, and
modeling techniques X X x X

M. Continue to research groundwater
impacts of animal waste lagoons X X X X

n. Develop proposal for research
funding concerning selected BMPs X X

o. Update technical guides to include
the latest research and information
concerning NPS water quality, water
quality improvements, protection
techniques, and BMPs X X

p. Develop additional standards that
may be necessary to measure NPS im-
pacts and the effects of BMPs, in-
cluding, but not limited to a
sediment standard and an erosion
control standard that reflects a
level of control that would allow
sediment standards to be set X X X X

q. Analyze the costs of various BMPs X X

Goal 2
a. Show the potential benefits to
water quality of an expanded
research program X X X X

b. Coordinate water quality programs
between agencies to avoid dupli-
cation of effort and to improve
overall cost effectiveness X X X X

-69-

c. Seek additional funding for ex-
panding water quality data
collection on a Statewide basis X X X X

d. Develop data to show social and
economic benefits of improved
water quality X X X X

e. Seek funding to include water
quality monitoring data into
GIS for expanded use X X X X

f. Seek funding to compile data
that can be used to expand
awareness of water quality
concerns X X X X

g. Coordinate NPS activity related
to water quality X X X X

Section: Education/Information/Demonstration
Goal: Promote voluntary use of BMPs statewide and in targeted
watersheds.

Cooperating Agencies: CU, SCLRCC, SCS, ASCS, SC Forestry Commission

Activities
a. Use newsletters, radio programs,
other media to inform landowners,
others of NPS program, program
goals, BMPs that can be used to
solve water quality problems X X X X

b. Incorporate NPS information into
program announcements for ACP,
FIP, LTWs, and FSA X X X X

c. Develop and conduct demonstration
of BMPs including new BMPs and in-
novative application of existing
BMPs X X X

d. Show cost benefits of BMPs X X

e. Hold water quality meetings and
include water quality topics in
all applicable conferences/
conventions X X X X

f. Include water issues and BMP in-
formation in agency information
programs Statewide X X X X

-70-

g. Integrate*'existing approaches
into systems which enhance water
quality X X X X

h. Involve appropriate State agencies
for field days and demonstration
of BMPs X X X X

i. Use rainfall simulation to demon-
strate effectiveness of BMPs
during demonstrations X X X X

j. Educate the general public as
to ways that land users can re-
duce NPS pollution X X X X

k. Expand educational programs
in State universities, colleges,
and technical colleges related
to BMPs X X X X

1. Provide information in Extension
newsletters via CUFAN computer
network concerning demonstrations
and the profitability of environ-
mentally favorable practices with
standard practices used by growers X X X X

m. Consider the NPS impacts of pesti-
cide and fertilizer recommendations,
particularly as related to high
application areas such as orchard
crops X X X X

n. Develop practical information and
guidelines that will be useful to
land owners/users in evaluating
the economic and other effects of
NPS pollution on their operations,
evaluating the effects of apply-
ing BMPs, and making comparisons
of different systems of practices X X X X

o. Demonstrate IMP (Integrated Pest
Management) Programs X X X X

p. Publish results in brochures and
other forms that will be
available to the public X X X X

Section: Technical and Financial Assistance
Goal: 1. Provide statewide effort technical and financial
assistance for improved water quality.
2. Direct technical and financial assistance to targeted
priority watersheds/water bodies for implementation of
- BMPs.

Cooperating Agencies: CU, SCLRCC, SCS, ASCS, DHEC, SC Forestry Commission

Activities
Goal 1
a. Expand water quality
as a major emphasis of cost-
share programs X X X

b. Encourage water quality BMPs
through ACP, FIP, and FSA pro-
grams X X X X

c. Continue to provide tax credits
for BMPs X X X X

d. Evaluate need for a state cost-
share program for agriculture X X

e. Continue to provide technical
assistance for good water
quality practices through Soil
and Water Conservation Districts X X X X

f. Use existing State and federal
cost-share and other incentive
programs X X X X

g. Refine existing programs where
necessary in order to meet
NPS objectives X X X X

h. Provide conservation equipment
for use by landowners/users X X X X

i. Evaluate the need for, and de-
velop additional State and local
incentives as deemed appropriate X X X X

Goal 2
a. Seek funding for assistance and
for evaluation of BMPs and
track their effectiveness X X X X

b. Concentrate tax credits, funding,
and education to prioritized
watersheds X X X X

-72-

c. Provide technical assistance pur-
suant to the Small Watershed
Program (PL-566), special water
quality projects, or other pro-
grams for landusers in watersheds
for which programs and projects
are planned and funds are available X X X X

d. Cost share with landowners in water
quality projects X X X X

e. Seek input from all agencies in de-
veloping special water quality pro-
jects X X X X

Section: Regulation and Compliance
Goal: 1. Implement and enforce existing regulations and programs.
2. Identify the need for additional regulatory and
compliance programs.

Cooperating Agencies: CU, SCLRCC, SCS, ASCS, DHEC

Activities
Goal 1
a. Develop procedures for collection
and disposal of pesticide con-
tainers, pesticide residue, and
waste pesticide X X

b. Implement procedures for collec-
tion and disposal of pesticide
containers, pesticide residue
and waste pesticide X X

c. Encourage landowner participation
in Food Security Act programs such
as CRP, Acreage Reduction Program X X X X

d. Emphasize compliance with Swamp-
buster and Sodbuster provisions
of FSA, Conservation Compliance X X X X

e. Deny program benefits for non-
compliance with Sodbuster, Swamp-
buster X X X X

f. Spot check cost-shared BMPs for
maintenance X X X X

g. Spot check for compliance with
Swampbuster, Sodbuster X X X X

-73-

h. Assist landowners with staying
in compliance with the 1985 farm
bill provisions, discuss water
quality issues with landowners in
the planning process X X X X

i. Assist in conservation planning X X X X

j. Assist in conservation applications X X X X

k. Assist with technical aspects of
the animal waste management per-
mitting program X X X X

1. Enforce regulations for storm-
water management and erosion
and sediment control for State
owned agricultural land X X X X

m. Implement fully the Chemigation
Act requiring anti-backflow de-
vices on all irrigation equip-
ment used to apply pesticide or
other chemicals x x x x

n. Continue to educate pesticide
users and enforce the provi-
sions of the S.C. Pesticide
Control Act, especially rela-
tive to misuse and pesticide
druft off-target X X X X

Goal 2
a. Develop a State management program
for the protection of groundwater
from contamination with agri-
chemicals x X

b. Assist in implementation of BMPs
for surface and groundwater pro-
tection X X X X

c. If voluntary programs do not
suceed in improving water
quality, evaluate the need for a
regulatory program for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution X X

-74-

Section: Program Management
Goal: 1. Maximize overall program effectiveness
2. Sustain the program after a four year period

Cooperating Agencies: CU, SCLRCC, SCS, ASCS

Activities
Goal 1
a. Coordinate all NPS activity
between all federal, State,
regional, and local agencies
involved X X x X

b. Develop complementary programs
rather than overlapping or con-
flicting efforts X X X

c. Establish joint ventures and
cooperative agreements X X X X

d. Continue to identify priority
watersheds and needs based on
new data X X X X

e. Conduct periodic evaluation of
all activities X X X X

f. Obtain attitudes and opinions
of general citizenry X X X X

g. Seek professional expertise
(technical, managerial, etc.)
of private sector resources X X X

h. Seek professional and financial
support from industry, organi-
zations and foundations X X X X

i. Establish joint public-private
ventures X X X X

j. Use groups such as State Advisory
Council on Erosion Reduction and
the 46 Local Advisory Councils on
Erosion and Sediment Reduction
as the focal points to facilitate
needed interagency and public-
private cooperation X X X X

Goal 2
a. Continue to coordinate and develop
programs between agencies X X X X

-75-

b. Encourage"the use of long-term BMPs X X X X

c. Seek local, State, and federal
funding sources that can be in-
tegrated for a cost effective
program. X X X X

d. After identification of needs that
cannot be met with currently
available resources, seek the
active participation of all appro-
priate parties in the development
of new programs X X x X

e. Refine and tailor appropriate
existing programs and resources
of all existing agencies and
organizations in order to meet
NPS pollution control needs X X X X

f. Seek to have water quality incor-
porated as a long-term integral
part of all applicable programs by
the end of the four-year term X X X X

g. Evaluate results of the four-
year program to assist in deter-
mining the need for additional
program regulations X

-76-

VII. FORESTRY NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

Forests comprise a major portion of South Carolina's land base.

Sixty-three percent, or over 12 million acres, of the State's 19,320,552 acres

is in timberland. South Carolina Forestry Commission statistics indicate that

90 percent of the forests in the state are owned by private landowners and 2.2

million acres or about 18 percent are categorized as wetlands. Forested

wetlands provide for timber, wildlife, recreation, and water.

Silvicultural practices associated with the road access, harvest and

regeneration of timber presents a potential for NPS pollution of the state's

waters. In South Carolina's NPS Assessment Report, silviculture contributed

only 4 percent to our identified problems, but silviculture is still a concern

because forest land represents a large portion of the State's land base and

impacts can be significant if BMPs are not used.

NPS Pollution Problems Associated with Forestry Practices

The major groups of pollutants associated with silvicultural activities

that potentially affect the state's waters are sediment, nutrients, organics,

elevated temperature, and pesticides. Erosion and subsequent sedimentation is

the most significant and widespread nonpoint source problem associated with

forestry practices. Degradation of water quality as a result of silvicultural

activities generally occurs through a combination of man's activities and

natural forces.

1. Sediment - Sediment from silvicultural activities originates primarily

from roads and skid trails. Removal of timber and the disruption of

understory vegetation by movement of logging equipment exposes soils

-77-

to th~e effects of rainfall events. The subsequent erosion that occurs

on these disturbed sites depends' primarily on soil type and slope.

The amount of exposed soil, length of exposure, proximity to

waterbodies, amount of precipitation, and mitigation measures (BMPs)

also play an important role in erosion and subsequent sedimentation

caused by silvicultural activities.

2. Nutrients - Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers

are sometimes used to stimulate tree growth in areas characterized by

nutrient poor soils. An increase in the nutrient levels of water

draining fertilized timberlands occurs accidentally when fertilizer is

applied so that it falls directly into waterbodies. Rainfall events

which closely follIow the application of fertilizer may also

temporarily increase nutrient levels. Where forest fertilization is

practiced, fertilizer is normally applied only once in a 30 to 40 year

rotation. In South Carolina, forest fertilization is limited

primarily to the application of phosphorus at limited sites in the

Coastal Plain. The effects of nutrients originating from

fertilization of timberlands in South Carolina should be minor.

3. Organics - A potential problem from some areas where timber harvests

occur is the introduction of organic debris into nearby waterbodies as

a result of logging activities. Rainfall events often cause the

addition of organic constituents along with sediment loads. Loggers

have also sometimes added to the organic burden of surface waters

through the disposal of tops and other debris in streams and

watercourses. These activities contribute greatly to the biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD) in the receiving streams. Resultant reduction of

dissolved oxygen concentrations downstream of BCD inputs is sometimes

-78-

significant enough to adversely affect fish and wildlife in-addition

to decreasing the stream's ability to handle other waste loadings.

4. Elevated TemDerature - When overstory and understory vegetation along

waterbodies is removed, the reduction of shade causes a rise in the

water temperature. The surface 'area, flow, channel gradient and

substrate material all influence the impact of shading. Increases in

water temperature caused by removing trees may also directly influence

the life cycles of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. Trout streams

are especially sensitive to significant temperature increases.

Aquatic plants and phytoplankton are sometimes influenced by increases

in water temperature. Small streams are very easily affected, often

drastically, by exposure to sunlight although they usually show rapid

recovery as a result of understory growth.

5. Pesticides and Herbicides - The presence of pesticides or herbicides

in surface waters as a result of silvicultural activities may be due

to accidental direct application of chemicals on waterbodies or when

the application of chemicals is followed by heavy rainfall. The

amount of contamination relates to the method of application and skill

of applicator. The use of herbicides is generally associated with

site preparation and occurs once in a 30 to 40 year rotation.

Insufficient data are available to determine the extent of pesticide

contamination of surface waters originating from silvicultural

activities in South Carolina. The amounts would likely be many times

less than occurs from agriculture and most studies have shown

insignificant effects.

NPS Proarams for Forestry

Programs to abate or control nonpoint source pollution from forestry

activities are primarily the responsibility of the South Carolina Forestry

-79-

Commission and'~the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service with

other agencies having supplementary prog~rants. The S. C. Forestry Commission is

directly involved with forestry practices on State Forests and also provides

technical assistance to non-industrial private landowners. The U. S. Forest

Service is involved with silvicultural activities only on the National Forests

within the State. The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil

Conservation Service also provides technical assistance to units of government,

landowners, and landusers. The United States Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (USDA-ASCS) provides funding for

forestry cost-share programs.

The S. C. Forestry Commission applies the practices of the Erosion,

Sediment. and Stormwater Manaciement Plan on State Forest lands administered by

the Commission and in advice given to other State agencies that own forest land

as required by the Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act. This regulatory action

applies only to State owned lands. The Forestry Commission does not have

regulatory authority over privately owned lands; however, they have been

involved in promoting the use of voluntary Best Management Practices (BMPs)

since the early 1970's. Forestry Commission staff foresters are assigned to

each county of the State to assist landowners with proper management of their

forest land.

The S. C. Forestry Commission is the lead agency responsible for planning

and developing BMPs. Close cooperation among the Forestry Commission and the

S. C. Forestry Association, Clemson University Extension Service, and other

interested groups and individuals allows a broad representation of the forestry

community to have input into the development of BMPS to be utilized in the

State. An important benefit of this cooperative effort is that through various

committees, these groups are able to discuss problems, recommend solutions, and

attempt to correct BMP violations through peer pressure.
-80-

The S. C: Forestry Commission and the S. C. Forestry Association are

currently cooperating in an effort to pronifte more awareness and use of BMPs.

Two publications on BMPs in South Carolina which have been recently developed

are Voluntary Forest Practice Guidelines for South Carolina published by the

S. C. Forestry Association with input from-the S. C. Forestry Commission and

Best Manaciement Practices for South Carolina's Forest Wetlands published by the

S. C. Forestry Commission with input from the S. C. Forestry Association. The

S. C. Forestry Commission encourages landowners, industry foresters, consulting

foresters, loggers, contractors, and others to follow the BMPs outlined in these

publications.

Voluntary Forest Practice Guidelines for South Carolina is not oriented

toward water quality protection. While the Guide describes BMPs that prevent

sediment runoff, it needs to be revised with an emphasis on protecting water

quality. The reader needs to be aware that timber harvesting activities may

adversely affect nearby waterbodies and it needs to specify BMPs that prevent

this nonpoint source pollution.

Through the- cooperation of the S. C. Forestry Commission, the S. C.

Forestry Association, and Clemson University Extension Service, training

programs using video and slide tapes are being developed to educate landowners

and the forestry community on BMPs and to promote the use of BMPs. Separate

programs are being prepared for general and specific audiences. The S. C.

Forestry Association will soon be initiating a series of training sessions that

will utilize these materials to make loggers more aware of BMPs and the

importance of their use. These training sessions will begin in the Spring of

1989 and will be held at 13 different sites across the State.

The S. C. Forestry Commission is responsible for providing technical

assistance on forestry cost-share programs administered by the USDA-ASCS under

the Forestry Incentives Program. Established BMPs are followed in all technical

-81.-

assistance provided under these programs. Tax incentives programs have'not been

established.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has regulatory authority over the two

National Forests in the State, the Sumter National Forest in the Piedmont and

Mountain regions and the Francis Marion National Forest in the Coastal Plain

region. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans on South Carolina's National

Forests recognize the need to use BMPs as the primary means by which water

quality objectives may be met. The voluntary BMPs approved by the S. C.

Forestry Commission are incorporated into the Forest Standards and Guidelines

in the Forest Plans to address nonpoint source pollution. Standards and

Guidelines are also developed to aid in the management of other resources

including soil productivity, wildlife, recreation, etc.

Silvicultural activities on the National Forests are given a site specific

evaluation for environmental effects of alternatives. Maintenance or

improvement of water quality is a major concern that carries through the Forest

Plans to activity prescriptions, contract preparation, implementation and

analysis of final results. Annual monitoring and training sessions are

typically provided by the USFS Soil and Water Staff to ensure quality control in

the implementation and effectiveness of these practices. Information on

practices and activities is provided through public notification and review.

The monitoring, training of personnel, and coordination with others (e.g.

Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Clemson University, and Coweeta

Hydrologic Laboratory) are important factors in the success of this program.

The U.S. Forest Service has long been concerned and involved in nonpoint

pollution abatement and control on the National Forests in South Carolina.

Congress provided direction to the USFS through the Weeks Act which allowed for

the purchase and reforestation of unwanted and abused farm and swamplands.

Repair of the worst severely eroding land began with the Civilian Conservation
-82-

Corps (CCC). "Since the mid-1970's, the Soil and Water Improvement Program

began expanding the acreage treated each year. Much of the funding for these

soil and water improvements is provided through the Knutson-Vandenberg Act.

These funds are available only for National Forest use within identified

boundaries of timber sales.

In the 1980's, through the Soil and Water Improvement Program,

rehabilitation of severely eroding lands in South Carolina has averaged 140

acres per year, and watershed improvements have averaged 500 acres per year.

USFS projections indicate that the active rehabilitation of these areas prevents

much more erosion than occurs on all the other activities within the National

Forests. These efforts at reducing nonpoint source pollution and returning this

land to productive conditions were a major factor in the Sumter and Francis

Marion National Forests receiving the Stewardship Award for 1988 from the Chief

of the USFS.

-83-

BMPS FOR PROTECTING WATER QUALITY FROM FORESTRY ACTIVITIES

Forest Access Roads

1. Plan access roads so there is a minimum of site disturbance.

2. Use soil survey information to select stable soil types so that erosion is

minimized.

3. Avoid steep, narrow ridges, slide areas, gullies, wetlands, stream

channels, and ponds.

4. Minimize the number of stream crossings.

5. Where stream crossings are necessary, enter the stream at right angles to

the main channel.

6. Construct roads and bridges during dry periods when the threat of erosion

is minimized.

7. Clear stream channels of all debris produced during construction.

8. Construct road beds from the sides of slopes, so that runoff will drain

away from the embankment (outslope).

9. Limit use of unpacked or clay-based roads during wet weather to reduce

rutting.

10. Use seeding, fertilizing, and mulching as needed when natural cover will

not be adequate on banks and filled areas.

11. Provide adequate cross drainage to take water off the road and into areas

of adequate land cover.

12. Grade road surfaces and outslope as needed.

13. Inspect and clean all drainage structures periodically.

14. Restrict traffic during periods of excessive ground moisture unless the

soils are rocky or gravel is used.

15. Where natural cover is not anticipated, seed abandoned roads to grass and

provide drainage dips to prevent excessive water runoff and erosion.

-84-

16. When near'streams, brush barriers or silt fences may be needed to reduce

sedimentation.

Additional BMPs relating to forest access roads in wetlands:

17. Road construction in wetlands should 'be kept to a minimum. All roads

should parallel the general flow of water except when crossing from one

drainage to another.

18. Culverts should be properly placed and constructed to minimize soil erosion

according to the specifications described in Best Manaaement Practices for

South Carolina's Forest Wetlands.

Harvesting-

1. Assure that logging practices are conducted to avoid unnecessary damage to

the soil and to minimize rutting and soil compaction.

2. Keep landings and skid trails to the minimum number and size.

3. Service equipment away from streams and other bodies of water. Dispose of

waste oil and lubricants in a legally designated manner.

4. Keep roads, ditches, and streams free of harvesting debris.

5. Locate landings and skid trials to minimize soil movement into streams.

6. Trees harvested near stream banks should be felled and skidded away from

the stream to minimize damage to the channel bank.

7. Minimize soil disturbance directly adjacent to stream banks.

S. Use uphill skidding in rugged terrain to the maximum extent possible to

provide for subsequent dispersal of surface water from decks. Water

diversions and seeding are a must.

9. Fell trees in line with skidding direction when practical to minimize soil

disturbance.

-85-

10. Use suitable water diversions such as broad based drainage dips and direct

runoff into vegetated areas when soils'are exposed on skid roads or trails.

Additional BMPs relating to harvesting in wetlands:

11. Schedule harvests during dry periods to-minimize impacts on soil compaction

and water quality.

12. Use low ground pressure tires on skidders or use cable systems when

feasible.

13. Avoid felling trees into active or well defined intermittent stream

courses. Trees felled into perennial streams should be removed (including

the top) as soon as practical.

14. When log decks must be located in a wetland area, they should be located on

the highest ground or on islands within the area.

15. Streamside management zones (SMZs) or buffer areas should be established

adjacent to navigable streams in wetlands according to specifications

described in Best Manaaement Practices for South Carolina's Forest

Wetlands. A SMZ is an area adjacent to the banks of streams and bodies of

open water where extra precaution is necessary in carrying out forest

practices in order to protect bank edges and water quality. SMZs may be

designated as primary (adjacent to the stream) or secondary (peripheral to

the primary SMZ).

Site PreDaration

1. Every effort should be made to leave the topsoil in place during site

preparation activities.

2. On slopes over 30 percent, do not use mechanical site preparation.

3. Windrow debris along the contour or in gullies or skid roads to stabilize

them.

-86-

4. Intensive"practices such as disking, plowing, bedding, or furrowing should

be done only as necessary and on the contour. These practices have

significant potential to lower site productivity and water quality from

erosion especially when slopes exceed 20 percent.

5. When herbicides are used, consult professional foresters and certified

applicators who can assist in prescribing and/or application.

Additional BMPs related to site preparation in wetlands:

6. Aerial application of any pesticides or fertilizers will not be permitted

within 80 feet of each side of a navigable stream.

7. Avoid any type of mechanical site preparation in primary SMZs.

8. Avoid site preparation practices that significantly disturb surface soil,

such as disking and bedding in secondary SMZs.

-87-

Four Year Actibn Plan

South Carolina Forestry Commission with Calendar Year

assistance from S. C. Forestry Association 1989 1990 1991 1992

and Clemson University Extension Service

Activity

A. Encourage the use of the BMPs outlined in X X X X

in the booklets Voluntary Forest Practice

Guidelines for South Carolina and Best

Manaaement Practices for South Carolina's

Forest Wetlands on private lands and ensure

that these BMPs are utilized on State

Forests and other State managed land.

B. Develop and implement educational X X X X

presentations (slide, tape and/or video

productions) dealing with silvicultural NPS

problems and BMPs to solve those problems.

C. Evaluate BMPs and revise them as needed, X X X X

based on results and/or new research

findings.

D. Develop an updated BMP manual for X X

silvicultural practices in South Carolina.

United States Forest Service Calendar Year

Activity 1989 1990 1991 1992

A. Continue to incorporate the voluntary X X X X

BMPs recommended by the S.C. Forestry

Commission into the Forest Standards

and Guidelines in the Forest Plans to

reduce NPS problems on National Forest

land in South Carolina.

B. Conduct annual monitoring and training X X X X

sessions to ensure quality control in

the implementation and effectiveness of

these BMPs.

C. Provide appropriate information about X X X X

BMPs to National Forest users through

public notification and review.

VIII. CONSTRUCTION NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

Urban and built-up areas are essential to the health, safety, economic, and

social well-being of the citizens of South Carolina. Facilities, buildings,

streets, bridges, etc. are constructed to be serviceable for decades or

centuries. Products and services essential to our survival are dependent on

these urban and built-up facilities. To produce the facilities needed, it is

essential that construction activities continue at the present level or at an

increased pace. To do this, a vigorous, efficient, sophisticated construction

industry is essential.

In South Carolina, the construction industry employs approximately 6.3

percent of the non-farm work force. The industry contributes approximately 6.9

percent of the non-farm income in the State. This 91,600 employee,

$2,113,000,000 industry has a significant impact on the economy of the State.

Water Oualitv Problems Related to Construction NPS

This industry also has the potential to impact waterbodies through nonpoint

source pollution. Typically, sediment is the major pollutant of construction.

However, the large quantities of petro-chemical products in the form of

gasoline, diesel fuels, oils, and greases usually found on construction sites

are a potential source of pollution. In addition, most construction sites

usually require large amounts of fertilizer, lime, and other typically

agricultural products which can impact water quality. Construction activity,

itself, may expose materials which affect pH and nutrient levels in receiving

waters. All of these impacts point out the potential damage resulting from'

construction activities.

-90-~

In the Assessment of Noni~oint Source Pollution for the State "of South

Carolina (DHEC, 1988) 332 waterbodies in' the State were determined to be

impacted by nonpoint source pollution. Fourteen percent of these waterbodies

were impacted by construction activities. A further breakdown of these impacted

sites indicates that sixty-four percent of the water bodies were in the

Piedmont, nine percent in the Coastal Plain-Piedmont interface; and twenty-seven

percent in the Coastal Plain. These percentages are not surprising given the

steeper slopes and more readily erodible soils in the Piedmont.

NPS Proarams for Construction

The Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act requires that erosion and sediment

control and stormwater management plans be prepared for all land-disturbing

activities on State owned and managed lands. The State Engineer's Office, S. C.

Budget and Control Board, is responsible for approving all plans for work in

conjunction with the State's Permanent Improvement Projects Program (PIP). The

S. C. Land Resources Commission (LRCC) is responsible for all projects which

fall outside of the PIP program and for continuing programs, such as the Clemson

University Experiment Stations and the non-federal activities of the S. C.

Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper).

The only exceptions to this are the lands and land-disturbing activities

under the jurisdiction of the S. C. Department of Highways and Public

Transportation (DHPT) and forestry areas under the jurisdiction of the S. C.

Forestry Commission. The DHPT has adopted regulations for erosion and sediment

reduction and stormwater management on lands and land-disturbing activities

under its jurisdiction. Likewise, the S. C. Forestry Commission has developed a

plan, based on Best Management Practices (BMPs), for erosion and sediment

reduction on State owned lands.

The State Engineer and the Commission have entered into a cooperative

agreement for the Commission to provide educational and technical assistance to

-91-

the staff of the State Engineer. The educational assistance is in the form of

on-the-job training, formal workshops, andh1andbooks and guides. In the area of

technical assistance, the Commission will, upon request, review plans submitted

pursuant to the Act; conduct meetings and negotiations with

architect-engineering firms; and provide field inspection services during the

construction of the project. The USDA Soil Conservation Service can also

provide technical assistance to units of government, developers, consultants,

and individuals in controlling NPS runoff from construction activities.

LRCC developed a technical manual, Erosion and Sediment Control Practices

for DeveloDinci Areas, which is currently utilized as the implementing too] for

construction BMPs for planning stage through final landscaping and maintenance

for construction projects in South Carolina.

The Commission is coordinating an eighteen-month study of the Kinley Creek

Watershed in cooperation with the University of South Carolina College of

Engineering. The watershed is located in Richland and Lexington Counties in

central South Carolina. The area is experiencing rapid urbanization/development

and streams and lakes in the watershed are suffering severe sedimentation and

flooding problems due to increased runoff as well as diminished water quality.

In particular, Lake Quail Valley, a small lake on a tributary to Kinley Creek

has been silting in at an accelerated rate.

The purposes for the study are (I) to inventory the watershed and its

drainage network to compile a comprehensive database; (2) to instrument the

watershed at several locations for rainfall, streamflow, and sediment to obtain

local data about watershed hydrologic response, watershed and channel erosion,

water quality and pond sedimentation; (3) to model the watershed and its

drainage system using a regional applicable computer simulation model; (4) to

simulate the effects of land use, drainage network changes, and channel

modifications on stormwater runoff and erosion; (5) to critically evaluate the

-92-

impact of erosion and sedimentation on the instream ponds; (6) to conduct an

analysis of alternative stormwater management schemes to identify feasible

combinations which minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff and erosion and

which can be implemented for existing and future development conditions; (7) to

recommend strategies and/or policy changes tc remediate existing problems and to

minimize future occurrences; and (8) using the results from this study,

calibrate a computer model that can be used by local governments statewide to

test the effect of NPS runoff from development projects on watersheds and

indicate the need and placement of BMPs.

*EPA Funded Projects

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that BMPs be implemented

during the construction of waste treatment facilities that receive federal

funds. The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) enforces this

provision by requiring that NPS control measures be addressed in construction

plans and specifications submitted to DHEC for review and approval.

*Local Programs

Fifteen counties and several municipalities have adopted erosion and

sediment control ordinances which regulate construction activities. Sediment

control ordinances have been adopted pursuant to the County Sediment Control

Program Act passed by the General Assembly in 1971. Other counties and

municipalities regulate some construction activities through provisions in

subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances, or building permit programs. Even

though these ordinances primarily deal with reducing the flow of sediment from

the disturbed site, water quality improvements can be achieved under these

programs. These local programs have all been adopted voluntarily by the

respective jurisdictions. None of the current laws in effect in South Carolina

require adoption of these local programs.

-93-

Local prdgrams are typically under-staffed and under-funded. There are no

standard qualifications for either perso~nnel involved in the review of plans or

in inspection and enforcement. However, Conservation Districts are required to

approve plans under programs adopted pursuant to the County Sediment Control

Program Act.
*Proposed Legislation

A bill to enact a statewide regulatory stormwater management and sediment

control program has been introduced in both houses of the General Assembly. The

proposed Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act calls for LRCC to

develop and implement a statewide program for land-disturbing activities on

private land in developing areas in conjunction with Conservation Districts,

federal, State, and local government agencies, and other entities as

appropriate. This legislation is a companion statute to the Erosion and

Sediment Reduction Act which established a regulatory program for State owned

and managed land.

The proposed legislation addresses constructio'n and maintenance for

land-disturbing activities undertaken for purposes other than agricultural and

timber production, mining activities regulated by the S. C. Mining Act, and

single family residences.

The proposed legislation authorizes and directs LRCC to require that all

land-disturbing activities be conducted in accordance with stormwater management

and sediment control plans approved either at the State or local level. These

plans must include measures for stormwater management (both quantity and

quality) and sediment control during the land-disturbing activity as well as

maintenance of stormwater facilities throughout the life of the facility. No

land-disturbing activities adjacent to a waterbody or watercourse would be

allowed without the use of a buffer zone between the land-disturbing activity

and waterbody sufficient to confine visible sediment within 25 percent of the

-94-

buffer zone ne'~rer the activity. Other requirements in the proposed legislation

i ncl ude a requi rement that angl e of gradied' sl opes or f ill s i s no greater than

the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion

control structures or devices; installation of erosion and sediment control

devices sufficient to retain the sediment generated on-site; minimizing sediment

damage during and after construction; protection or restoration of quality of

surface and groundwaters; and protection of beneficial functions of wetlands.

Each local government would have the option of implementing its own program

in conjunction with the applicable Conservation District or allowing the LRCC to

implement the program in the local jurisdiction in conjunction with the

District. Two or more units of local government would be authorized to

establish joint programs. All State and locally administered programs would be

based on regulations promulgated by LRCC which would include a model ordinance,

technical standards, maintenance requirements, and a minimum fee schedule to

support the costs of plan review and site inspections.

Programs adopted by local governments would be subject to approval and

periodic review by LRCC. The Commission would have the authority to assume

enforcement of any program found deficient in administration or enforcement

until such time that the local government indicates its willingness and ability

to resume implementation.

Land disturbing sites would be inspected periodically to monitor compliance

with the stormwater management and sediment control plans for the sites and to

determine if any off-site damages have occurred as a result of runoff from the

site. Enforcement actions would include written compliance and directive

notices to comply, stop-work orders, and civil and criminal prosecution.

-95-

BMPs for Prote'dina Water Oualitv from Construction Activities

Both structural (requiring construction) and non-structural (regulations,

policies, maintenance, etc.) BMPs are applicable in reducing the impacts of

pollution from construction activities.

The following list contains the BMPs currently used in South Carolina:

*Road Stabilization

1. Temporary gravel construction entrance/exit - A stone pad located at any

point where traffic will be leaving the construction site and entering a

street, alley, sidewalk, parking area, or other right-of-way.

2. Construction road stabilization - Temporary stabilization of access roads,

subdivision roads, parking areas, and other transportation routes with stone

immediately after grading.
*Sediment Barriers

3. Straw bale barrier - A temporary sediment barrier consisting of a raw of

entrenched and anchored straw or hay bales.

4. Sediment fence - Filter fabric stretched across and attached to supporting

posts and entrenched.

S. Brush barrier - Residue materials from clearing and grubbing making a

sediment barrier at the perimeter of a disturbed site.

6. Storm drain inlet protection - A sediment filter or an excavated impounding

area round a storm drain drop inlet or curb inlet.
*Dikes and Diversions

7. Temporary diversion dike - A temporary ridge of compacted soil constructed

immediately above or below cut or fill slopes.

8. Temporary interceptor dike - A ridge of compacted soil or loose rock or

gravel constructed across disturbed rights-of-way and similar sloping areas.

9. Perimeter dike - A ridge of compacted soil constructed along the perimeter of

the disturbed area.

-96-

10.Temporary fill diversion - A channel with a supporting ridge on the

lower side cut along the top of an active earth fill.

* Sediment Traps and Basins

11.Temporary sediment trap - A small temporary ponding area formed by

constructing an earthen embankment with a"stone outlet across a drainage

swale.

12.Temporary sediment basin - A temporary basin with a controlled stormwater

release structure, formed by constructing an embankment of compacted soil

across a drainage way.

* Flumes

13.Temporary slope drain - A flexible tubing or conduit extending from the top

to the bottom of a cut or fill slope.

14.Paved gutter - A permanent concrete-lined channel constructed on a slope.

* Waterways and Outlet Protection

15.Riprap - A permanent erosion-restraint ground cover of large, loose angular

stone.

16.Check dam - Small temporary dam constructed across a swale or drainage ditch.

17.Temporary gravel outlet structure - An auxiliary structure installed in

conjunction with and as a part of a temporary diversion dike, interceptor

dike, perimeter dike, or other structure designed to temporarily detain

sediment-laden surface runoff.

18.Level spreader - An outlet constructed at zero grade across a slope.

* Stream and Channel Protection

19.Vegetative streambank or channel protection - Stabilizing the banks of live

streams or channels with vegetation.

20.Structural streambank or channel protection - Stabilizing the banks of live

streams or channels with permanent structural measures.

-97-

21.Temporary stream crossing - A temporary structural span installed across a

flowing watercourse such as bridges, round pipes, or pipe arches.

* Site Preparation

22.Land grading - Reshaping the ground surface to planned grades as determined

by engineering survey and layout.

23.Surface roughening - Providing soil surface with horizontal depressions.

24.Topsoiling - Methods of preserving and using topsoil in final site grading.

* Vegetation Establishment

25.Temporary seeding - Establishment of temporary vegetative cover on disturbed

areas by seeding with rapidly growing grasses, legumes, and small grains.

26.Permanent seeding - Establishment of permanent grass with sod on fine-graded

disturbed areas.

27.Sodding - Establishment of permanent grass with sod on fine-graded disturbed

areas.

28.Sprigging - Establishment or permanent grass with sprigs on fine-graded

disturbed areas.

29.Trees, shrubs, vines, and ground covers - Establishment of a vegetative cover

of trees, shrubs, vines, or ground cover on disturbed areas.

* Miscellaneous Practices

30.Tree preservation and protection - Protection of desirable trees from

mechanical and other injury during land-disturbing and construction activity.

31.Dust control - Reducing surface and air movement of dust during

land-disturbing activities.

32.Buffer strips - Undisturbed strips of vegetation around the site, which storm

flow is routed through before being discharged.

* Non-structural Practices

1. Regulatory programs (ordinances, etc.)

2. Education

-98-

3. Public Awareness

4. Time wise land disturbance and stabilization - A timetable to disturb only

one section of a construction site, then stabilize it before disturbing any

other areas. This must be coordinated with the construction plan and

timetable.

S. Avoid construction in wetlands.

Four Year Action Plan

The following program presents goals and tasks necessary for South Carolina

to effectively reduce impacts of construction activities on water quality. It

must be noted that accomplishment of these goals and tasks will largely depend

on availability of funding from federal, State, and local sources.

Lead agencies and cooperating agencies are listed for each goal. If an

agency or agencies will be specifically involved in the accomplishment of a

particular task, they will be listed in parentheses by the task.

-99-

Aaencv Abbrevi'ation as shown on the chart are:

BCB - S.C. Budget and Control Board

CD - Soil and Water Conservation Districts

CU - Clemson University

DHEC - S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control

DHPT - S.C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation

LG - Units of Local Government

LRCC S.C. Land Resources Commission

SCS Soil Conservation Service

FC - Forestry Commission

Four Year Plan to Reduce the Impacts of
Pollution from Construction Activities

Goal: Protect surface water and groundwater resources from the
effects of pollution from construction.

Lead Agencies: BCB, DHEC, LRCC
Cooperating Agencies: SCS, CD, LG, DHPT, FC, CU

Calendar Year

1989 1990 1991 1992

Tasks:

1. Draft statewide regulatory
program legislation. (LRCC) X

2. Evaluate current land use,
development, and population
data to more closely iden-
tify areas that are being
effected by both short and
long-term NPS impacts.
(DHEC & LRCC) X X X X

3. Select a watershed in the
Midlands or Piedmont and
one in the Coastal area
of the state to serve as
models for urban storm-
water management and
sediment control on a
watershed basis. (LRCC) X X

4. Establish tests/demonstra-
tions of BMPs, with an
emphasis on the proper
application, design, in-
stallation and maintenance
of practices. (LRCC) X X X X

5. Develop a construction BMP
manual with an emphasis on
the proper application, de-
sign, installation and
maintenance of practices.
(LRCC) X

6. Conduct workshops on the
policy and technical levels.
(LRCC) X X X

7. Conduct workshops for con-
tractors on proper instal-
lation of BMPs. (LRCC) X X X X

8. Develop training programs for
plan review staff and in-
spection and enforcement
staff. (LRCC) X X

9. Develop certification pro-
gram for inspection person-
nel. (LRCC) X

10. Review DHPT projects for
compliance with regula-
tions. (LRCC & DHPT) X X

11. Review Forestry Commission
lands for compliance with
plan. (LRCC & FC) X X

12. Develop standards to measure
NPS impacts and effects of
BMPs. (DHEC & LRCC) X X X

13. Develop a sediment control
standard. (DHEC & LRCC) X X X

14. Monitor water quality
throughout program. (DHEC) X X X X

15. Review BMPs on all waste-
water treatment and trans-
portation facility construc-
tion plans for needed BMPs
to control erosion and/or
stormwater runoff (DHEC) X X X

16. Calibrate a computer model
and database that can be made
available to local governments.
The model could be run on a PC
type computer and give the
decision maker the capability
to quickly and confidently
evaluate NPS impacts of construc-
tion development on a watershed
system. Results of the model
would indicate where adverse
impacts would occur, thus where
controls were needed. (LRCC) X X

-102-

IX. URBAN RUNOFF NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

Control of urban runoff has progressed through several distinct phases in

South Carolina. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, emphasis of the State was

to control sediment to reduce its impact on streams, waterbodies, and the local

infrastructure. As the State continued to experience population growth during

the 1970's, incidence of urban flooding, both nuisance and major flooding,

increased which resulted in local governments adopting stormwater management

ordinances limiting post-development rates of runoff to a pre-development level

for disturbed areas. Finally, as a result of programs started in the 1970's

under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act and further research conducted in the

1980's, South Carolina has come to appreciate the water quality aspects of

controlling urban runoff.

South Carolina has a highly concentrated population. Approximately

two-thirds of the State's citizens live in fifteen of the State's forty-six

counties. These fifteen counties are located in three distinct physiographic

provinces. These areas are the Piedmont, Piedmont-Coastal Plain interface, and

the Coastal Plain. Each of these areas is impacted to varying degrees by

nonpoint source pollution from runoff originating in developing or urban areas.

Population growth and accompanying growth in residential, commercial, and

industrial facilities is occurring at a rapid pace in the State, and barring

unforeseen economic problems, this growth is forecast to continue well into the

future. Today's statistics indicate approximately six percent of the State's

land area is contained in urban or developed land use. In addition,

approximately fifteen percent of the State's land area is being converted to

-103-

urban or developed uses each year. This rate has held fairly constant since

1970. (LRCC-DHEC, 1978)

Water Oualitv Problems Associated with Urban Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater runoff is an important cause of water pollution in South

Carolina. The major identified sources of Urban stormwater pollution include:

(1) vehicular and industrial emissions and leakages, (2) combined sewer

overflows, (3) street and construction litter, (4) nutrients from fertilizers

and animals, (5) pesticides, (6) atmospheric fallout, and (7) deciduous leaves.

Sediment is the greatest pollutant by volume in the State and has received

the most attention both from the public as well as the regulatory community.

However, other pollutants may also be found in urban runoff and their impacts

are beginning to be fully understood.

Plant nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are often found in urban

runoff in sufficient quantities to stimulate algae growth in impoundments or

slow moving streams. Urban runoff can also contain bacteria at levels exceeding

health limits for primary contact. Runoff also contains high levels of oxygen

demanding materials, which can reduce or deplete dissolved oxygen levels in

streams or standing waters. Trace metals, pesticides, and other toxic materials

are also prevalent in urban runoff. In the Washington, D. C. NURP study, 28 out

of 128 toxic chemicals listed by EPA were discovered in samples of urban runoff

(DEP, 1983). Bases on these results, it is reasonable to assume developed areas

in South Carolina would experience similar identification of pollutants.

In the Assessment of NonDoint Source Pollution for the State of South

Carolina (DHEC, 1988), 332 waterbodies in the State were determined to be

impacted by nonpoint source pollution. Forty-three percent of these waterbodies

were impacted by urban runoff. A further breakdown of these impacted sites

indicates that twenty-eight percent of the waterbodies were in the Piedmont,

twelve percent in the Coastal Plain-Piedmont interface, and sixty percent in the

-104-

Coastal Plain." These results are not surprising due to reduced assimilative

capacity of coastal plain streams and, w~terbodies and functioning of these

waterbodies as collection points for upstream pollutants.

Stormwater Manaaement Utilities

Stormwater management efforts for both quantity and quality control have been

traditionally financed through two methods. First, developers, builders, etc.

install stormwater management facilities in new developments for the purpose of

preventing exacerbation of existing flooding or water quality problems and/or

creation of new problems. Second, existing problems are normally corrected

through construction or maintenance activities of local public works departments

through funding from general fund sources. This puts activities to ameliorate

stormwater management problems in direct competition with projects with more

widespread political support limiting monies available to correct stormwater

deficiencies. This situation is further complicated by shrinking budgets

available to local governments.

Several municipalities in the United States have implemented utilities to

correct existing problems and to coordinate efforts to reduce future problems.

Basically, a stormwater utility involves creation of a taxing authority which

assesses all property in a watershed or in several watersheds to provide a

stable funding base to solve problems in the area. This assessment is based an

either millage or on factors such as impervious area.

Several counties and municipalities in South Carolina have expressed interest

in establishing such a program within their jurisdiction. Currently,

comprehensive drainage inventories and computer modelling efforts are underway

for these local governments.

Establishment of a stormwater management utility is one of the priority items

in an urban runoff management plan. Creation of one or more demonstration

utilities using a combination of federal, State, and local grants will allow

-105-

coordinating agencies the opportunity to fine-tune the concept for various

physiographic areas of the State and, to provide the technical assistance

necessary to implement the program statewide.

Research/Study

LRCC is coordinating an eighteen-month study of the Kinley Creek watershed in

cooperation with the University of South Carolina which will evaluate the impact

of stormwater runoff on the watershed. Using results generated from this study,

a computer model will be calibrated which can be used by local governments

statewide to test effects of urban stormwater runoff from new development on

watersheds and indicate the need and placement of BMPs. The study is fully

described in Chapter VIII.

Urban Runoff Proarams

S. C. Coastal Council and S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission

(LRCC) have been designated as coordinating agencies, in conjunction with other

federal, State, local agencies and others to develop strategies to reduce

impacts of urban runoff pollution control. LRCC will have responsibility in all

non-coastal counties and will work jointly with the S.C. Coastal Council to

develop strategies in coastal areas.

Existing and proposed programs which can affect nonpoint source water

pollution in South Carolina are described in the following discussions.

* Coastal Stormwater Management

Through the S.C. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, S. C. Coastal Council

was authorized to develop a coastal zone management plan and review all federal

and State permit applications to ensure compliance with the plan. The South

Carolina Coastal Council Stormwater Manacement Guidelines are utilized as the

Best Management Practice (BMP) guideline for reviewing development proposals

requiring permit and certification decisions within the coastal zone. These

-106-

guidelines are' based upon the authority of the policies and regulations set

forth in the South Carolina Coastal Zone Mtanacement Proaram.

These guidelines are organized in two major sections. The first section

presents different types of activities a certain project may fall under and

corresponding requirements and restrictions-pertaining to that particular class

of projects. The major criteria identifying types of stormwater requirements

necessary are based on location, lot coverage, and land use. At the end of this

first section is a chart which gives an overview of activities which require

stormwater management and which devices and controls are required for each

activity.

The second section presents design standards and requirements for

stormwater management systems. This section is divided into two subsections.

The first subsection addresses requirements on retention and detention systems

with corresponding design criteria. The second subsection outlines different

types of best management practices necessary in managing stormwater management

systems, sediment and erosion control practices, and maintenance requirements.

In addition, S. C. Coastal Council staff works with local units of

government to achieve more comprehensive implementation of these guidelines.

"Critical areas" are defined as coastal waters, tidelands, beaches, and

beach/dune systems which is the area from the mean high water mark to the

setback line as determined in Section 48-39-280 of the 1988 Coastal Zone

Management Act. These areas receive the most attention through the direct

permitting system while projects in the remainder of the coastal zone are

permitted in cooperation with other State and local agencies. Two planning

services are also provided by the S. C. Coastal Council. Through the "Special

Area Management Plan" (SAMP), local governments can utilize S. C. Coastal

Council staff to obtain planning information on existing and proposed

development projects. Through this service, governmental entities are supplied

-107-

with specific"and general planning tools for NPS control in coastal areas.

Through the "Shore Front Management Plan","the S. C. Coastal Council provides

coastal communities with assistance relating to beach erosion and coastal

development.

* NPDES Permits

Before issuing NPDES permits or State construction permits to municipal,

private, domestic, or industrial waste treatment plants, Department of Health

and Environmental Control staff considers the potential for contamination of

stormwater runoff from the plant site. If necessary, DHEC can require best

management practices (BMPs) to control runoff. Monitoring of stormwater may

also be required. Although large municipalities collect stormwater runoff, it

is discharged untreated into nearby streams and rivers.

A separate category of urban stormwater includes runoff collected by storm

sewers and usually discharged into streams and other waterbodies without benefit

of treatment. The 1987 Water Quality Act required, in Section 402(p), large

city storm sewers and all industrial facility storm sewers be permitted under

the NPDES system by February 1991. This includes municipalities having separate

storm sewer systems serving a population of more than 250,000. Municipalities

serving populations between 100,000 and 250,000 must have permits by February

1993. Storm sewer permit provisions include a requirement to "reduce the

discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable", including management

practices, control techniques, system design and engineering methods, and such

other provisions as the Administrator and the State determine appropriate for

control of such pollutants.

*South Carolina Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act

The S. C. Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act increases and more

specifically defines statewide responsibilities of S. C. Land Resources

Conservation Commission and Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) in

-108-

regard to erosion and sediment control. In addition, statewide stormwater

management is added to the resppnsibilities~of LRCC and the Districts.

The Act addresses all land except mines that are regulated by the S. C.

Mining Act and beach erosion, which is addressed by the S. C. Coastal Council.

The Act requires the LRCC to implement a statewide erosion and sediment

reduction and stormwater management program. This program includes regulations

on State owned and managed land; studies and technical assistance to identify

and assist in correcting problems; development of technical standards and

manuals; educational materials; demonstration of conservation technology;

conferences; assistance to local governments in developing programs, ordinances

and policies; and construction of flood prevention projects.

As part of implementation of the Act, LRCC developed a best management

practices guidebook, Erosion and Sediment Control for DeveloDinq Areas, (LRCC,

1985), which has been adopted as a suggested reference by local governments in

the State. LRCC staff is also involved in providing technical assistance to

local governments, landowners, developers, and the technical community through

workshops, seminars, field visits, etc.

Special emphasis is being placed on treatment of stormwater management and

sediment control as a single issue. Water quality is stressed as an integral

component of stormwater management in addition to runoff volumes and rates.

SWCDs are responsible for providing leadership for implementation of local

erosion, sediment and stormwater programs through technical assistance,

demonstration, and coordination of efforts among governmental agencies,

organizations, and landowners and users.

The Act requires the Governor to appoint a State Advisory Council on

Erosion and Sediment Reduction and requires each SWCD to appoint a Local

Advisory Council on Erosion and Sediment Reduction. The advisory councils are

charged with examining erosion, sediment and stormwater problems; reviewing

-109-

existing programs and recommending new approaches where deemed necessary; and

assisting in program development and imp~leffntation.

Each SWCD must submit an annual report to LRCC and the Commission is

required to submit periodic reports to the Governor and General Assembly.

State and quasi-state agencies must use-proper erosion and sediment control

and stormwater management measures on land they own or manage. Approximately

800,000 acres of land are under jurisdiction of State and quasi-state agencies.

Land-disturbing activities on State land must be conducted in accordance

with regulations and programs developed pursuant to the Act. These requirements

are administered by S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission, State

Engineer, Division of General Services, S. C. Budget and Control Board, S. C.

Department of Highways and Public Transportation; and S. C. Forestry Commission.

Regulations require LRCC to inspect State land to identify erosion,

sediment, and stormwater problems. Problems are reported to appropriate

agencies, which are responsible for making corrections pursuant to plans

approved by the LRCC.

The Commission has a Land Resources Engineering Division to carry out the

technical work of the agency's erosion, sediment, and stormwater program.

Division staff include registered professional engineers, hydrologists,

agricultural engineers, civil engineers, and registered land surveyors. The

work of this staff includes detailed watershed analyses on stormwater management

and sediment control, technical assistance for the design of sediment control

and stormwater management systems, development of technical manuals, inspection

of construction plans and projects in conjunction with S.C. Department of

Highways and Public Transportation and the State Engineer, and

demonstration/testing of conservation technology.

-110-

A network'of computer hardware and software provides techni cal support for

these tasks. Collaborative efforts established with university engineering

departments form a strong base for assisting communities and local governments

having a need for state-of-the-practice technology in erosion and sediment

control and stormwater management. The USDA Soil Conservation Service also

provides technical assistance in the control of urban stormwater runoff to State

and local units of government, developers, consultants, and individuals.

S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission receives State appropriations

for construction of community flood prevention projects whose benefits include

improved stormwater management and better operation of septic tanks and public

sewer systems. Projects are implemented in conjunction with SWCDs, local

governments, the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and landowners.
*Local Programs

Eighteen counties and several municipalities have adopted erosion and

sediment control and/or storm drainage ordinances. Sediment control ordinances

have been adopted pursuant to the County Sediment Control Program Act passed by

the General Assembly in 1971. Counties in coastal areas which adopted

stormwater management programs have done so to comply with S. C. Coastal Council

requirements. However, inland counties have adopted stormwater programs

pursuant to powers granted them under home rule, zoning, etc. It must be

pointed out that only programs in coastal areas address water quality

specifically. Inland programs are more oriented to erosion and sediment control

and stormwater quantity control programs. However, water quality improvements

can be achieved under these programs. These local programs have all been

adopted voluntarily by the respective jurisdictions. None of the current Ilaws

in effect in South Carolina require adoption of these local programs.

*Proposed Legislation

A bill to enact a statewide regulatory stormwater management and sediment

control prograbff has been introduced i n both Houses of the General Assembly. The

proposed Stormwater Management. and Sediment Reduction Acts calls for LRCC to

develop and implement a statewide program for land-disturbing activities on

private land in conjunction with Conservation Districts; federal, State, and

local government agencies; and other entities as appropriate. The legislation

is a companion statute to the Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act which

established a regulatory program for State owned and managed land.

The proposed legislation addresses construction and maintenance for

land-disturbing activities undertaken for purposes other than agricultural and

timber production, mining activities regulated by the S.C. Mining Act, and

single family residences.

The proposed legislation authorizes and directs LRCC to require all

land-disturbing activities be conducted in accordance with stormwater management

and sediment control plans approved either at the State or local level. These

plans must include measures, for stormwater management (both quantity and

quality) and sediment control during land-disturbing activity as well as

maintenance of stormwater facilities throughout the life of the facility. No

land-disturbing activities adjacent to a waterbody or watercourse would be

allowed without use of a buffer zone between the land-disturbing activity and

the water sufficient to confine visible sediment within 25 percent of the buffer

zone nearer the land-disturbing activity. This provision would not apply to

activities in connection with construction of facilities to be located on, over,

or under a waterbody or watercourse. Other requirements in the proposed

legislation include ensuring that after development, runoff from the site

approximates the rate of flow, volume, and timing of runoff that would have

occurred following the same rainfall under, to the extent practicable,

pre-development conditions; maintaining natural hydrodynamic characteristics of

the watershed as nearly as possible; protecting or restoring quality of surface

-112-

and groundwaters; ensuring sediment damage during and after development is

minimized; and protecting beneficial func~tion of wetlands. LRCC would have

jurisdiction over land-disturbing activities crossing local government

jurisdictional boundaries conducted by entities with power of eminent domain.

Each local government would have the option of implementing its own program

in conjunction with the applicable Conservation District or allowing LRCC to

implement the program in the local jurisdiction in conjunction with the

District. Two or more local units of government would be authorized to

establish joint programs. All State and locally administered programs.would be

based on regulations promulgated by LRCC which would include a model ordinance,

technical standards, maintenance requirements, and a minimum fee schedule to

support costs of plan review and site inspections.

Programs adopted by local governments would be subject to approval and

periodic review by LRCC, including programs previously adopted by local

governments and in effect at time of passage of the legislation. LRCC would

have authority to assume enforcement of any program found deficient in

administration or enforcement until such time that local government indicates

its willingness and ability to resume implementation.

Land-disturbing sites would be inspected periodically to monitor compliance

with stormwater management and sediment control plans for sites and to determine

whether off-site damages have occurred as a result of runoff from the site.

Enforcement actions would include written compliance notices and directive

notices to comply, stop-work orders, and civil and criminal prosecution.

BMPs for Protection of Water Quality from Urban Stormwater Runoff
Both structural (requiring construction) and non-structural (regulations,

policies, maintenance, etc.) BMPs are applicable in reducing the impacts of

pollution from storm runoff.

The following list contains construction BMPs currently in use in South

Carolina. Based on computer simulations 'and watershed demonstrations, other

BMPs may be added to the list and existing BMPs may be modified.

* Transporting Stormwater Off-site

1. Sheet flow - usually requires only grading and seeding during construction.

2. Swales - Grassed low areas graded at a minimum of 4:1 side slopes.

3. Rock-lined ditches - A conventionally constructed ditch with a layer of loose

gravel type rock material lining the bottom.

* Collection - Distribution

4. Oil and grease filtering catch basins - Structures designed to collect and

distribute runoff coming from parking areas.

5. Raised catch basins - Catch basins constructed so that the top lip of the

catch basis is raised 1 to 2 inches above the surrounding swale or surface

elevation.

6. Dual compartment catch basins - Similar to other catch basin designs except

that they contain multi-compartments.

7. Dry wells-seepage pits - Cavities dug into the ground and filled with gravel

or rocks.

8. Retain natural vegetation - As much existing vegetation as possible should be

retained on a given site.

9.Buffer strips - Vegetation should be created or retained along the banks or

edges of all waterbodies and wetlands.

1O.Parking lot planting areas - Areas within a parking lot set aside for

planting or shrubbery.

11.Detention Pond - A water impoundment made by constructing a dam or embankment

or by excavating a pit to detain stormwater and discharge it at a controlled

rate.

12.Retention Pond - A water impoundment made by constructing a dam or embankment

or by excavating a pit to retain stormwater and discharge a controlled

volume.

13.Revegetation as soon as possible after soil disturbance.

14.Building setback - Buildings and other structures associated with development

projects should be set back from marsh or waterfront locations.

15.Discharge structures - Final elevation of a stormwater discharge outlet is at

or above the edge of critical areas.

16.Erosion control fabrics, blankets or nets to provide protective covering.

17.Chemical soil binders - Chemicals which bind the surface of the soil together

and can be used to hold mulch and seeds in place while preventing erosion.

18.Dikes and berms or level spreaders - Linear ridges of earth used to control

runoff.

19.Culvert riser - An upward extending, perforated pipe fitted over the intake

area of a culvert.

*Roof Drainage

20.Discharge locations - A system for collecting, controlling, and disposing of

runoff water from roofs.

21.Roof storage - Roof areas used to store water for a detention or retention

device.

* Paving Material

22.Minimize impervious surfaces - Many surfaces can be made pervious or modified

to reduce the impact of flooding during rainy weather (2).

23.Pervious asphalt paving - Pervious asphalt allows water to pass through the

surface and is infiltrated into the subsurface soils.

24.Paving blocks - Used to support automobile traffic and still leave enough

unpaved area to allow infiltration to occur.

-115-

25.Other pavement surfaces (coquina, gravel, oyster shell) - Surfaces suitable

for use in lightly traveled areas.

* Construction Practices

26.Silt fences, hay bales, or other approved erosion control measures properly

installed around storm sewer inlets and boundaries of disturbed areas.

27.Temporary check dams - Used to slow stream flow and allow sediment to be

deposited.

28.Temporary vegetation or straw cover - Use in exposed areas especially

susceptible to erosion.

* Discharge Treatment

29.Physical, chemical, biological, or mixed methods of treating storm runoff.

* Non-structural

30.Regulations.

31.Public awareness.

32.Street cleaning.

33.Street flushing.

34.Catch basin flushing.

35.Maintenance of existing structures and systems.

36.Use natural freshwater wetland areas to effect favorable modification of

urban pollutant loads.

Four Year Action Plan

The following chart presents goals and tasks necessary for South Carolina

to effectively reduce impacts of urban runoff on water quality. It must be

noted that accomplishment of these goals and tasks will largely depend on

availability of funding from federal, State, and local sources.

-116-

Lead agevncies and cooperating agencies are listed for each goal'. If an

agency or agencies will be specifically' involved in accomplishment of a

particular task, they are listed in parentheses by the task.

Anencv Abbreviations on the Chart Are:

CC - S.C. Coastal Council

CO - Soil and Water Conservation Districts

CU - Clemson University

DHEC - S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control

DHPT - S.C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation

LRCC - S.C. Land Resources Commission

SCS - Soil Conservation Service

Four Year Plan to Reduce the Impacts of
Pollution from Urban Runoff

Goal: Protect surface water and groundwater resources from the
effects of pollution from urban runoff.

Lead Agencies: CC, DHEC, LRCC
Cooperating Agencies: SCS, CD, WMR, DHPT, CU

Calendar Year
1989 1990 1991 1992

Tasks:
1. Seek federal, state, and
local funding for program. X X X X

2. Conduct state-wide storm-
water and water quality
workshops both on the
policy and technical
levels. (LRCC) X X X X

3. Conduct workshops for con-
tractors on the proper in-
stallation of BMPs (LRCC) X X X X

4. Conduct demonstrations and
computer simulations to
determine the effects of
various BMP strategies
under S.C. climate and soil
conditions. (LRCC & CU) X

5. Develop BMP manuals which
specifically address water
quality based on demonstra-
tions and computer simula-
tions in South Carolina.
(CC & LRCC) X

6. Collect additional data on
urban stormwater runoff and
impacts on receiving waters.
(CC, DHEC, & LRCC) X X X X

7. Utilize data to calibrate
water quality parameters in
stormwater management models.
(DHEC & LRCC) X X

8. Draft a state-wide, regulatory
program for stormwater manage-
ment and sediment control..
(LRCC) X

9. Implement NPDES permit require-
ments for stormwater discharge.
(DHEC) X X

10. Implement alternatives for
stormwater management (i.e.,
utilities, impact fees, per-
mit fees, use of revolving
loan fund). (CC & LRCC) X X X X

11. Assist as many as 18 beach-
front communities in developing
programs to address urban
stormwater runoff problems and
to develop local Shore Front
Management Plans. (CC) X X

12. Calibrate a computer model and
database which can be made
available to local governments.
The model could be run on a PC
type computer and give the
decision maker the capability
to quickly and confidently
evaluate NPS impacts of con-
struction development on a
watershed system. Results of
the model would indicate where
adverse impacts would occur,
thus where controls were
needed. (LRCC) X X

X. MINING NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

South Carolina's mineral production consists of non-fuel minerals that

provide raw materials for construction products and the beginnings of a precious

metal industry. Mineral production data reported to the U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Mines, indicate that the mining industry in South Carolina

produced $314.4 million of non-fuel mineral commodities in 1987. This

represents an increase of six percent over 1986 production figures and is the

fourth consecutive year of increased mineral production.

Portland cement, clays (kaolin and brick), sand and gravel, and crushed

stone represented $270 million, or 86 percent of the total mineral value.

Nationally, South Carolina ranked twenty-fourth in 1987 in total mineral value

and was thirteenth among the 26 eastern states. At the end of fiscal year

1987-1988, there were 483 mining operations in South Carolina affecting nearly

12,000 acres. Presently there are three gold mining operations in South Carolina

with active exploration continuing.

Surface Minina NPS Problems

Surface mining has the potential to generate nonpoint source pollution at

any and all phases of operation. These phases include mineral exploration, mine

development, extraction, transportation, milling and processing, product

storage, waste disposal and reclamation. Since each mineral commodity occurs

under a differing range of geologic, hydrologic, climatic, and surface

conditions, each mine site is characterized by its own particular set of

potential surface water and/or groundwater pollutants. Nonpoint source impacts

related to mining activities generally include hydrologic modification, erosion

-120-

and sedimentation, water quality deterioration, fish and wildlife disturbances,

and public nuisances.
*Hydrologic Modification

Activities associated with mining can result in changes in the hydrologic

cycle of the local area. Removing vegetation and topsoil can cause an increase

in surface runoff and subsequent decreases in infiltration to the groundwater

system. Soil erosion also frequently results, and resulting sediment can move

to the bottom of slopes, clogging streams and increasing flood damage over the

floodplain. Stream diversion, which is sometimes necessary to recover minerals,

can have a significant effect on water quality and quantity to downstream

locations. Dredging operations may change a stream's characteristics by

increasing its ability to carry water and, thus, may cause increased drainage

from wetland systems and increased water movement during flooding. Placement of

fill or removal of minerals from wetlands can alter the hydrologic function of

these resource areas significantly.

Changes to the groundwater system are more subtle and usually of larger

extent. Change in water quality of the aquifer due to introduction of foreign

materials may not be detected for months or years. Groundwater recharge may be

increased or decreased as a result of mining activities. Dewatering activities

can result in changes in surrounding land use by dropping pond levels, drying up

surrounding wetlands, reducing soil moisture in neighboring farmlands and

lowering water levels in nearby wells.

Where groundwater is present in limestone terrain, -special problems can

develop when water levels are changed. Because limestone is soluble, over long

periods the groundwater within the formation dissolves the limestone, leaving

voids which fill with water. When water is pumped out of the formation as in

the case of a mining operation, the soil above these voids is left without any

support and often collapses.

Hydrologi'd changes associated with mining activities may result in

inducement of salt water intrusion or, in'teraquifer flows resulting in fresh

water contamination. Hydrologic modification can not only degrade surface water

and groundwater quality, but also may produce damaging modifications to habitats

of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
*Erosion and Sedimentation

Erosion and sedimentation are by far the most common adverse effects mining

has on the environment. These effects include water quality degradation from

excessive sediment and potential for fluctuation in pH, resulting from various

soil (overburden) types.

Erosion is a natural geologic process which can be accelerated when

vegetation is removed and land is disturbed by mining activities. The major

agents of erosion are water, wind, and gravity. Of the three, running water is

the most significant. An important factor of the water erosion process is the

balance between infiltration and runoff. Increased runoff leads to accelerated

erosion.

Areas in and around the active extraction pit are subject to extensive

erosive action. Unpaved haul and access roads are vulnerable to erosion as well

as areas cleared for preparation of plant sites or other mine site structures.

Stockpiles of soil, waste fines, and other materials can be eroded easily due to

steep slope angles and the presence of fine-grained materials. Outlets from

drainage ditches and dewatering trenches are also subject to erosion due to the

concentration and velocity of large water volumes. Erosion of soil either in

place or from stockpiles presents a dual problem. Not only is there a potential

for sediment problem, but the soil itself is being lost.

Formation of sediment and resulting sedimentation are primary nonpoint

source pollutants associated with mining. Sediment can be generated from

erosion of any area of a land-based operation or from dredging of waterways.

-122-

Dredging stirs~'bottom sediment and suspends it in water. Onshore processing of

dredged material also can contribute sediment to nearby streams or lakes.

Sediment muddies water and is visually unappealing. Sediment can be

deposited in stream channels, impede flow, change the stream course, and

possibly change flooding characteristics.- When a stream enters a lake,

reservoir, or other body of water, flow velocity is reduced where suspended

solids are deposited. As a result, water holding capacities can be reduced, and

navigation can ultimately be disrupted. During floods, sediment can be

deposited on farmland and other valuable lowland property.

Sediment can damage fish and aquatic life habitat by blocking gills,

covering eggs or spawning areas with silt, and reducing aquatic production.

Sediment can reduce dissolved oxygen level and exclude sunlight, and it can

reduce microscopic plant growth, thereby reducing food for organisms in the food

chain. Suspended sediment could prevent use of water for domestic purposes;

increase water treatment costs; and damage pipes, pumps, and other water

distribution systems. Sediment could potentially carry other pollutants, such

as pesticides and bacteria.

*Water Quality

Nonpoint source water pollution originating from mine sites is generally a

result of one of two actions. The first of these actions is direct introduction

of mining and processing substances into a waterbody. Pollutants entering the

water may include acids, alkalis, oils, mine sewage, organic reagents,

sediments, and dissolved and suspended solids. Water pollution may also be

caused by interception or diversion of all or part of a water source. This

change in the quantity of water may not only limit the amount of water available

for human and industrial consumption, but may alter the composition of natural

biological communities. In addition, any natural pollutants present in water

may tend to be concentrated. Generally, water pollution from mining operations

-12-3-

is more the result of direct introduction than interception or diversion. A

majority of these direct sources of poll'Ution come from physical pollution

caused by surface water erosion and from chemical pollution caused by direct

discharge of mine drainage. In some instances, nonpoint source pollution may

result from a combination of these causes.-

In the case of peat mining, water quality problems include increases in

organic carbon, significant increases in phosphorus and nitrogen loading,

fluctuations in pH levels, and increased concentrations of some heavy metals

(i.e., mercury, lead, copper). Organic carbon would be deposited into streams

as a result of erosion and drainage. This loading would increase carbon

concentrations normally found in adjacent surface waters, promote microbial

activity, and increase biochemical and chemical oxygen demand. Peat soils are

generally low in phosphorus and nitrogen; however, increased discharges will

increase concentrations in adjacent waters. The overall effect would be an

increase in bacterial and algal productivity in these waters. The normally

acidic effluent from peat mining operations tends 'to lower the pH of the

receiving stream. Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrients (phosphorus

and nitrogen) in combination with the low pH waters could lead to fluctuations

in pH over a 24-hour period. Most peatlands have been found to contain heavy

metals such as copper, mercury, lead, and nickel. Any discharge could

contribute to background levels found in adjacent streams.

South Carolina ranks second nationally in the production of kaolin. Mine

spoils associated with extraction of this mineral vary in concentration of

elements and particle size distribution. Soil reaction of spoil materials

ranges from approximately pH 1.8 to 8. Major toxicity is associated with low pH

and high concentrations of iron and suspended solids. Infiltration capacity and

erodibility of spoil material is related to length and steepness of slope'

sand-clay ratio, and extent of crusting and compaction in the surface layer.

-124-

Though potenti'al exists for water quality degradation from both active and

abandoned mines, abandoned kaolin mines pOose the greatest threat to water

quality since there are generally no controls for erosion and/or off-site

drainage.

Acid mine drainage in South Carolina i's usually confined to areas where

sulfide minerals, particularly pyrite, are found in association with other

minerals being mined. These minerals are generally found in the Piedmont of

South Carolina, particularly in mineralized zones of the Carolina Slate Belt and

the Kings Mountain Belt. Once these sulfide minerals are exposed to the

atmosphere, treatment of acid mine drainage for stream protection involves

neutralization of acidity and removal of dissolved ions. Nonpoint drainage from

abandoned mines has the greatest potential for chemical water pollution.

South Carolina has the only active gold mining operations located in the

eastern United States. Nonpoint effluent from both active and inactive gold

mining operations may pose a real threat to both surface and groundwater

quality. Pre-law sites that involved tailings deposition have the potential to

impact surface water quality through sediment load created by mass movement of

tailings material downstream and to influence both surface and groundwater

quality through oxidation of metallic sulfides.
*Fish and Wildlife Disturbances

Extraction of mineral resources by surface mining and associated

environmental disturbances affect fish and wildlife populations by altering

habitats. The degree to which wildlife will be affected generally depends on

pre-mine planning, size of operation, length of time the operation exists,

installation of pollution control measures, and reclamation designed to enhance

fish and wildlife.

The majority of mining in South Carolina involves small scale operations

(1-150) acres, and the effect on wildlife is usually displacement caused by

-125-

pre-mine land ctlearing, mineral removal, and mine traffic. In most instances,

impacts on wildlife are short-term. Mjind' pollutants such as fugitive dust,

stream sedimentation, noise, chemicals, and fuel spills may create an

unfavorable environment for wildlife. These pollutants can affect wildlife

habitat directly by destroying vegetation,' altering water supplies, silting

streams, generating noise, and changing water quality. Fish and wildlife

habitat may also be destroyed through hydrologic modification. The greatest

potential for effects on fish and wildlife from nonpoint sources is from

sediment loading of streams and/or direct ingestion or contact with chemical

pollutants.

*Public Nuisances

Mining in general can be very irritating to the public, especially near

populated areas or near picturesque landscapes. Many of the effects of mining

on the surrounding community related to nonpoint source pollution have already

been discussed. Hydrologic modification can alter stream characteristics and

increase flooding. Dewatering activities can drop pond levels, reduce soil

moisture in neighboring farmlands and lower water levels in nearby wells.

Sinkholes may develop in limestone terrain as a result of dewatering. Erosion

and sedimentation are visually unappealing and may result in property damage.

Wildlife habitat can be altered, changing the recreational use of the

surrounding areas. Chemical pollutants can cause public health concerns by

affecting drinking water and stock ponds.

*Abandoned Mined Lands

The South Carolina Mining Act serves as part of an overall management plan

for effective control of water pollution from permitted mining operations.

Before mining permits are issued, provisions must be made to ensure there will

be no significant or adverse water pollution impacts from nonpoint sources.

However, control of NPS pollution from pre-Law or abandoned mines poses a more

-126-

difficult probTem because of access restrictions, costs, and lack of re~gulatory

controls.

The S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission conducted an abandoned

mined lands inventory in 1979 and identified over 14,000 acres of abandoned

lands, of which 6,033 acres had not been r'eclaimed. Of acres not reclaimed,

3,948.8 acres were identified as having moderate to severe off-site siltation

and/or surface conditions that would require major efforts for reclamation.

Specific information regarding effects of nonpoint source pollution was not

obtained from this study.

Existina Proaram DescriDtion

The South Carolina Mining Act (Title 48, Ch. 19, S. C. Code 1976, as

amended) was passed by the S. C. General Assembly in June, 1973, with an

effective date of July 1, 1974, and designated primary regulatory responsibility

to the South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission. Within the

Commission, the Division of Mining and Reclamation is responsible for

administering and implementing the South Carolina Mining Act and its

implementing regulations (Ch. 48, Article 1, S.C. Code 1976, as amended).

The Mining Act provides: "That the usefulness, productivity, and scenic

values of all lands and waters involved in mining within the State shall receive

the greatest practical degree of protection and restoration," and "That from the

effective date of the Act, no mining shall be carried on in the state unless

plans for such mining include reasonable provisions for protection of the

surrounding environment and for reclamation of the area of land affected by

mining." Enforcement of the Act is through approval of reclamation plans,

issuance of mining permits, collection of reclamation bonds, regular inspection

of mining operations, development of technical standards, and publishing of

informational manuals.

-127-

*The Permittin~g Process

The Mining Act serves as. part of an bVerall management plan for nonpoint

source pollution from active mines. Section 48-19-50 of the Act states that
Hany operator desiring to engage in mining shall make a written application to

the Department on the forms furnished 'by the Department. A completed

application consists of one copy of the form entitled Application for a Mining

Permit; two copies of the form entitled Reclamation Plan; one copy of the form

entitled Land Entry Agreement-Owner or one copy of the form entitled Land Entry

Agreement-Lessor/Lessee." Supplemental information may be required after the

Department reviews the operator's application for permit.

The Application for a Mining Permit requires an operator to address

protection of natural resources, including fish and wildlife, publicly owned

facilities, stream beds and lakes, and to describe potential sources of nonpoint

pollution such as pumping of groundwater, deposition of sediments, landslides,

and acid water pollution. The basic objective of the Reclamation Plan is to

establish on a continuing basis, a vegetative cover, soil stability, and water

and safety conditions appropriate to the area.

Specific items to be addressed include: (1) methods to prevent or eliminate

conditions which will be hazardous to animal or fish life in or adjacent to the

affected area; (2) method of restoring or establishing stream channels and

stream banks to a condition which will minimize erosion and sedimentation; (3)

method for control of contaminants and disposal of refuse including tailings;

(4) measures to prevent collection and retention of small pools of water which

are likely to become noxious, odious or foul; and (5) a time schedule of

reclamation activities, particularly those relating to erosion control, which

are keyed to the maps required by the regulations.

Once an operator has submitted a completed application to the Department,

an extensive review process begins. A notice of intent to mine is advertised

-128-

once a week for two consecutive weeks in a local or areawide newspaper with a

circulation in the area of the proposed mine. Copies of the application are

sent to S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to determine

requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits as well as possible DHEC wastewater- construction permit requirements.

If the proposed mine affects any navigable waters or is located in a capacity

use area, copies are sent to S. C. Water Resources Commission. If the proposed

mine is located in one of the eight coastal counties, S. C. Coastal Council

receives a copy of the application for certification. S. C. Coastal Council

reviews each project to assess potential impacts on natural resources in the

coastal zone, and to ensure that these projects are in compliance with the

Coastal Zone Management Act. Additional copies may be sent to S. C. Wildlife

and Marine Resources Department, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Soil

Conservation Service, and to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers when appropriate.

At least one and perhaps several pre-permit inspections are conducted by

the staff person assigned to the area plus the biologist and the reclamation

specialist and/or the hydrologist where deemed necessary. The biologist

conducts an environmental appraisal to determine the pre-mining conditions and

to identify possible environmental impacts of the operation. Potential nonpoint

sources of pollution are identified and discussed with the mine operator and

appropriate state officials, and the application is modified to reflect any

mitigation measures.

Section 6 of the Mining Act gives the Department authority to apply

additional terms and conditions to a permit " as may be deemed necessary by the

Department to assure that the operation will comply fully with the requirements

of the Act." Violations of any such conditions are treated as violations of the

Act. Site-specific concerns regarding nonpoint source pollution are often

addressed in this manner. Section 89-9(B) of the Rules and Regulations lists

-129-

specific terms9 and conditions that may be incorporated into a permit relating to

sediment and erosion control .and protection of surface waters from dredging

operations and dewatering measures. After the application package has been

reviewed, public notice requirements met, and the environmental appraisal

performed, the application is either ''approved, approved with stated

modifications, or disapproved. For those applications which require public

hearings, the application is taken before the Board of S. C. Land Resources

Conservation Commission for final action.

The Act states that the Department shall deny a permit to mine upon

finding:

(1) that any requirement of this act or any rule or regulation promulgated

hereunder will be violated by the proposed operation;

(2) that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on wildlife or

freshwater, estuarine, or marine fisheries;

(3) that the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface

water quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by

the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control;

(4) that the operation will constitute a substantial physical hazard to a

neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital, commercial or

industrial building, public road, or other public property;

(5) that the operation will have a significant adverse effect on the

purposes of a publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;

(6) that previous experience with similar operations indicates a

substantial possibility that the operation will result in substantial

deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid

water pollution; or

-130-

(7) that''the operator has not corrected all violations which he''may have

committed under any prior permit'and which resulted in (a) revocation

of his permit, (b) forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other

security, (c) conviction of a misdemeanor under Section 19, or (d) any

other court order issued under Sction 19.
*Reclamation Bond

Following approval by the Division of Mining and Reclamation, and/or by the

Commission as appropriate, the applicant is notified of the date of approval,

the amount of reclamation bond, the date by which the bond must be posted, and

the terms and conditions of the permit. Once the reclamation bond is received,

a permit to mine is issued to the applicant and a copy of the approved

reclamation plan is sent to the local Soil and Water Conservation District.

Section 9 of the Act specifies the amount of performance bond required for

the first 25 acres. The Department may require a bond in excess of $259000 for

25 or more acres where a greater bond is necessary to ensure reclamation and

environmental protection as provided by the Act. In some instances the bond

amount is quite large where mining occurs in areas of documented environmental

problems or where there is a great potential for environmental degradation, such

as in precious metal mining.
*Inspections

Mining operations generally are inspected by the Commission 2 to 3 times a

year to esure compliance with the Mining Act, Rules and Regulations, and the

approved application and reclamation plan. Section 89-10 and Section 89-28 of

the Rules and Regulations give specific standards for environmental protection

and land reclamation related to nonpoint source pollution. For example, Section

89-10(B) lists standards for the placement of overburden and spoil so as not to

result in deposits of sediment in streams, lakes, or an adjacent property, or to

interfere with proper drainage. These standards are designed to prohibit

-131-

environmental'degradation or degradation of scenic values of non-permitted areas

resulting from sedimentation or water pollution during mining and upon final

reclamat ion.

Generally, a mine operator is present during an inspection at which time

the site is checked for permitted acreage, adequate sediment and erosion

control, adequate surface and groundwater protection, discharges of any kind,

fish and wildlife disturbances, public safety, impacts on neighboring property,

and reclamation. These inspections continue throughout the life of the mine and

until the site has been reclaimed completely in accordance with the Rules and

Regulations and the requirements of the reclamation plan. Where voluntary

compliance is not achieved, the Mining Act gives the Department authority to

pursue enforcement action through civil penalties, injunctive relief, permit

revocation and/or bond forfeiture.
*Coordination With Other Agencies

In addition to the enforcement program, LRCC staff provides technical

assistance to mine owners and operators concerning the design and installation

of BMPs during mining and reclamation. The staff has the expertise to provide

site specific information including design and construction of sediment and

erosion control structures, hydrologic monitoring and recharge devices, wildlife

protection and habitat restoration, and various types of reclamation. The

Commission works very closely with other State agencies not only during the

permitting process, but also in the implementation of a site-specific management

plan which controls surface and groundwater nonpoint source pollution. In

addition, the USDA Soil Conservation Service provides technical assistance with

a wide range of conservation practices to units of government, landowners, and

landusers. Many mining companies have long-range conservation plans on file

with the local Soil and Water Conservation District, through which SCS provides

technical assistance.

-132-

The Commi'Ssion coordinates activities associated with administration of the

Mining Act with the South Carolina Mining C'duncil. This is an independent body,

created by the South Carolina Legislature, with members from State government,

the mining industry, non-governmental conservation interests, and water and air

resource management. The Council's responsibilities include promulgating rules

and regulations providing for administration of the Act and serving as the first

line of appeal for any decision or determination made by the Division of Mining

and Reclamation.

The Division defers matters relating to the promulgation of State water

quality standards to S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. As

part of an NPDES application, DHEC requires that a mine operator develop and

implement a BMP plan that controls runoff from oil and water substances from all

mines and sodium cyanide, oils, and acids from gold mines. Every NPDES permit

issued for a mining operation by DHEC carries this provision. The permit

requires that the permittee develop and implement the plan prior to mining and

throughout the duration of the permit. When a mine closes operations, it must

submit to DHEC a closure program for the mine's waste treatment facility.

*Research and Education

In addition to providing technical assistance, the Division is involved in

research to develop or refine technical standards. Section 23 of the Act

specifically states that the Department may cooperate with any federal, State,

or local government or agency of this or any other state, in mutual programs to

improve the enforcement of the Act, including research. Studies conducted by

the Division relating to nonpoint source pollution include a revegetation study

on deep sand mines and a contracted hydrologic investigation of sinkhole

occurrence associated with the mining of limestone deposits.

Information gained from research projects is distributed to mine operators

as part of an overall goal of education. Representatives from the staff

-1-33-

participate in' seminars for mine operators to enhance knowledge of the Act and

usage of best management practices. The, Division has published several booklets

including a handbook of recommended practices for mine operators. The staff

conducts technical programs for radio, television, civic groups and schools to

improve public awareness of mining. Memberg of the Division regularly attend

conferences and workshops to gain information on various aspects of mining and

reclamation.

Nonooint Source Manaaement Needs

The mining program has some specific needs regarding nonpoint source

management. With an overall increase in mining permit applications, including

precious metal mining, a great deal of staff time is consumed with the permit

review process. One person is assigned full time to the three gold mining

operations, which is barely adequate to ensure permit compliance and

environmental protection. The remaining five field staff are responsible for

environmental appraisals, addressing special problems, assisting in reclamation

and conducting inspections on the other 480 mining operations. Additional

funding for increased staff would allow the Division to conduct more

inspections, particularly of mines located in environmentally sensitive areas.

Another program need is funding for research projects. Many existing and

potential nonpoint source problems have been identified, but there is inadequate

staff and funding to conduct in-depth investigations of these problems. With an

increase in mining in sensitive areas such as wetlands along with an expansion

of the gold industry, there is an additional need for technical training to

ensure environmental protection and to provide technical assistance in the

selection, design and installation of BMPs. A heightened emphasis would be

placed on improving water quality in addition to runoff control, and to better

address groundwater impacts.

-134-

The Minin'g Act needs to be strengthened in certain areas relating to

nonpoint pollution. Some propos-ed amendnients would include:

1. a Certificate of Exploration for test pits or other areas two acres or

less requiring an abbreviated application and reclamation plan to

provide for environmental protection;

2. add closure and post-closure activities to the definition of

reclamation and the reclamation plan for precious and other metal

mines and other mining operations which incorporate chemicals or

substances which alter "natural" compositions and/or chemical

complexes of mine refuse;

3. incorporate provisions for the protection of groundwater quantity;

4. incorporate provisions for the protection of significant cultural

and/or historical sites;

5. incorporate provisions for the protection of wetlands;

6. give the Department authority to require Environmental Assessment for

certain types of mining;

7. give the Department authority to require an Environmental (Financial)

Assurance bond for certain types of mining;

8. give the Department authority to assess civil penalties for

unpermitted mining operations.

The Mining Act has no jurisdiction on lands affected by mining and

abandoned prior to its effective date of July 1, 1974. The abandoned mined

lands inventory of 1979 located several sites with potential water quality

problems but did not assess the negative impacts nor develop plans for remedial

action. If staff and funding were available, an updated abandoned mined lands

inventory would be conducted specifically addressing nonpoint source pollution.

Once these problems were assessed, a management program would be developed to

restore, vegetate, and protect water quality on these sites. At present

-135-

nonpoint pollution from abandoned mine lands is addressed through Voluntary

reclamation under authority of.Section 8, of'the Mining Act which states that an

operator shall have the right to substitute an area mined in the past for an

area presently being mined with the approval of the Department.

-136-

BMPs for Protectinci Water Ouality from Minina Activities

Because of the nature of. surface mini'ng, certain steps must be taken to

remove and process the mineral resource. These activities can, to varying

degrees, impact surface and groundwater quality. These impacts, which were

identified in the previous section, can be addressed through pre-mine planning,

implementation of a site-specific water management program, and adequate

post-mining reclamation. BMPs are used in pre-mine planning to assist mining

companies and mine operators in selecting the most effective means of

controlling erosion and off-site sedimentation damage; preventing any condition

that will have an unduly adverse effect on groundwater, surface water, wildlife,

or fisheries; and achieving vegetative cover, sail stability, water and safety

conditions appropriate to the area upon final reclamation. In addition, they

provide design standards and practices for existing operations. BMPs are

site-specific and are controlled in part by the pre- and post-mining land

use(s). The selection of a particular practice, therefore, is based on the

characteristics of an individual site and the potential for off-site impacts.

The following is a list of BMPs related to surface mining:

1. Aauifer Recharcie - The process, area, or earth material that supplies water

to an aquifer. A benefit of aquifer recharge systems is a reduction in

surface runoff and discharge from the site.

2. Berm - A raised and elongated area of earth for erosion control intended to

direct the flow of water.

3. Buffer Zones - Undisturbed strips or natural areas which surround a mine

site and/or border streams, and can serve to reduce runoff velocities and

filter sediment.

4. Channel Protectors - Protect natural or artificial channels where water

velocities are high enough to erode the channel bottom or sides,

constructed using protective lining of grass, gravel, riprap, or concrete.
-137-

5. Check Damt - A small dam constructed in a gully or other small watercourse

to decrease the streamflow velocity, minimize channel scour, and promote

deposition of sediment.

6. Contouring - Shaping of a mined surface with topography to improve

appearance, retard erosion, and improve'drainage.

7. Controlled Drainace - Control drainage to prevent damage to adjacent lands,

soil erosion, and pollution of streams and rivers.

8. Cover Crop - Generally grasses used for short term erosion control, usually

no longer than one year.
9. Cover or isolate - Material used to isolate acid producing matter from

precipitation or ground water.

10. Critical Area Plantinc - Use of grasses or legumes to stabilize highly

erodible or critically eroding areas such as stockpiles and spoil areas.

11. Debris and Contaminant Removal - Removal of oil, grease, scrap metal,

abandoned machinery, or other contaminants from a reclaimed mine, or

segment of mine.

12. Drainaoe Diversion - A ditch, channel, culvert, etc., used to divert

surface run-off or streams away from the area of active mining.

13. Dust SuDDressants - Chemicals or techniques used to control fugitive dust.

14. Environmental ImDact Assessment - An assessment of the impacts, including

nonpoint source pollution, which mining could have on the environment.

15. Excavated Sediment Pond - A water impoundment made by excavating a pit or

dugout to retain sediment on a mine site.

16. Filter Berm - Temporary structures, used to reduce slope length and

velocities of water across right of ways, but allows for passage of mine

traffic.

17. Flocculant - A chemical used to speed up the settling of sediment.

-138-

18. Grassed Wdterway or Outlet - Usually a broad and shallow channel' that is

shaped to required dimensions And-established in erosion resistant

vegetation for the stable conveyance of runoff.

19. Grasses and Leaumes in Rotation - Establishing grasses and legumes or a

mixture and maintaining the stand for soil stabilization as part of final

reclamnation.

20. Geotextiles - Synthetic netting or fabric that is used to control erosion,

retain sediment and/or reduce surface runoff.

21. Grade Stabilization Structure -A structure used to control the grade and

head cutting in natural or artificial channels.

22. Gravel or Outlet Structure - An auxiliary structure installed in

conjunction with and as part of a diversion, interceptor, or perimeter

dike, or other structure designed to temporarily detain sediment laden

surface runoff.

23. Heavv Use Area Protection - protecting heavily used areas by establishing

vegetative cover, by surfacing with suitable materials, or by installing

needed structures.

24. Hillside Ditch - A channel with supporting ridge on the lower side

constructed across the slope at definite vertical intervals and gradient,

with or without vegetative barrier, to detain or control the flow of water

to a protected outlet to check erosion on sloping land.

25. Interceotor Dike -A ridge of compacted soil or gravel constructed across

disturbed sloping areas.

26. Land DisDosal - Approved disposal of waste products or sludge through land

application to assist in mined land reclamation.

27. Land Gradinq and Shaoina - Altering the surface of the land to meet the

requirements of the use after reclamation and to facilitate proper

drainage.

-139-

28. Land Reclamation (Landslide Treatment) - Treating in place material, mine

spoil excavated overburden, mine waste', or overburden, to reduce downslope

movement.

29. Land Reclamation (Subsidence Treatment) - Treating subsidence areas to

reduce the harmful effects and provide for beneficial use.

30. Land Reclamation (Toxic Discharcie Control) - Control of acid or other toxic

aqueous discharges from abandoned mines or mine waste.

31. Land Reclamation (Hiahwall Treatment) - Reducing harmful effects of

highwalls in abandoned or active mined areas.

32. Land Reclamation. Abandoned Mined Land - Restoring land and water areas

adversely affected by past mining practices and increasing the productivity

of the areas for a beneficial use.

33. Land Reclamation. Currently Mined Land - Restoring currently mined land to

an acceptable form and for a planned use.

34. Land Smoothinq - Removing irregularities on the land surface by the use of

special equipment.

35. Level Soreader - An outlet constructed at zero grade across the slope

whereby concentrated runoff may be discharged at non-erosive velocities

onto undisturbed areas stabilized by existing vegetation.

36. Lined Waterway or Outlet - A waterway or outlet having an erosion-resistant

lining of concrete, stone, or other permanent material. The lined section

extends up the side slopes to a designed depth. The earth above the

permanent lining may be vegetated or otherwise protected.

37. Mechanical Outlet or DroD Structure - Permanent structures generally

constructed of gravel, riprap, concrete, asphalt or other similar material

designed to reduce higher velocity flows without causing erosion of the

channel.

-140-

38. Mulching '- The addition of materials (usually organic) to the land surface

to curtail erosion or retain soil Moisture.

39. Native Venetation - Species of vegetation that grow and thrive in geologic

areas where the soil and climate are suited to natural propagation. The

use of native vegetation may be desired-for certain types of reclamation.

40. Neutralization - The process of adding an acid or alkaline material to

mining generated waste water to adjust its pH to a neutral position.

41. Perimeter Dike - A ridge of compacted soil constructed along the perimeter

of the disturbed area.

42. Pipe DroD - A temporary pipe installed down a bank slope to convey storm

runoff from the top to the bottom of the bank slope.

43. Pond - The reclamation of open pit mines as water bodies in areas where

there is a high water table or an adequate water supply from streams,

springs or wetlands.

44. Pondliners - Materials used for groundwater protection where chemicals are

used in the mining operation.

45. Reclamation - The "reasonable rehabilitation of mined land for useful

purposes, and the protection of the natural resources of the surrounding

area," as defined in the South Carolina Mining Act.

46. Revecietation - Seeding or planting vegetation on land disturbed by mining

activities to prevent soil erosion.

47. Riprap - Rough stones of various sizes placed compactly or irregularly to

prevent erosion.

48. Sediment Barriers - Temporary barriers or diversions constructed of

sandbags, straw or hay bales, brush, logs or poles, gravel or other

filtering material.

49. Sediment Basins - A basin used to retain water for a certain time period to

allow eroded material to settle.

50. Seamental" Reclamation - Reclamation activities conducted simultaneously

with mining, initiated at.the earliest practicable time after completion or

termination of mining on any segment of the permit area.

51. Setbacks - The distance from the outer edge of the pit to neighboring

property line, normally maintained as an undisturbed buffer zone.

52. Slope Drain - Temporary or permanent structures that carry runoff down a

slope preventing rill or gully erosion.
53. Soil Analvsis - Analysis of a soil sample to determine its various

properties and characteristics in order to prescribe appropriate

fertilizer, lime, and plant material for ground stabilization.

54. Storm Drain Inlet Protection - Filters or excavated impounding areas around
drop inlets to prevent sediment from entering storm drainage systems prior

to permanent stabilization of disturbed area.

55. Storm Drain Outlet Protection - Energy dissipating devices and erosion

resistant channel sections between drainage outlets and existing downstream

channels.
56. Stream Crossinas - Temporary or permanent structures placed across

waterways for use by mine traffic.
57. Stream Diversion - Relocation of a stream channel away from areas affected

by mining activities.
58. Streambank Stabilization - The protection of banks along creeks, streams,

rivers and excavated channels from scour and erosion.

59. Structural Stabilization - The use of various structural measures to
stabilize stream channels where vegetative stabilization alone is not

sufficient to prevent erosion.
60. TemDorarv Sediment Traos - Small ponding areas that trap sediment

transported by stream runoff from small disturbed areas.

-142-

61. Terracingi'- Construction of an earth embankment or ridge and channel across

the slope at a suitable spacing and with an acceptable grade.

62. Topsoilingi - Using topsoil to enhance the site's ability to support

vegetation by providing a suitable growth medium.

63. Vecietative Maintenance - Regular inspection of a reclaimed area to ensure

an adequate stand of vegetation and timely repairs of any eroding areas.

64. Visual Screenina - The use of planted, natural and/or constructed visual

barriers to minimize the adverse visual impact of a mining operation.

Vegetative screens provide pround stabilization, and constructed barriers

such as berms serve as diversions to manage runoff and maintain sediment

on-site.

65. Waterway DroD Structure - A structure designed to stop the flow of water

down a slope without causing erosion of the channel.

66. Wetlands Recharne - The use of existing wetlands to control and serve as a

recharge area for noncontaminated stromwater and groundwater pumped from

mined sites.

67. Wetlands Restoration - The restoration of disturbed wetlands as part of

overall mine land reclamation to enhance the hydrology and habitat

diversity of a mined site.

Four Year Action Plan

The following plan summarizes specific goals identified in the previous

section relating to improving nonpoint source management for mining activities

in South Carolina on a state-wide basis:

1. Continue to implement the regulatory provisions of the S. C. Mining Act and

Rules and Regulations as they relate to NPS management program. Draft

specific language for proposed amendments to the Mining Act and Rules and

-143-

Regulations to provide for more stringent authority in addressing nonpoint

source pollution. (1989-91)

2. Seek funding for staff expansion to improve the enforcement of the Act, and

to provide technical assistance to mine operators in the use of BMPs to

control conditions that may result in surface or groundwater contamination.

(1989-90)

3. Revise the publication entitled: Conservation and Reclamation for Mined

Lands. A Handbook of Recommended Practices for Minino Operators. Refine

these BMPs so that they are directed at improving water quality in addition

to runoff control and groundwater impacts. (1990)

4. Continue to develop new BMPs to improve water quality on sites where NPDES

permits are not required. (1989-1991)

5. Funding should be sought for research projects to investigate the effects

on water quality resulting from mining activities in environmentally

sensitive areas such as wetlands. (1990)

6. Continue to coordinate educational programs related to mining and

specifically, to conduct water quality workshops in cooperation with DHEC.

(1989-91)

7. Develop a monitoring plan to document the water quality impacts of

abandoned mine lands and implement a management plan for remedial action.

(1990-92)

8. Employ education, technical assistance, and research and demonstration

projects related to voluntary BMPs on abandoned mined lands. These

programs should be directed toward encouraging active mining companies to

reclaim these areas as part of an ongoing reclamation effort on a voluntary

basis. Refine these programs so that they are directed toward nonpoint

-144-

source and water quality control. (1989-92)

9. Develop a monitoring plan to collect and evaluate data concerning mine

drainage and its effect on water quality in specific watersheds. (1990-92)

10. Participate in training sessions on the effects of different BMPs on

reducing NPS pollution from active mi'ning operations and/or reclaiming

abandoned mined lands. (1989-92)

Site-Specific Manaaement Plan

1. Design and implement a research project on the reclamation and revegetation

of the mined areas and tailings impound located at the Ridgeway Gold Mining

Project. The project should investigate the potential for residual

chemical pollutants and evaluate BMPs for long term stabilization. (Phase

I - 1989-90) (Phase 2 - 1990-97)

2. Seek additional funding for research on the effects of abandoned mine

tailings and closure of heap leach operations on surface and ground water

quality in Lancaster, Chesterfield, Kershaw, and Fairfield Counties.

(1990-92)

3. Assist with the design and monitoring of a wetland restoration project on a

mine site in Horry County as mitigated by the terms and conditions of the

permit. Information should be collected on the impacts of this operation

on water quality, hydrologic function, wildlife and vegetative community

types upon final reclamation. (1989-90)

XI. LAND DISPOSAL NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

In South Carolina, nonpoint source problems may result from three general

types of land disposal activities. They include solid waste disposal

(landfills), land application of sludge and wastewater, and Individual Sewage

Treatment and Disposal (ISTD) wastewater systems (septic tanks).

There are currently 161 permitted landfills in South Carolina. This total

represents 75 sanitary landfills operated by counties/municipalities and 86

industrial landfills. Materials that may be disposed of in landfills include

household wastes (garbage, trash, etc.), commercial or industrial waste (paper,

fabric, plastic, non-hazardous chemical residues), and refuse (stumps, limbs,

concrete, earth, etc.).

Land application of treated wastewater takes place at 106 sites in the

State. Municipalities own 17 of these systems, and 89 are privately owned.

There are approximately 50 sludge application sites Statewide. Sludge may be

applied on land owned by a municipality or to privately owned land, such as

cropland.

ISTD systems are a much utilized method of treatment and disposal of sewage

in South Carolina. Of the 1.1 million year-round housing units in the State,

520,000 (or 47 percent) use some method of ISTD system. Large flow ISTD

systems, greater than 1500 gallons per day, are used at small businesses, food

service facilities, mortuaries, car washes, abortories, multiple family

dwellings under single ownership, and at other facilities. Approximately 25,000

proposed new system sites are evaluated each year for suitability.

-146-

Land Disvosal NPS Problems

Nonpoint source pollution impacts 'Attributed to land application of

wastewater and sludge and solid waste disposal does not appear to be a

significant source of degradation in South Carolina waters. As indicated by the

NPS Assessment report, only a small percentage of surface and groundwaters were

affected. Assessment of these types of impacts is difficult; therefore, data

are limited. Generally, these types of activities have the potential to degrade

surface waters through sedimentation from land disturbing activities at landfill

sites and direct runoff of contaminants from land application and landfills.

Groundwater may be contaminated through leachate from these sites.

Contamination of surface waters may be attributable to ISTD system surface

malfunction or the placement of final treatment, soil absorption trenches, and

seasonal high watertable soils which resulted in subsurface leaching pollutants

into shellfish and other surface waters. Pollution from this category of NPS

has been linked to closures of coastal shellfish waters and public swimming

areas, and outbreaks of waterborne illnesses. Some ISTD systems, in the past,

were installed in poor soil with shallow rock, high seasonal watertables, and

other restrictive barriers. They were also installed in close proximity to

environmentally sensitive waters, and in other unsuitable geological conditions.

Existina Proarams - Solid Waste Disoosal

Regulatory authority over solid waste disposal activities resides with the

Department of Health and Environmental Control Bureau of Solid and Hazardous

Waste. Bureau staff provides technical assistance to municipalities, counties,

and industry in designing and operating landfills in a more effective manner.

The disposal of solid waste is regulated through the domestic and

industrial solid waste regulation promulgated under the authority of Section

44-1-140 of 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws and the South Carolina Pollution

Control Act. These statutes require that all solid waste disposal facilities

-147-

obtain a writt(!n authorization (permit) from DHEC prior to commencing operation.

Application for a permit includes submission of a comprehensive engineering

report which requires use of best management practices and addresses such

items as site specifications, potential pollution hazards, geological and

hydrological conditions, and other relevant factors which enter into site

design, construction, and operation. All permitted sites are closely monitored

and inspected on a regular basis to ensure compliance with State regulations.

Facilities which do not meet State standards are sent a compliance schedule to

either correct deficiencies or close the site. New federal regulations

governing solid waste disposal are being promulgated under. Subtitle D of the

Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) which would require states to enforce

stricter standards on solid waste disposal. One provision would require that

all new landfills be synthetically lined to prevent leaching of materials into

the groundwater. These regulations become final in January 1990, and states

then have eighteen months to comply.

Recognizing the need for solid waste disposal solutions, the South Carolina

legislature formed a Solid Waste Task Force. It is made up of seventeen members

representing the public and private sectors and is composed of legislators,

legislative appointees, and Governor's appointees. The Task Force is

considering several options concerning waste recycling and resource recovery

(generation of energy from waste material). One of these options is to make

recycling mandatory. A tax would be charged on all non-recyclable containers.

BMPs for Protection of Water Oualitv from Solid Waste DiSDosal Activities

The following BMPs address water quality impacts of leachate migration and

surface erosion and runoff. Not all of the BMPs are applicable in every

situation. As technology changes, new BMPs may come into use. The list will be

evaluated and updated as necessary.

_148-

1. Proper landfill siting

2. Operation and Maintenance Plan,

3. Control of runoff and leachate from the site

4. Incineration with resource recovery

5. Recycling of solid waste

6. Erosion Control Plan

7. Buffers between landfills and waterbodies

8. Public education

9. Groundwater monitoring

Four Year Action Plan - Solid Waste DisDosal

The Department of Health and Environmental Control Bureau of Solid and

Hazardous Waste has identified the following program goals along with a time

schedule for a more effective NPS management program:

1. Continue to enforce regulations and require best management practices

to control NPS runoff and leachate from landfills (1898-1992)

2. Continue to provide technical assistance to landfill owners and

operators (1989-1992)

3. Implement the provisions of RCRA subtitle D when finalized (1990-1992)

4. Support the recycling and resource recovery recommendations of the

State Legislative Solid Waste Task Force (1990-1992)

5. Monitor surface and groundwater impacts of solid waste disposal sites

(1989-1992)

Existina Proarams - Land Aoolication of Wastewater and Sludce

The DHEC Bureau of Water Pollution Control regulates the land application

of treated effluent and land application of sludge through its permitting

programs. The most common method of applying wastewater is by spray irrigation.

-149-

The treated '6ffluent is sprayed through nozzles and infiltrates and/or

percolates into the ground at a di sposal, site. Most of the water is evaporated

into the atmosphere, and nutrients are taken up by plants growing on the site.

state construction and operating permits are required for these facilities. The

permitting group applies the criteria set-'forth in Minimum Site Suitability

Reauirements for SDrav Irrioation of Domestic Wastewater which serve to protect

Class GB (suitable for drinking water supply) groundwater standards. Also, the

S. C. Coastal Council reviews these permits and may apply practices set forth in

their Stormwater Manaciement Guidelines.

A guidance document compiling updated Best Management Practices for land

application of wastewater is being planned. The document will be developed for

use for the consulting community to facilitate proper geohydrological design of

land systems regarding protection of groundwater quality.

Sludge is solid, semi-solid, or liquid residue generated from a municipal,

private domestic, commercial, industrial, or water supply treatment plant which

is not approved as part of a point source discharge into surface waters.

Wastewater sludge can be a valuable resource when properly applied to crop,

forest, or disturbed land. With good management, the risks of environmental

contamination are low, and in many situations land application is the most

economical means for the municipality or industry to dispose of the material. A

State permit is issued to the sludge applicator. The permit contains

requirements for the use of BMPs to reduce NPS impacts. The criteria used is

contained in Land ADDlication of Sludcie Manual, published by DHEC in 1987. The

permit provisions assure that Class GB (suitable for drinking water supply)

groundwater standards will not be compromised.

Due to the influx in groundwater self-monitoring submissions (current and

future) for land application facilities, computerized data storage/screening and

evaluation is a necessity. A mechanical groundwater data handling program will

-150-

facilitate proper data review and concurrently allow DHEC staff to prioritize

efforts toward contamination preventionand-corrective action at impacted sites.

Such a program will be implemented during the next fiscal year.

BMPs for Protection of Water Oualitv from Land ADDlication of

Wastewater and Sludce

As previously mentioned, BMPs are required for these activities. Practices

contained in Minimum Site Reauirements for Sprav Irriaation of Domestic

Wastewater and Land AoDlication of Sludae Manual generally fall into two

categories:

1. Design Criteria

a. Emergency holding pond

b. Limit application rate to what can be absorbed according to soil

conditions

c. Soils should be tested for suitability

d. Buffer zones

e. Berms to control runoff

f. Sites must be at least 200 feet from drinking water sources

g. Temporary sludge storage facilities shall be lined to prevent

seepage

h. No application to steep slopes

2. Operation Criteria

a. Vegetative cover at spray sites

b. No spraying should be done during rain events, when ground is

saturated, or when ground is frozen

c. Monitoring of groundwater must be provided

Four Year Actidn Plan - Land ADDlication of Wastewater and Sludoe

1. Continued evaluation of land application facilities for environmental

suitability stressing groundwater protection (1989-1992)

2. Develop and implement a groundwater data management program that would

store, retrieve, and evaluate groundwater monitoring information

(1989-1992)

3. Update land application BMPs based on the latest technology. These will be

put in guidance form and made available to those constructing and operating

land application facilities (1990-1992)

4. Conduct research in order to designate and prioritize

geographical/geological locations around the State that require stringent

groundwater pollution protection due to hydrological influences. This

research would indicate the most desirable locations for land application

sites (1990)

5. Promote coordination and cooperation between DHEC, U. S. Geological Survey,

S. C. Water Resources Commission, S. C. Land Resources Conservation

Commission, and other State and federal agencies in conducting studies and

solving NPS problems from land application activities (1990-1992)

Existina Proarams - On-Site Wastewater Disposal

The individual sewage treatment and disposal (ISTD) systems program is

regulated by S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of

Environmental Health, Division of General Sanitation. Construction of ISTD

systems is strictly regulated in accordance with standards set forth in State

Regulation 61-56, Individual Waste Disposal Systems; State Regulation 61-56.1,

License for Contractors Constructing On-Site Sewage Treatment and Disposal

Systems; and State Regulation 61-57, Rules and Regulations Governing the

Development of Subdivision Water Supply and Waste Disposal Systems. These

-152-

regulations govern the design, construction, and installation of ISTD systems.

ISTD systems are not permitted if soil, water table, rock, and other conditions

do not meet minimum site criteria. Statewide, approximately three percent of

ISTD system permit applications are denied annually, but the rate increases to

ten percent along the coast because of high water tables and impermeable clay

soils. ISTD systems are not allowed if sewer connection is accessible, and

septic tank effluent may not be discharged to any stream or other waterbody.

The Division has initiated educational and training efforts in several

areas. District and county ISTD program personnel are trained and certified to

identify soil texture, rock, restrictive horizons, and seasonal high water table

indicators to accurately evaluate sites for system installation. Contractors

must pass an examination before receiving a required license to install ISTD

systems. Subdivision of land is evaluated and approved prior to sale, for the

best possible method of water and sewage treatment and disposal.

ISTD system educational materials are available for public distribution and

use. A booklet titled Individual Sewaqe Treatment and DisDosal in South

Carolina explains in layman's terms how a septic tank (ISTD) system works and a

brochure titled Gettina to Know Your SeDtic System explains proper maintenance

procedures.

A survey procedure which identifies and prioritizes distressed communities

with severe ISTD system failures has been developed by the Division.

Communities may be declared an "Imminent Health Hazard," and thus become

eligible to receive emergency grant funds to connect malfunctioning ISTD systems

to an approved sewer system or construct innovative/alternative wastewater

treatment and disposal systems.

In cooperation with the University of South Carolina, the Division is

currently conducting research of conventional, alternative conventional, and

innovative/alternative ISTD systems to assess their workability and to what

-153-

extent current- standards and practices are not adequately protecting surface and

subsurface waters. The study, will also identify new technologies which will

allow the use of ISTD systems on otherwise unsuitable sites. Results of the

research are expected before 1992.

Due to a shortage of personnel and 'resources, the utilization of new

technology, i.e. I/A systems, is impeded. These systems require periodic

maintenance, cleaning of filters, replacement of pumps, etc. to ensure proper

operation. Without additional personnel and resources to conduct a thorough

maintenance and operational inspection program, the Department is unwilling to

allow the installation of new I/A systems. The public is prone to abuse

standard, gravity feed, conventional septic tank systems. Therefore, there also

exists a need to commence issuing ISTD system operational and routine

maintenance permits. However, the ability to implement such a program is

restricted by the lack of available resources and manpower.

BMPs for Protection of Water Oualitv from ISTD Systems

Under State Regulation 61-56, implementation of criteria for site

evaluation, construction, and installation of ISTD systems is mandatory. BMPs

for maintenance are voluntary at this time.

1. Minimum site criteria

a. Standards for soil texture, depth of soil to rock, and water

table evaluation. If standards are not met, system may not be

installed.

b. System must be located at least 100 feet from the nearest public

and 50 feet from the nearest private well and/or water

impoundment.

C. Systems not allowed where public sewer accessible for connection

-154-

d. "Effluent not allowed to be discharged to surface water.

e. Enforcement of site criteria"

2. Construction criteria

a. State approved tanks and pipes

b. State approved installation methods

c. Grease traps required for commercial food preparation

establishments

d. Lint traps required for laundromats

e. Oil/water separators required for vehicle wash facilities

f. Proper enforcement of construction criteria

3. Maintenance BMPs

a. Limit use of garbage grinders

b. Avoid flushing chemicals down drain

c. Do not allow heavy vehicles to drive over drainfield

d. Have septic tank pumped out periodically to remove solids

e. Provide adequate surface water drainage away from drainfield

f. Avoid planting trees near drainfield

g. Conserve water

h. Education of the system user

Four Year Action Plan - Individual Sewaae Treatment and Disposal Systems

1. Continue to implement ISTD system regulations (1989-1992)

2. Continue formalized training program and emphasize water quality

component (1989-1992)

3. Continue the evaluation of Innovative/Alternative and

alternative/conventional ISTD systems based on new technology which

will have a favorable effect on water quality (1989-1992)

-155-

4. Document the effects of ISTD systems on coastal water quality

(1989-1992) ..

5. Seek additional personnel and resources and develop an operation and

maintenance program that provides follow-up inspections of systems for

proper operation (1992)

-156-

XII. HYDROLOGIC/WETLANDS MODIFICATION NPS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Introduction

Hydrologic modification is defined as-stream channelization, dredge and

fill, flow regulation/modification, removal of riparian vegetation, streambank

modification/destabilization, etc. Construction activities, when carried out in

or near a waterbody or wetlands, may be included as hydrologic modification.

They include construction of dams, bridges, marinas, docks, roads, pipelines,

and mining activities.

By its very nature hydrologic modification is closely tied to wetlands

issues in South Carolina. Because of increased residential and commercial

development in the State, isolated inland areas such as Carolina Bays wetlands

are undergoing rapid conversion or alteration. Coastal wetlands, however, are

currently protected from such threats.

There are approximately 4,659,0001 acres of wetlands in the State. This

represents 23 percent of the total land area and comprises approximately 12

percent of wetlands in the southeastern United States. The dominant wetland

types in South Carolina are intertidal emergent wetlands--saltmarshes, and

palustrine forested wetlands--swamps and bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands

function as floodwater storage and as sediment traps. They provide groundwater

recharge and discharge, nutrient removal, aquatic food chain support, fish and

wildlife habitat, and shoreline stabilization. Wetlands are also valuable for

their educational uses and their intrinsic qualities.

I Hefner, John M. and James D. Brown. 1984. Wetlands Trends in the
Southeastern United States. Fifth Annual Meeting of the Society of Wetlands
Scientists.

-157-

Hvdrolociic Modification NPS Problems

The major water quality problems resulting from instream hydrologic

modi f icati ons are turbidi ty and suspended'' sol ids or sediments. These occur

naturally in streams and water supplies. In excessive quantities, they can

impair recreation, interfere with aquatic species, and increase the cost of

water treatment for municipal and industrial-purposes. Therefore, sediments in

excess must be considered as a pollutant.

Any activity which disturbs or alters the stream bed or disrupts the flow

of a body of water causes change in the dynamic equilibrium and hydraulic

capabilities of the stream. Any alteration in the stream bed, either by

dredging or filling, loosens debris and disturbs sediment which are, in turn,

suspended or resuspended and transported by the stream. This results in

turbidity, the cloudy condition caused by suspended particles in a liquid.

Two major problems result from turbidity and an increased load of suspended

solids: (1) the degradation of water quality, and (2) the effects of the solids

which have settled out. For example, turbidity is most visually obvious as an

aesthetic problem, decreasing the recreational value of the water. The effects

on aquatic life are also important because the depth to which light can

penetrate and photosynthesis can occur is dependent on water clarity.

Pollutants other than sediment may be resuspended by activities which

disturb the stream bed. Heavy metals introduced into the riverine system by

industrial discharge and other sources may be present in sediment accumulation

and may be resuspended by channel disturbances.

NPS pollution from hydrologic modification activities is not a serious

problem in South Carolina because most of the activities are regulated by permit

and the permits require BMPs. However, isolated wetlands outside the coastal

zone are not under permit jurisdiction, so there may be localized problems.

Classes of activities such as "agricultural" are not regulated under current

-158-

State law, but' the "Swampbuster" provisions of the federal Food Security Act

discourages farmers from converting wetlands to commodity cropland. If they do

so, they will not be eligible for USDA program benefits.

Current Manaaement Proarams

Activities falling within the definition of hydrologic modification are

heavily regulated for navigable waters in South Carolina by both State and

federal programs. Before any activity under their jurisdictions takes place,

authorization is required by the administering agencies.

A. State Regulatory Programs

1. State Budget and Control Board Permit for Construction in Navigable

Waters

As set forth in Regulation 19-450, S. C. Code of Laws 1976, a permit issued

by the South Carolina State Budget and Control Board is required for any

construction, alteration, dredging, filling, flow alteration, or other activity,

unless expressly exempted, when such activity involves or will involve the use

of any navigable waterway of the State. On behalf of the State Budget and

Control Board, the South Carolina Water Resources Commission serves as the

coordinating agency in administering the permit procedures. Where appl icabl e,

issuance of the State permit may be conditioned upon approval of such additional

licenses, permits, or authorization by the responsible State agencies.

In those instances where the applicant must obtain federal authorization

for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers under Sections 9, 10, 13, or other

relevant provisions of the River and Harbor Act, or Section 404 of P. L. 100-4,

the Clean Water Act, notice of applications are jointly issued by this federal

agency and the State and no separate application is required for the State

permit. Where State and federal jurisdictions coincide, application to the

federal permitting agency constitutes automatic application to the State.

-159-

The Watet' Resources Commission is charged with notifying relevant State

agencies of permit applications and ,seeking and evaluating such agencies'

comments on the applications. Each agency is considered to be individually

responsible for their area of interest. Based on the evaluation of comments

from other agencies and their own findings,''the Water Resources Commission may

recommend denial, conditional approval, or approval of the permit to the Budget

and Control Board. The Commission is prohibited from recommending a permit for

any activity which the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental

Control determines would violate State Water Classification and Standards or

endanger the public health or where consistency certification is denied by the

S. C. Coastal Council.

The method of implementing Best Management Practices is by stipulating

those erosion or sediment controls or other requirements which must be met on

the permit. These controls are applied on a case-by-case basis, based on the

project. A substantial number of permits are issued annually that contain

specific erosion or siltation conditions requested by S. C. Department of Health

and Environmental Control, S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, S. C.

Coastal Council, or S. C. Water Resources Commission for protection of water

quality or fish and wildlife habitat within navigable waters.

The State Budget and Control Board permit regulates all activities related

to hydrologic modification. The jurisdiction excludes, however, those

activities which take place beyond the navigable waters of South Carolina, i.e.,

those waters defined as non-navigable and those wetlands which are above the

ordinary or mean high water mark of a watercourse unless such activities

directly and significantly affect a State navigable waterway.

2. Coastal Council Permit

The Coastal Zone Management Act ,authorizes the South Carolina Coastal

Council to promulgate regulations concerning hydrologic modification within the

critical saltwater zone of the State's coastal counties. These regulations are

set forth in the "Permitting Rules and Regulations." The South Carolina Coastal

Council was created by the 1977 South Carolina Coastal Management Act to protect

the quality of the coastal environment and to promote the economic and social

improvement of the coastal zone and of all the people of the State. On

September 29, 1977, the permitting authority of the State Budget and Control

Board in the Coastal Zone of the State was transferred to the Coastal Council.

After this date, no person may utilize a critical area for a use, unless

expressly exempted, other than the use the critical area was devoted to on that

date unless he first obtain a permit from the Coastal Council. No person shall

fill, remove, dredge, drain, or erect any structure or in any way alter a

critical area without such a permit. Critical areas include: (1) coastal

waters, (2) tidelands, (3) beaches, and (4) beach/dune-system (the area from the

mean high water mark to the setback line as determined in Section 48-39-280 of

the 1988 Coastal Zone Management Act). The Coastal Zone, or the area of the

State under planning jurisdiction of the Coastal Council, includes all coastal

waters and submerged lands seaward to the State's jurisdictional limits and all

lands and waters in the counties of the State which contain one or more of the

critical areas. The counties are Beaufort, Berkeley, Charleston, Colleton,

Dorchester, Horry, Jasper, and Georgetown.

The regulations establish specific project standards for docks and piers;

boat ramps; bulkheads and seawalls; cables, pipelines, and transmission lines;

marinas; highway, road, and bridge construction; dredging and filling;

-161-

navigation chai~aels and access canals; deposition of dredged material; sewage

lagoons or impoundments; marsh impoundments for recreational commercial

activities; and drainage canals or ditches. The Coastal Council has also

prepared and implements "Stormwater Management Guidelines."1 This document is

organized in two major sections. The first section describes types of

activities that are regulated and the corresponding requirements and

restrictions. Criteria such as location, lot coverage, and land use determine

permit requirements. A chart at the end of the section summarizes the

activities which require stormwater management and which BMPs and controls are

required for each activity.

The second section presents basic design standards and requirements for

stormwater management systems. Requirements for retention and detention systems

with their corresponding design criteria are discussed. Also it outlines other

best management practices necessary for managing stormwater and includes

discussions an such topics as freshwater wetlands stormwater management systems

and sediment and erosion control practices.

The Coastal Council regulations are very similar to the Budget and Control

Board regulations and adequately regulate hydrologic modification activities

which have a potential for degradation of water quality in the Coastal Zone of

South Carolina. Unlike the Budget and Control Board jurisdiction, the Coastal

Council program includes all waters and adjacent wetlands within the saline

areas. All projects requiring State and federal permits in the Coastal Zone

must be consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Program. The regulations

and specific project standards provide a structure for the application of Best

Management Practices.

-162-

3. DHEC-401 Certification

The DHEC Bureau of Water Pollution Cohtrol Division of Water Quality and

Shellfish Sanitation reviews applications for inclusion of best management

practices, when and where needed, on federal permits for certain types of

activities in and around waterbodies. Section 401 of the federal Clean Water

Act requires that all applicants for a federal permit or license which may

result in a discharge to navigable waters obtain certification from DHEC. The

certification ensures that the project will be conducted in a manner which will

not violate State water quality standards. The Department issues certification

for primarily three types of projects: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10

(navigation), Section 404 (dredge and fill permits/U. S. Coast Guard permits,

and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses for hydroelectric projects.

These activities are categorized as hydrologic modification. Certification is

routinely issued with conditions that become part of the federal permit or

license. These conditions usually address nonpoint pollution sources,

especially sediment loss and stormwater impacts to a waterbody. The Department

also routinely reviews plans for highway and utility line construction.

Certification conditions include that effective nonpoint control measures be

implemented during and after construction to minimize sediment loss to affected

waterbodi es.

Although the Division has had the responsibility of permit/license

certification since the program' s inception, no formal regulations or program

criteria were ever developed. The need to formalize the program in more detail

has become evident since the Department has been criticized for not promulgating

regulations. Division staff have begun developing draft regulations. When

completed, staff will establish and work with an ad hoc advisory group of

-163-

individuals interested in the program to refine the draft regulations. 'A public

hearing to solicit citizen comment will then be held the final steps in the

process include DHEC Board approval and South Carolina General Assembly

approval. The final regulations will be incorporated into the South Carolina

Code of Laws. DHEC must also certify the Budget and Control Board permit and

Coastal Council permit described above. Without that certification, those

permits cannot be issued.

B. Federal Regulatory Programs

1. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the agency most

involved in issuing permits for land disturbing activities in wetlands. The

Corps administers a national regulatory program (Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act) aimed at controlling the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters

of the United States. Waters of the United States refers to navigable waters,

their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. Activities covered under Section 404

must involve the discharge of dredge and fill material and may include piers,

dams, dikes, marinas, bulkheads, utility and power transmission lines, and bank

stabilization.

In addition to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps has regulatory

powers under the River and Harbor Act of 1899. Originally, this Act was

administered to protect navigation and the navigation capacity of the nation's

waters. In 1968, due to growing environmental concerns, the review of permit

application was changed to include factors other than navigation. These

additional factors were fish and wildlife, conservation, pollution, esthetics,

ecology, and general public interest. Activities which may be covered under the

River and Harbor Act of 1899 include piers, dams, dikes, marinas, bulkheads,

-164-

utility and power transmission lines, bank stabilization, and t he discharge of

dredged or fill material.

Best management practices are required for Corps Civil Works Projects as

well as issued permits. These BMPs are designed primarily to minimize the

impacts from the discharge of dredged or fill-material into waters of the United

States.

Summary

As indicated in the previous narrative, virtually all hydrologic/wetlands

modification activities require some form of State or federal permit or

certification with all -such permits or certifications involving water quality

considerations. To meet water quality objectives, best management practices are

required. Some geographical areas of the State are beyond permitting

jurisdiction. They will be addressed by voluntary programs. The need for

regulatory programs will be investigated if voluntary programs are not working.

-165-

BMPs for ProteCtion of Water Oualitv from Hvdroloaic/Wetlands Modification

The following BMPs are applicable for the control of hydrologic

modification activities in South Carolina. Since each project and each site are

unique, however, the practices should be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Further, as new technologies are developed and programs change, the list may be

updated.

BMPs for Dredge and Fill Activities

(Guidelines used by U. S. Army Corps of Engineers)

1. Actions concerning the location of the discharge

a. Minimize smothering of organisms

b. Avoid disruption of periodic water inundation patterns

C. Select a previously used disposal site

d. Select a disposal site with substrate similar in composition to the

material being disposed

e. Minimize extent of any plume

f. Minimize or prevent creations of standing bodies of waters in areas of

normally fluctuating water levels

2. Actions concerning the material to be discharged

a. Maintain physiochemical conditions and reduce potency and availability

of pollutants

b. Limit solid, liquid, and gaseous components

c. Add treatment substances

d. Utilize chemical flocculants in diked disposal areas

-166-

3. Actions c'dntrolling the materials after discharge

a. Reduce potential for.erosion,.slumfping, or leaching by

(1) using containment levees, sediment basins, and cover crops to

reduce erosion

(2) using lined containment areas~to reduce leaching

b. Cap in-place contaminated material with clean material

C. Prevent point and nonpoint sources of pollution

d. Time the discharge to minimize impact, especially during unusual high

water flows, wind, wave, and tidal actions

4. Actions affecting the method of dispersion

a. Maintain natural substrate contours and elevation

b. Minimize undesirable obstruction to the water current or circulation

pattern

C. Confine suspended particulate/turbidity to a small area where settling

can occur

d. Mix, dilute, and disperse the discharge

e. Minimize water column turbidity

f. Maintain light penetration for organisms

g. Set limitations on the amount of material to be discharged per unit of

time or volume of receiving water

S. Actions related to technology

a. Use appropriate equipment and machinery, including protective devices

b. Employ appropriate operation and maintenance of machinery, including

training, staffing, and working procedures

C. Use machinery and techniques designed to reduce damage to wetlands,

including devices that scatter rather than mound excavated materials,

machines with specially designed wheels or tracks, and the use of mats

under heavy machinery to reduce compaction and rutting

-167-

d. Design access roads and channel spanning structures to accommodate

fluctuating water levels and circulation patterns

e. Employ appropriate machines and methods of transport of the material

for discharge

6. Actions affecting plant and animal populations

a. Avoid changes in water current and circulation patterns

b. Prevent or avoid creating habitat conducive to the development of

undesirable predators or species

C. Avoid sites having unique habitat or other value, including endangered

or threatened species

d. Institute habitat development and restoration

e. Avoid spawning or migration seasons and other biologically critical

time periods

f. Avoid destruction of remnant natural sites within areas already

affected by development

7. Actions affecting human use

a. Prevent or minimize damage to the aesthetically pleasing feature of an

aquatic site, including water quality

b. Avoid disposal sites valuable as natural aquatic areas

C. Avoid seasons or period when human recreational activity associated

with the aquatic site is most important

d. Avoid sites which will increase incompatible human activity or require

frequent dredge or fill maintenance in remote fish and wildlife areas

e. Locate disposal site outside of the vicinity of a public water supply

intake

(S. C. Coastal Council)

1. Avoid agitation dredging

-168-

BMPs for Stormwater Control or Transport

(S. C. Coastal Council Stormwater Management Guidelines)

1. Grassed swales

2. Grassed lawns

3. Rock lined ditches

4. Exfiltration trench or pipe system

5. Catch basins

6. Dry wells

7. Parking lot planting areas

8. Building setback

9. Discharge structures designed to reduce velocities

10. Use paving materials designed to allow infiltration

11. Retention and/or detention ponds

BMPs for Sediment and Erosion Control

1. Silt fences

2. Temporary check dams

3. Temporary vegetative or straw cover

4. Minimize construction roads

5. Repair erosion damage

Four Year Action Plan

The following summarizes the goals (tasks) which have been identified to

reduce NPS pollution from hydrologic modification activities.

A. S. C. Budget and Control Board (through the S. C. Water Resources

Commission)

1. Continue to implement program for Permits for Construction in

Navigable Waters (1989-1992)

-169-

2. Monitor Program effectiveness (1990-1992)

3. Explore avenues for .expanding, the permitting program to cover those

waters of the State that are defined as "non-navigable"

B. S. C. Coastal Council

1. Continue to implement in-place permitting and certification procedures

for hydrologic modification projects in the Coastal Zone. (1989-1992)

2. Monitor Program effectiveness (1990-1992)

3. Develop and implement public awareness programs that would aid in

preventing NPS pollution in or to wetlands (1990-1992)

C. S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control, Division of Water

Quality and Shellfish Sanitation

1. Continue to implement in-place certification procedures requiring best

management practices for hydrologic modification and wetlands

activities (1989-1992)

2. Develop and implement formalized procedures for project certification

(1989-1990)

3. Develop and implement voluntary hydrologic modification/wetlands

programs to encourage the use of BMPs in areas where permitting

programs are not applicable (1990-1992)

4. If it is determined that voluntary programs are not working, explore

the possibility of initiating regulatory programs (1990-1992)

-170-

XIII. OTHER NONPOINT SOURCE RELATED PROGRAMS

There are several agencies and programs in the State that are indirectly

involved in the NPS Management Program. These programs play an important role

in South Carolina's Program by complementing existing Statewide efforts or by

concentrating on specific geographic areas such as wetlands.

Charleston Harbor Estuary Citizen's Committee

The Charleston Harbor Estuary Citizen's Committee is a group of concerned

individuals whose primary goals are to maintain and enhance the water quality in

Charleston Harbor by raising public awareness of the sources of possible

pollution such as point sources, urban stormwater runoff, and other sources of

NPS pollution. There is a NPS Subcommittee whose specific interests lie in

identifying problems and offering alternative solutions. A member of this

subcommittee is also a member of the NPS Task Force. Recommendations of the NPS

Subcommittee will be incorporated into the NPS Management Program where

applicable.

Governor's Freshwater Wetlands Forum

Governor Carroll A. Campbell, Jr., of South Carolina, served as a member of

the National Wetlands Policy Forum. In response to recommendations from the

National Forum, Governor Campbell established a State Forum to develop a

Wetlands Policy for South Carolina. His goals are to define wetlands, identify

and inventory wetlands in South Carolina, and provide protection to these

areas. Governor Campbell supports the National Forum goal of "No net loss of

the nation's remaining wetlands base." The State Forum is comprised of

-17 1-

representatives from the legislature, agriculture, State regulatory 'agencies,

industry, and environmental interest grojups. Recommendations concerning NPS for

the Forum will be incorporated into the NPS Management Program.

Heritaqe Trust

The South Carolina Heritage Trust is a program within the South Carolina

Wildlife and Marine Resources Department. Its primary functions are to

inventory, evaluate, and protect significant natural areas and critical sites

that harbor rare or endangered species. Through donation, acquisition, or

registration, the lands that are entered into the Heritage Trust Program are

protected by the State and are maintained in their natural conditions.

Prohibition of further development along with eliminating the application of

pesticides and fertilizers on these lands significantly reduces the chances of

nearby streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, or wetlands becoming polluted by

nonpoint sources.

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium supports research pertaining to

wetlands. They provide scientific information to regulatory and management

agencies as well as educational information to the general public. The

Consortium is preparing educational material on the function and value of

wetlands including a video tape, slide presentation, and brochure. One aspect

of these educational materials will discuss how NPS pollution threatens the

valuable wetlands resource. NPS funds are being used to partially finance this

project. It will be utilized as part of the NPS Management Program. The S. C.

Sea Grant Consortium publishes a quarterly newsletter titled Coastal Heritale.

This publication has a readership of several thousand. The entire Spring 1988

-172-

issue was devoted to NPS pollution and included articles discussing NPS

problems, stormwater management_, and agricultural runoff.

South Carolina Water Watch

The South Carolina Water Watch Program, is an intra-agency and citizen's

group effort coordinated through the Governor's Office and the South Carolina

Water Watch Committee. This program provides individuals with a hands-on

opportunity to learn more about their water resources. The more working

experience citizens have with their community's water resources, the better they

can detect problems, form opinions, and express their views. The basic

components of the Water Watch Program are awareness, education, and action.

Through Water Watch projects, active citizens can voice their concerns to

federal, State, and local officials, industry, and operators of municipal water

and wastewater treatment facilities. A well informed citizenry that understands

and supports pollution prevention programs and more efficient treatment facility

operations acts as an early pollution detection system and helps ensure that

their community dollars are being spent wisely. Most of the work performed by

local groups participating in this program have consisted of water quality

monitoring and assessment, although some projects have been involved with NPS

pollution. These efforts have consisted of monitoring sedimentation problems in

streams, reporting them to appropriate State agencies, and working with local

governments in land use planning around streams. The NPS Management Program

plans to utilize this group in public education and information efforts.

South Carolina Water Resources Research Institute

The South Carolina Water Resources Research Institute is a unit of Clemson

University. Its objectives are to evaluate research needs, motivate and support

research by qualified scientists, and provide for technology transfer. This

-17 3-

Institute has 'funded approximately five scientific studies dealing with various

aspects of NPS pollution in South Carol'ina. Recent studies have involved

pesticide runoff from tomato fields and stability of particles on steep slopes.

The SCWRRI plans to continue and expand its involvement with research of NPS

problems. Results of this research will be incorporated into the NPS Management

Program where applicable.

DHEC Groundwater Protection Division

The Groundwater Protection Division of the Bureau of Drinking Water

Protection is responsible for aquifer assessment and policy as well as

permitting of underground storage tanks. Protection against underground storage

tank leakage is provided through a formal permitting program (UST Program)

involving geohydrological review of plans and specifications. New or

replacement underground tanks for petroleum products also require underground

monitoring as do existing tanks that fail leak-detection tests or show

significant inventory losses. Some potential sources of contaminants do not

fall within the above groups, for example accidental leaks or spills from

activities that no longer take place and illegal dumping.

U. S. Geolonical Survey

This agency, a unit of the U. S. Department of the Interior collects water

quality and flow data at 52 surface water stations located throughout the State.

The data is published annually in Water Resources Data for South Carolina and is

also available through EPA's STORET computerized retrieval system.

USGS is currently conducting a surface and groundwater study of certain

tributaries to Lake Marion, a major reservoir in the State, in cooperation with

the Santee-Cooper Public Service Authority. The study will investigate surface

water quality and sediment chemistry as well as groundwater quality and flow,

-174-

both direction' and velocity, in order to determine potential impacts' on Lake

Mari on.

S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources DeDartment

*Stream Surveys

Stream surveys have been conducted by the Freshwater Fisheries Section of

the SCWMRD since the early 1970's. The information gathered consists primarily

of a list of fish species, substrate type, basic water quality data, and

surrounding land use. Well over 1000 streams have been surveys primarily on a

one-time basis. At present, the data is stored in a computer database, and

SCWMRD staff is working to have it entered into a geographical information

system (GIS). Also, methods of changing and improving collections are being

investigated. When a stream is designated for action by the NPS Task Force, it

would be appropriate, in many cases, for SCWMRD Freshwater Fisheries personnel

to update the stream database within the existing SCWMRD program. More

extensive studies could also be undertaken as a cooperative effort with DHEC

and/or other appropriate agencies. If a stream is designated for NPS action in

which no survey has been conducted, this would certainly be justification to do

SO.

*Educational Programs

Project Wild Aquatic is a national wildlife conservation educational

program facilitated through State wildlife and fisheries agencies, such as

SCWMRD. SCWMRD personnel conduct workshops both for elementary and secondary

teachers and facilitators. In these workshops, instruction for teaching Project

Wild Aquatic curricula in the classroom is given. SCWMRD personnel are

currently in the process of developing some supplemental curricula to accompany

-175-

the standard workbook which are more localized to South Carolina in scopIe. This

would be an excellent avenue through wbiich'NPS education could be provided to

our teachers to pass on to our school children.

Project Learning Tree is another national program implemented by a State

agency. The South Carolina Forestry Commission facilitates this program, which

is primarily oriented toward education about trees. It is very similar to

Project Wild Aquatic in organization and goals. It would be an excellent

vehicle through which education about potential NPS problems from silvicultural

activities could be provided.

The Museum Nature Center Network is a loose coalition of organizations with

community education program aimed primarily, but not entirely, at students.

Educational efforts can be accomplished through this network both through the

participation by some of them in Project Wild Aquatic and by all through the

direct programs to children. Organizations which are a part of this network

include: the South Carolina Museum of Natural History, the Baruch Foundation

Nature Center (USC), the Coastal Zone Education Center (USC), the Charleston

Museum, the Roper Mountain Science Center, the Barrier Island Environmental

Education Center, Camp Thunderbird (YMCA), Camp Greenville (YMCA), and the State

Parks Naturalist Program. While the programs offered through each of these

facilities are quite diverse, all offer unique opportunities to educate very

different segments of South Carolina's population about NPS pollution and all of

these organizations should be approached about utilizing their programs.

Additionally, ther6 is the opportunity for personnel of the Conservation,

Education, and Communications (CEC) Office of SCWMRD to work with DHEC and other

agencies on the NPS Task Force to develop specialized materials to be utilized

for the NPS education effort in South Carolina.

-176-

XIV. EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAMS

Unlike point source pollution which can-be traced to a single source and to

a specific responsible cause, nonpoint source pollution is diffuse and its

contributors are ubiquitous. Contributor size ranges from thousands of acres of

eroding landscape to the individual homesite. Though widespread in scope, most

contributions to nonpoint source pollution can be mitigated by someone or by

someones. Those who can control nonpoint source pollution are the only ones who

can ultimately solve the problem. They must be identified, they must be

reached, they must be made aware, and they must be educated. Only through an

extensive effort of public education by nonpoint source interests will we ever

eventually reach the goal of controlling this kind of pollution. Public

education must be recognized as a critical requirement for any program to be

successful in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Only when individuals

understand the importance of clean water, what they can do, and how they can

help can real advancements in nonpoint source reductions be realized.

Audience Identification

Generally, we can identify everyone as contributors to nonpoint source

pollution. But more specificity is needed to target educational effort. Each

category of nonpoint source pollution needs to identify those who can assist in

reducing pollution from that category. Agriculture will identify the farmers,

the manufacturers of farming chemicals and equipment, the distributors of

farming chemicals and equipment. Construction will identify highway builders,

developers, contractors, architects. Forestry will identify forest landowners

and contractors. Urban runoff will identify homeowners, public officials,

service station attendants, school children. And the list goes on. This is but

-177-

an example of~the identification process which has be be accomplished before

reaching the targeted audience.,

Reachinci the Audience

People are reached in a wide variety of ways. Some respond best to a broad

general appeal, but others are most motivated by a more personal appeal or

through the opportunity to read published material. General appeals can be made

using video tapes or films for commercial or public television. Issues on a

statewide or a basinwide approach could be discussed. Newspaper articles in

newspapers of wide distribution could be prepared and provided. Interviews with

newspaper reporters often result in informative and educational articles.

Public displays of nonpoint source material can be developed. State and

county fairs can be used to display exhibits and distribute information in the

form of pamphlets and brochures. South Carolina has a number of special

festivals celebrating a variety of causes and events, each of which provides an

opportunity for creative promotion of the nonpoint source pollution cause.

On a more personal basis, one-to-one contact with' individuals, farmers for

example, provide a chance for one expert, a soil scientist, to talk directly to

another expert, the farmer. Trade associations and membership organizations

provide excellent opportunities to discuss nonpoint source pollution and

reduction techniques. Conferences, seminars, and workshops can be scheduled to

provide a forum for experts to share their views with others who have the same

interest. Special interest groups such as the S. C. Water Watch program welcome

the opportunity to be informed and trained in environmental matters.

A citizens handbook on nonpoint source pollution would provide an

opportunity for citizens to read a manual prepared in such a way as to

specifically introduce them to the problems and solutions facing us. A State

nonpoint source newsletter could target specific projects and activities and be

-178-

mailed to interested individuals and organizations. Organization newsletters

could report on their own efforts to controT nonpoint source pollution.

Awareness Proarams

The initial goal of reaching the public concerning awareness is the first

step. The existence of nonpoint source pollution and what it is needed to be

explained. Everyone must recognize nonpoint source pollution when it is seen.

They must know what it is, why it should be controlled, what damage results from

uncontrolled nonpoint source pollution, and how and why it costs us. Nonpoint

source pollution needs to become the concern of everyone who observes a muddy

stream or river, everyone who pours waste oil or paint into a storm drain, and

everyone who chemically maintains an urban or suburban yard. Only when we make

the public aware of the threat of nonpoint source pollution are they likely to

develop the concern needed to listen to the education.

Education

With education we will train people in the skill of effectively recognizing

nonpoint source pollution and then accepting the duty and responsibility for

taking appropriate action. The action may be personal control of an activity

such as maintaining a good vegetative cover and stream side buffer or properly

disposing of leftover chemicals, or the action may be supporting public policy

which may promote or control nonpoint source pollution. Education cannot begin

too soon, so a program which would introduce elementary school children to the

importance of water quality and the harm produced by nonpoint source pollution

should be implemented. Awards could be given to high school students for

science projects which use nonpoint source pollution as the subject. Science

projects may point out important new concepts in nonpoint source pollution as

well as educating and informing students.

Special educational projects are expected to be developed targeted to

specific watershed problems. If a particular waterbody is identified as being

-179-

impaired by certain specific activities which are nonpoint source in nature, a

program of awareness and BMP implementation can be developed and targeted for

that particular situation. After the development of the program, it can then be

presented at public meetings and through the public media.

A core part of education is explaining and promoting best management

practices as described in this Management Program. All of the various agencies

and organizations described in this Program will devote efforts to the task of

training the public in the proper use of appropriate BMPs.

We have described the possible contents of an ambitious public education

program to effectively incorporate individual citizens into the nonpoint source

management program. The extent to which this program is implemented depends in

great part on future Section 319 funding. Other funds will be used as available

by DHEC and other participating State and federal agencies to promote the need

for nonpoint sources pollution management, but only limited success can be

expected without substantial EPA participation in the budget process.

Planned Activities

Within a known NPS problem area, an audiovisual presentation will be

developed which will stimulate awareness of the problem and educate viewers.

After determining specific locations, causes, and sources, an informative and

effective presentation focusing on these identified sources and causes will be

developed. It will be aimed at residents, businesses, landowners, and local

government officials. The presentation will focus on sources of NPS pollutants

in the problem area and the BMPs which can be employed by the local community to

aid in the possibility of re-opening these valuable resource waters. An

effective 30 to 40 minute NPS educational presentation using a mix of

literature, verbal, and visual media will be developed. It will be prepared for

personal delivery to an audience. Needed audiovisual and related equipment to

.develop this presentation will be purchased.

A group of agencies including OHEC are contributing toward the production

of educational material on th~e nature ,and~value of wetlands by the S. C. Sea

Grant Consortium. The products will include video tape presentation, slide

show, and brochure. The materials will convey the message that there are a

variety of wetlands types, that there are compatible and incompatible uses, and

that public and private interests alike will benefit from a well defined policy

and process for delineating these areas and determining the appropriateness of

different types of freshwater wetlands. The materials and their availability

will be promoted through the news media and other appropriate vehicles such as

newsl1etters.

XV. CERTIFICATION OF ADEQUACY OF STATE LAWS

The State must certify that existing State laws are adequate to carry out

the proposed NPS Management Program. To accomplish this, the State's Attorney

General or State Water Pollution Control Agency Counsel must provide a

certification that there is adequate authority or, if there is not adequate

authority, a list of such addition authorities as will be necessary to

implement the program and a schedule and commitment by the State to seek such

authorities as expeditiously as possible.

On the following page is the Certification of Authority for the South

Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Plan. This certification was provided by

the Department of Health and Environmental Control's General Counsel. It

certifies that existing State laws are adequate to carry out the proposed NPS

Management Program.

South Carolina Department of Health

and Environmental Control

2600 Bull Street Board
Columbia, S.C. 29201 Harry M. Hallman, Jr., Chairman
Toney Graham, Jr. M.D., Vice-Chairman
Commissioner John B. Pate, M.D., Secretary
Michael D. Jarrett ~. Oren L. Brady, Jr.
Moses H. Clarkson, Jr.
Euta M. Colvin, M.D.
MEMORANDUM Henry S. Jordan, M.D.

September 28, 1988

TO: James A. Joy, III, Chief
Bureau of Water Pollution Control

x ROM: Walton J. McLeod, III XI 4�
General Counsel

Carlisle Roberts, Jr.6~
Staff Counsel

RE: Certification of Authority for the South
Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Plan

It is our opinion that the laws of the State of South
Carolina provide the Department of Health and Environmental
Control adequate authority for implementation of the Nonpoint
Source Management Plan.

The S.C. Pollution Control Act authorizes the Department to
abate, control and prevent pollution, which is defined very
broadly to include contamination of the surface water,
groundwater, ambient air, soil, or land. S.C. Code Ann.
�� 48-1-20, 48-1-10, 48-1-50(9). The Department is specifically
empowered to "[t]ake all action necessary or appropriate to
secure to this State the benefits of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act" and all other federal or state acts concerning
water pollution control. � 48-1-50(17).

The Department's broad powers also include authorization to
cooperate with the U.S. Government in respect to pollution
control matters [� 48-1-50(8)], to accept, receive and
administer grants or other funds for pollution control purposes
[� 48-1-50(12)], to collect and disseminate information on
pollution [48-1-50(14)], and to promulgate regulations for the
control and prevention of pollution (� 48-1-30). The Department
is authorized to issue orders and seek injunctions requiring the
discontinuance of unlawful discharges and to assess civil and
criminal penalties for violations. �� 48-1-50(3) and (4),
48-1-220, 48-1-320, 48-1-330.

Please let us know if we can provide further information.

WJM/CR, JR/pre

-183-

XVI. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY

This Section requires that State NPS- Management Programs identify any

federal financial assistance programs, development projects, and activities to

be reviewed by the State for their consistency with its Management Program.

This assures that the project or activity is implemented in a manner which the

State deems consistent with the Program. The requirement is based an Executive

Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983, that replaces OMB Circular

A-95, the so-called A-95 Review Process.

The procedure for implementing the consistency review process is as

follows. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator transmits to

the Office of Management and Budget and appropriate Federal agencies a list of

the assistance programs, development projects, and activities which the State

has identified for review once its NPS Management Plan has been finalized.

Beginning no later than 60 days thereafter each federal agency is required to

apply applicable procedures so that individual assistance applications and

projects for the identified programs and development projects are submitted for

NPS lead agency review. After receiving comments, the appropriate agencies and

departments of the federal government are required to accommodate concerns the

State may express about consistence of such applications or projects with the

State's NPS Management Program.

Executive Order 12372 titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs"
was issued July 14, 1982. This Executive Order was subsequently amended an
April 8, 1983, by Executive Order 12416 also titled "Intergovernmental Review
of Federal Programs." Thus, the reference to the "Executive Order 12372, as
in effect on September 17, 1983," includes the amendments added by Executive
Order 12416.

-184-

For purposes of the NPS Management Program, federal development-projects

are those activities undertaken, authorilbd, permitted, or financed by the

federal department, agency, or instrumentality, including natural resource

management or utilization, which may impact land management practices and

patterns, and which may cause the disturbance of land and/or ground cover,

including the discharge or runoff of pollutants into adjacent waters which, if

uncontrolled or without proper management may have an effect on the attainment

or the maintenance of applicable water quality standards. The term shall

include the land management activities (including the activities of Federal

agency tenants, claimants, lessees, or contractors) on/at Federal installations,

facilities, and lands. In South Carolina, programs and projects funded,

administered, and/or permitted by such federal agencies as U. S. Department of

Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

U. S. Department of Defense, U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Department of

Transportation, and U. S. Department of Energy will be reviewed for consistency

with the State's NPS Management Program. See Table 7 for a complete listing of

agencies and specific programs/projects.

Review Process

The primary mechanism for implementation of the federal consistency process

is the State Intergovernmental Review Process established pursuant to Executive

Order 12372. It designates a state entity called the "State Clearinghouse" for

review and coordination of federal assistance and development. The Ilead NPS

agency in South Carolina (Department of Health and Environmental Control) will

notify the Clearinghouse of its desire to review federal assistance applications

for programs and projects that impact the NPS Management Program for consistency

as soon as it is finalized. A copy of the list of programs and projects along

with the initiating agency will be provided. The Clearinghouse will then route

all assistance applications from the listed agencies and program areas to DHEC,

-185-

among o-thers,"for review and comment. If appropriate, DHEC will 'route the

information to cooperating agencies which have a responsibility or interest in

the NPS Management Program for comment. DHEC will incorporate these comments

i nto the final consistency review comments and transmit them to the

Clearinghouse.

At the same time, DHEC will submit the list to EPA. In turn, EPA will

consolidate State lists and transmit them to the Office of Management and Budget

and applicable federal agency headquarters. With the help of the EPA Region IV

Office, DHEC will transmit copies of the list to applicable local, district, or

regional, federal agency offices in order to alert them that their activities

will be reviewed.

If DHEC identifies consistence conflicts between the activity and the NPS

Management plan, it will immediately contact the applicant and suggest

alternative measures which would allow the activity to proceed in a manner

consistent with the NPS Program. If these procedures do not alleviate the

inconsistency, formal comments will be submitted through the Clearinghouse.

DHEC will work with the Clearinghouse to ensure that adequate conflict

resolution processes and procedures are in place to resolve inconsistency

issues. Procedures will be identified to allow DHEC to monitor federal

activities about which it has expressed consistency concerns.

DHEC will provide for intergovernmental and public review. In cases of

significant or controversial activities, the State's NPS Task Force will have

input.

DHEC will update the list of activities on an annual basis, should changes

be necessary. The State's annual report on NPS Program progress will include a

discussion on consistency activities.

In South Carolina, the S. C. Coastal Council, the State Coastal Zone

Management Agency, has established procedures to review proposed federal

-186-

activities fo-' consistency with approved Coastal Management Programs. The

Coastal Council is a cooperating NPS..agency. To avoid overlap, DHEC will

coordinate with the Coastal Council on consistency reviews of activities

affecting both the NPS and Coastal Management Zone programs.

Federal facilities that are not in 'Compliance with federal or State

pollution abatement standards must devise a five-year pollution abatement

control plan for bringing the facility into compliance. This is referred to as

the A-106 Process. The State of South Carolina will participate in the A-106

Process by identifying to EPA federal facilities in the State that are now or

may soon be violating State water quality standards or antidegradation

standards due to NPS pollution.

Review Criteria

DHEC will apply specific criteria during reviews that are based on the

content and goals of the NPS Management Plan. These rriteria will be provided

to all cooperating agencies for their review. The following will serve as

considerations and guidelines for conducting consistency reviews.

1. The extent to which the project is consistent with the State's NPS

Management Program, including the Management Program's goals, policies,

programs, plans, and activities;

2. The extent to which the project will comply with applicable pollution

control standards embodied in the Management Program, including:

a. Water quality standards, including beneficial uses, the numeric

and narrative criteria established to support these uses, and the

State's antidegradation policy;

b. Requirements for implementation of BMPs and other pollution

control measures;

-187-

c. "Any statutory, regulatory, or administrative requirements, such a

permits, monitoring, or prohibition of activities under certain

conditions.

3. The extent to which the project duplicates, runs counter to, or needs

to be coordinated with other projects or activities affecting the

areal's water resources.

4. The extent to which the project may support, enhance, or contribute to

the fulfillment of the State's NPS Management Program.

Table 6 presents the list of federal development project areas and agencies

that the State feels will impact, either favorably or adversely, the NPS

Management Program. The list contains the name of the federal agency

responsible for the program, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

identifier number, program title, and program description.

TABLE 6

FEDERAL PROGRAMS BELIEVE'D TO IMPACT THE STATE'S
NPS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Stabilization Conservation
Service (Technical assistance for the
following items is provided by the Sail
Conservation Service.)

Many, if not all applicable ASCS programs are exempt from the federal
consistency process (from E.O. 12372) as a result of a notice published in the
Federal Regiister of June 24, 1983 (7 CFR 3015). They are exempted because
thousands of programs between ASCS -and individual landowners are carried out
annually in each state. The NPS Management Program will provide input and make
recommendations on ASCS conservation programs through existing review processes.
Annual reviews of conservation practices and funding priorities are made by the
State Contervation Review Group of which NPS staff of DHEC has membership.

U. S. Department of Agriculture - Extension Service

10.500 Cooperative Extension Service:
To provide educational materials and technical assistance in the areas
of agricultural and natural resources production and marketing, rural
development, etc.

U. S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service

10.906 River Basin Surveys and Investigations:
To provide technical assistance to federal, State, and local agencies
as each works to improve economic development through the planning of
coordinated water and land resources programs. Primary objectives are
to solve problems of erosion and sedimentation, flooding, floodplain
management, and agricultural water management. In addition,
protecting wetlands and floodplains, improving water quality, and
other special resources is a priority.

10.901 Resource Conservation and Development:
Federal funds for technical assistance to RC&D areas in states.
Technical assistance given for measures to abate NPS pollution.

10.902 Soil and Water Conservation:
Federal funds for technical assistance to agricultural landowners for
BMP planning and application.

10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention:
Federal financial assistance for installing flood control and land
treatment projects.

Table 6 (continued)

Farmers Home Administration -

10.418 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities

10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans:
Loan assistance to local entities in authorized watershed areas for
works of improvement such as water4 quality management, sedimentation
control, public water-based recreation, water storage, flood control,
and irrigation.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

66.700 Pesticide Enforcement Program:
To assist states in developing and maintaining comprehensive pesticide
enforcement programs, to sponsor surveillance, monitoring and analytic
procedures, to encourage regulatory activities, and certify
applicators of restricted use pesticides.

66.456 Comprehensive Estuarine Management:
Development of a comprehensive conservation and management program for
estuaries designated by the EPA Administrator. Implementation
includes basin-wide reduction of point and nonpoint source pollutants,
and basin-wide resource management programs.

Note: Several other EPA programs will have NPS Program impact but are not
included on this list because DHEC NPS staff will have direct input.

U. S. Department of Defense - Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of
the Army

12.110 Planning and Assistance to States:
to cooperate with any State in the preparation of comprehensive plans
for the development, utilization, and conservation of water and
related land-use resources within a designated watershed.

12.100 Aquatic Plant Control:
To provide federal assistance to State and local government agencies
in the control of obnoxious aquatic plants in rivers, harbors, and
allIied waters.

12.106 Flood Control Projects:
To reduce flood damages through projects not specifically authorized
by Congress.

12.108 Snagging and Clearing for Flood Control:

12.109 Protection, Clearing, and Straightening Channels:
To restore channels for the purpose of navigation or flood control.
Land acquisition for spoil disposal purposes. Selection of
open-water disposal sites.

_190-

Table 6 (contillued)

Note: NPS staff currently has direct input through the certification
process certain Corps of Engineers licenses and permits. These
i-nclude construction of dams, dikes, etc. across navigable waters as
required under Section 401 of the Code of Laws; and disposal of
dredged spoils into the waters of the United States pursuant to
Section 404 of the Code of Laws. -

Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration

20.106 Location and design, construction, and maintenance of aids to air
navigation. Permits and licenses for construction, operation, or
alteration of airports.

20.205 Highway Planning and Construction:
To provide financial assistance to states for the development and
repair of interstate highways and bridges.

Department of Energy - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Licenses for non-federal hydroelectric projects and primary
transmission lines under Sections 3, 4, and 15 of the Federal Power
Act. Certificates for the construction and operation of interstate
natural gas pipeline facilities under Section 7 to the Natural Gas
Act. Certificates for the construction and operation of interstate
natural gas pipeline facilities including both pipelines and
terminals.

U. S. Forest Service - Cooperative Forestry Assistance

10.664 Financial assistance to State Forestry or equivalent agencies to
assist in advancement of forest resource management.

Proposals for forest related research to be carried out by the U. S. Forest
Service Southeast Experimental Station, Charleston, South Carolina.

Interstate Commerce Commission

Authority to abandon railway lines to the extent abandonment involves
trash removal and right-of-way deposition.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Licensing and certification of the siting, construction, and operation
of nuclear power plants pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, the ERA of
1974, and NEPA of 1969.

National Environmental Polity Act (NEPA)

XVII. FUNDING SOURCES

Federal financial support for the Nonpoint Source Control Program is

authorized from six new sections established by the Water Quality Act (P. L.

100-4) to support activities related to NPS control. The Management Program and

its implementation will be funded using a mix of these funding sources and

financial assistance from other federal and State sources.

Currently, federal funding specifically related to this nonpoint source

planning and implementation effort is addressed in Title II of the 1987 Clean

Water Act amendments. These funds are made available to states through the

Environmental Protection Agency. Funding authorized in Sections 319(h) and (i)

for implementation of NPS management programs has not been appropriated,

however. Unavailability of these funds is and will be an obstacle to

implementation of NPS related water quality improvements in some areas, but the

State intends to carry out a successful NPS Management Program using the funding

sources listed. If funding under Section 319 is ever appropriated, the South

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control will be the lead agency

in allocating the funds to the programs and agencies identified in the NPS

Manaciement Proaram.

Funding through programs of several agencies that have coordinating roles

in the State's NPS program will be utilized to implement management strategies

and best management practices. The intent of the NPS Manaaement Proaram is to

integrate all applicable financial and other types of assistance. A detailed

listing of sources of funding follows.

I. Funding Sources Authorized in the Clean Water Act of 1987 (P. L. 100-4)

A. Section 205(j)(5)

This section of the Act provides a set-aside of one percent of the

State's construction grant allotment. The Law mandates that at least

-192-

100,000 of this allotment is to be used for developing the State's NPS

Assessment Report and-Managemen't Program (program development) and for

implementing an approved Management Program (implementation). States

may apply for and use 205(j)(5) funds to implement the Management

Program after it has been approved by the Environmental Protection

Agency. A forty percent match, however, is required. When the funds

are used for program development, the match requirement does not

apply. The Act defines implementation activities, in general terms,

as "programs (including, as appropriate, regulatory and non-regulatory
program for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance,

education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects)

to achieve implementation of best management practices." Such

activities, when included in the State's Management Program shall be

considered eligible implementation activities for funding. In

addition, design of specific BMPs and the provision of financial

assistance to individuals for the physical installation of BMPs is

eligible in the case of "demonstrations." Also, financial assistance

provided to municipalities and other public entities is an eligible

implementation activity. EPA recommends that states earmark at least

eighty percent of their 205(j)(5) allocation for implementation

activities once the NPS Management Plan in approved. The South

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Health has applied for

$235,290 in Fiscal Year 1988 and has developed a workplan for its

expenditure. South Carolina allotments of 205(j)(5) funds through FY

1990 are known. They amount to $101,537 in FY 1989 and $121,845 in FY

1990.

-193-

B. Section 201(g)(1)

This Section, as amended, allows" NPS control efforts to be financed

through the Governor's twenty percent discretionary set-aside of

construction grants funds. These are Title If funds that may be made

available for any purpose for which a grant may be made under Section

319(h) and (i), that is to implement the NPS Management Program. Note

that the Act, however, does not mandate use of the fund for NPS

implementation; it only makes it available at the Governor's

discretion. Construction Grants funding, including the set-aside,

will not be appropriated after FY 1989.

C. Section 603(c) (2)

The CWA adds a new Title VI providing for federal capitalization

grants for States for State revolving funds to be used for loans,

primarily for municipal waste treatment. However, these loans may

also be made for the implementation of a NPS Management Program. In

South Carolina, State revolving fund loans may provide a source for

funding to units of government for projects to control NPS pollution

after FY 1991. Projects must be in accordance with a State's approved

NPS Management Program and must appear on the State's Project Priority

List. Favorable repayment schedules and interest rates are set by the

State to ensure the accomplishment of the public purposes involved

while protecting the integrity of the State's loan fund. Use of these

funds is at the discretion of the State once the program satisfies

Section 602 and Office of Municipal Pollution Control guidance.

D. Section 604(b)

Beginning in FY 1989, States must reserve each year one percent of

-194-

their State Revolving Loan Fund allotments or $100,000, whichever is

greater, to carry out planning Under 205(j) and 303(e). Since NPS

planning activities are eligible for funding under 205(j), the 604(b)

reserve is an additional source of potential funding for NPS activity.

Although expenditure of these funds' in South Carolina has been limited

to point source Water Quality Management (208) activities. South

Carolina's allocation under this provision is $103,610 for FY 1989 and

$124,332 for FY 1990.

E. Section 320(g)

This Section authorizes grants to study and implement programs for

estuary protection. The Governor of South Carolina has nominated

Charleston Harbor for consideration under the National Estuary

Program. Charleston Harbor is known to be impacted by nonpoint source

pollution. If the nomination were approved, the State would be

eligible for a grant to assist in research, surveys, studies,

modeling, and other technical work necessary'for the development of a

management plan. Accordingly, this project would be consistent with

the State NPS Management Program. The federal share of the program is

75 percent; however, the cost has not been determined.

F. Section 314(b)

The Clean Lakes Program provides financial assistance to States to

assess lake problems, and South Carolina Department of Health and

Environmental Control currently has a $64,000 grant to conduct a

diagnostic feasibility study on Lake Edgar Brown. The Lake is known

to be impacted by nonpoint source pollution. The Department also has

applied for $100,000 to study Lake Bowen. If awarded, grant funds

-195-

will- be shared with the S. C. Land Resources Commission wh'ich will

model land use in the waterstied and recommend BMPs to control NPS

contributions. Congress has authorized but not appropriated funds for

demonstration projects that would, among others, control nonpoint

sources of pollution which are contributing to the degradation of

water quality in lakes. If these funds are made available, the State

would propose this lake as a candidate for such a demonstration

project.

II. Federal Funding Sources of NPS Related Financial Assistance Programs

Authorized in Legislation Other than the Clean Water Act

A. Water Resources Development Act, P. L. 93-251, Section 22

This Act allows the Army Corps of Engineers to cooperate with any

State in the preparation of comprehensive plans for the development,

utilization, and conservation of water and related land use resources

located within designated watersheds. The Corps will share the cost

of some particular aspect of an approved project. The State must have

a planning program for the development, utilization, and conservation

underway or laid out in order to be eligible. This is a potential

source of funding.

B. Rural Clean Water Program, P. L. 96-528

The Agricultural Stabilization Conservation service (ASCS) will

provide financial and technical assistance to private landowners and

users in approved project areas. The assistance is provided to the

recipient in long term contracts of from three to ten years to install

best management practices in order to solve critical water quality

problems resulting from agricultural NPS. The project area must

-196-

reflect water quality priority concerns developed through the

established water quality managemient process. The maximum payment

allowed is $50,000. Funding from this program is being integrated

into the State NPS Program.

C. Conservation Reserve Program, P. L., 99-198

This program authorizes the ASCS to make annual payments to landowners

and users under a ten-year contract. The recipient agrees to

implement a conservation plan developed by the local Conservation

District for converting highly erobible land to less intensive use.

The purpose is to reduce soil erosion and enhance water quality. In

South Carolina, approximately 227,300 acres of highly erodible land

have been taken out of production. A recently added feature of this

program allows payments to those individuals that install "Vegetative

Filter Strips". A filter strip is a 66 to 99 foot wide strip of land,

formerly planted in crops, located along a waterbody to grow in grass,

shrubs, or trees. They act as filters of sediment, associated,

nutrients, and other pollutants. The South Carolina NPS Management

Program encourages funding for filter strips. Funding through the CRP

is being integrated into the State's NPS programs.

D. Agricultural Conservation Program, P. L. 96-294

This program authorizes ASCS to share in the costs of instituting BMPs

and other conservation practices on agricultural land with eligible

landowners. New emphasis is being placed on BMPs that improve water

quality. The 1988 South Carolina ACP allocation was $2,817,026. Of

this amount, $570,000 was allocated for one special water quality

project. In 1989, two more special water quality projects will be

-197-

fundied in the amount of $341,000. There is a possibility that this

funding level will be increased. Funding from the ACP is being

integrated into the State's NPS Management Program.

E. Resource Conservation and Development Loans, P. L. 87-703

This program allows the Farmers Home Administration (FMHA) to provide

loan assistance to local sponsoring agencies for resource conservation

and development. These loans are made to units of local government

for soil and water development, conservation, control, and use

facilities. This is a potential source of funding for the NPS

Management Program.

F. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans, P. L. 83-566

The FMHA is authorized to make loans to local entities in authorized

watershed areas for works of improvement such as water quality

management, sedimentation control, public water-based recreation,

water storage, flood control, and irrigation. This is a potential

source of funds for the NPS Management Program.

G. Resources Conservation and Development, P. L. 97-98

The Soil Conservation Service is allowed to provide financial and

technical assistance for planning and the installation of best

management practices specified in the conservation plan. The purpose

of the program is to conserve and improve the use of land, develop

natural resources, and improve the environment in rural areas. In

South Carolina, SCS provides some cost-share funds for construction

contracts and funds for technical assistance. This funding is being

integrated into the NPS Management Program.

H. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention (Small Watershed Program),

P. L.-566

-198-

The 'Soil Conservation Service is authorized to provide financial and

technical assistance to State agemiies, counties, municipalities, etc.

in the planning, designing, and installation of a watershed

improvement project. These projects are an effort to protect,

develop, and utilize land and water resources in small watersheds.

Financial assistance is in the form of cost-sharing funds to

landowners. This source of funding will be integrated into the

State's NPS Program.

11. Agricultural Credit Act (Emergency Conservation Program), P.L. 95-334

The ECP provides cost-share funds for emergency assistance to meet the

critical needs of agricultural landowners due to severe drought or other

natural disasters. The Act enables ASCS to make direct payments to

landowners for performance of emergency conservation measures to control

wind erosion on farmlands and to rehabilitate farmlands damaged by wind

erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters. The funds may

also be used for water conservation or water enhancing measures during

periods of severe drought. This is a potential source of funds that may be

integrated into the NPS Management Program.

III. State Funding Sources

A. South Carolina State Conservation Tax Credits, Sections 12-7-615 and

12-7-617, Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976

This legislation provides state income tax credits for the purchase of

conservation tillage planters and for the construction and restoration

of water impoundments for the purposes of erosion and sediment

control, irrigation, water supply, aquaculture, and wildlife

management. Taxpayers may receive a credit of 25 percent of the cost,

-199-

to A' maximum of $2,500, for the purchase or instal lation of these

i tems.

The conservation tillage planter credit is a one-time credit; the

water impoundment credit may be repeated. If the amount of the

credits exceeds the tax liability''for the year of expenditure, both

may be carried over for credit against income tax in the next five

succeeding taxable years.

To qualify for the credit on water impoundments, taxpayers must either

obtain a construction permit (pursuant to the S. C. Dams and Reservoir

Safety Act) from the S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission or a

certificate of exemption from the permit. The exemption certificate

may be issued by either the LRCC or the Soil and Water Conservation

District in which the impoundment is constructed. While not a true

source of funding, this program serves as a financial incentive and

will be integrated into the State's NPS Program.

B. Department of Energy Petroleum Violation Escrow Funds

The S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission, through the

Governor's Office, obtained $488,158 from this fund in 1988. The

funds were used to purchase conservation tillage and drip irrigation

installation equipment which can be rented at low cost by agricultural

landowners. The LRCC has applied to the Governor's Office for

$489,430 to make similar purchases in the next fiscal year. This

funding source will be integrated into the NPS Program.

-200--

XVIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

South Carolina's nonpoint source program is to be a cooperative effort

between federal, State, and local governments; the private business sector;

environmental interest groups; and the public at large. While the South

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control is designated as the

State's lead agency for nonpoint source pollution control, it is recognized that

experts in many of the nonpoint source categories are found in a wide variety of

organizations and in the general public. We have attempted to include and

involve all interested and knowledgeable organizations and individuals. We have

responded to all requests for copies of the Management Program and to all

requests for personal appearances.

Copies of the Program were made available to all of the 46 local Soil and

Water Conservation Districts. A NPS Task Force has been established consisting

of representatives from 25 organizations. A roster of Task Force affiliations

appears in Table 7. A number of Task Force meetings have been held to discuss

the Program, and the Task Force will continue its input to the nonpoint source

program.

The draft Management Plan was placed in each of the 12 DHEC Environmental

Quality Control offices around the State for public review. A public notice was

prepared and sent to four newspapers: The State (Columbia), the Greenville

News, The Charleston News and Courier, and the Florence Mommia News. It was

also sent to approximately 400 individuals and groups that receive public

notices on other Departmental matters. A copy of this public notice is

exhibited in Appendix 3. It explains the purpose and content of the Program-,

lists where it is available for review, and explains how and when to submit

-201-

TABLE 7

NPS TASK FORCE

1. Division of Marine Resources, S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

2. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

3. S. C. Forestry Commission

4. U. S. Forest Service

5. Charleston District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

6. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Clemson University

7. Department of Fertilizer and Pesticide Control, Clemson University

S. S. C. Land Resources Conservation Commission

9. S. C. Water Resources Commission

10. S. C. Coastal Council

11. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. D. A.

12. S. C. Sea Grant Consortium

13. Division of Energy, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, Office of the

Governor

14. Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, S. C. Wildlife and Marine Resources

15. Department of Civil Engineering, University of South Carolina

16. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U. S. D. A.

17. Agricultural Extension Service, Clemson University

18. U. S. Geological Survey

19. State Advisory Council on Erosion and Sediment Reduction

20. S. C. Wildlife Federation

21. Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste, D. H. E. C.

22. Bureau of Water Pollution Control, DHEC

23. Bureau of Water Supply and Special Programs, DHEC

24. Bureau of Environmental Sanitation, DHEC

-202-

comments. The'notice appeared in the above mentioned newspapers on October 10,

1988. Mailing list recipients received it on or before that date.

The comment period closed on November 9, 1988, thirty days later. More than 60

copies of the Program were mailed in response to the public notice.

On December 22, 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency issued Public

Notice Number 88-NPS-01-SC requesting public comment on the State of South

Carolina's proposed NPS Assessment report and NPS Management Program. A copy of

the public notice is included in Appendix 4. The public comment expiration date

was January 22, 1989. Comments on the Program were sent to EPA for their review

and forwarded to DHEC NPS staff.

Members of the DHEC NPS staff presented the Management Program to a meeting

of the State Advisory Council on Erosion and Sediment Reduction. This advisory

council is established pursuant to the S. C. Erosion and Sediment Reduction Act

and consists of representatives from public and private organizations concerned

with erosion and sediment control. Members of the Council were invited to

review the draft program and provide comments. The' Council consists of 27

members representing the organizations shown in Table 8.

DHEC staff members also participated in and co-sponsored a Symposium on

Water Quality and Stormwater Management sponsored by the S. C. Chapter, Soil and

Water Conservation Society, The S. C. Land Resources Commission, the

Conservation Districts of South Carolina, and the USDA Soil Conservation Service

at which more than 150 individuals were in attendance. An overview of the

Management Program was presented, and the attendees were invited to request a

copy for comment.

Many useful written and verbal comments have been received as a result of

public participation. All comments were carefully reviewed and incorporated

into the Management Program where appropriate and when possible.

-203-

TABLE 8

STATE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT REDUCTION

1. S. C. Governor's Office

2. S. C. Association of Counties

3. Municipal Association of South Carolina

4. S. C. Association of Conservation Districts

S. Homebuilders Association of South Carolina

6. Carolina's Branch, The Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.

7. S. C. Association of Realtors

S. S. C. Chapter, American Society of Landscape Architects

9. S. C. Section, American Society of Civil Engineers

10. S. C. Chapter, American Institute of Architects

II. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

12. U. S. D. A., Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service

13. S. C. Department of Highways and Public Transportation

14. S. C. Department of Education

15. State Engineer, S. C. Budget and Control Board

16. S. C. Coastal Council

17. Executive Directors' Committee, Council of Governments

18. S. C. Farm Bureau

19. S. C. State Grange

20. Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, S. C. Senate

21. Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, S. C. House of Representatives

22. U. S. D. A., Soil Conservation Service

23. Clemson University

24. S. C. Water Resources Commission

25. S. C. Forestry Commission

26. S. C. Forestry Association

27. S. C. Department of Health and Environmental Control

-204-

APPENDIX 1

NONPOINT SOURCE GUIDANCE

VECEMBER 1987

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF WATER

OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

-205-

B.Development of State Management Programs

( ~ ~~~ 1. Introduction-

State Management Programs should provide an overview of a State's
NPS programs as well as a summary of what the State intends to
accomplish in the next four fiscal years beginning after the da te
of program submission. EPA trusts that development of State Manage-
ment Programs will help States move toward viable, long-range NPS
management programs.

State Management Programs should be submitted by the Governor of each
State, for that State or in combination with adjacent States, after
notice and opportunity for public comment. State Management Programs
should be submitted to the appropriate Regional NPS Coordinator by
August 4, 1988.

While the Assessment Report identifies the overall dimensions of
the State's NPS water quality problems, a State will probably find
it both useful and necessary to carve out a subset of these waters
in Its State Management Program for concerted action on a watershed-
by-watershed basis over the next four years. Such targeting will
provide the greatest opportunity for achieving visible water quality
improvements in the short run. In addition, States should develop
Statewide program approaches to address NPS problems such as con-
struction erosion, urban stormwater runoff from developing areas,
forestry practices, or other types of NPS problems.

( ~~~States are encouraged to target or identify the sequence for
protecting their water resources based on a comparative evaluation
of the State's waters. The guiding principles in evaluating a State's
waters are to maximize environmental benefit by devoting resources
and efforts to water resources in a priority order that recognizes
the values of the waterbody in question, the benefits to be realized
from various control actions (including evidence of local public
interest and support), and the controllability of the problem(s).

States should consider the following factors in targeting NPS problem
areas:

� What waterbodies are most valuable from various perspectives--
aquatic habitat, recreation, and water supply for example?

o What waterbodies are subject to adverse effects from both
pollution and aquatic habitat destruction (wetlands), and can
be impacted by water programs?

o What tools are available to address the waterbodies identified?

o What areas are most likely to be improved through governmental
action?

� Which problems are most amenable to the availabl e tools and controls?

-206-

o What is the degree of public support (local or statewide) to
protect a particular aquatic resource?

o How willing are other governmental agencies to take steps to
use their tools and resources to help address the problem?

o Where would "combined actions" offer the greatest benefit
relative to the value of the aquatic resource?

States are encouraged to refer to an EPA Office of Water Regulations
and Standards' technical publication called Settine Priorities: The
Rev to Nonpoint Source Pollution Control for more details on effective
NPS targeting approaches (US EPA. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Settinz Priorities: The Kev to Nonvoint Source Pollution
Control, July 1987). The NPS targeting strategy, as presented in
this document, complements the targeting concept in the State Clean
Water Strategy Guidance; more specifically, it is intended to present
successful State approaches to targeting NPS water pollution control
problems.

States should, where appropriate, supplement the funding of existing
NPS projects in order to demonstrate the benefits of NPS projects
within the four year program.

The State Management Program needs to be balanced between the priority
problems the State identifies and implementation of Statewide NPS
programs. Examples of Statewide NPS programs include Statewide
regulations for forestry, grazing, or construction erosion control,
or Statewide educational programs aimed at protecting water resources
from NPS impacts. Targeted water quality projects and Statewide
programs should be.directed at either improving degraded water quality
or preventing NPS impacts in high quality waters.

2. State Management Prow-an Reauirements

State Management Programs shall include the following six categories
of information:

(A) best management practices and measures which will be used
to reduce pollutant loadings resulting from each category,
subcategory, or particular nonpoint source designated in the
State's Assessment Report, taking into account the impact of
the practice on ground-water quality.

(B) programs (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory or
regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance,
financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects) to achieve implementation of the
best management practices designated under subparagraph (A).

(C) a schedule containing annual milestones for (i) utilization of
the program implementation methods identified in subpara-
graph (B), and (ii) implementation of the the best management
practices identified in subparagraph (A) by the categories,

-207-

subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources designated in the
State's Assessment Report. Such schedule shall provide for
utilization of the best management practices at the earliest
practicable date.

(D) a certification by the attorney general of the State or States
(or the chief attorney of any State water pollution control
agency which has independent legal counsel) that the laws of
the State or States, as the..case may be, provide adequate
authority to implement svch management program or, if there is
not adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities
as will be necessary to implement such management program and a
schedule and commitment by the State or States to seek such
additional authorities as expeditiously as practicable.

(E) sources of Federal and other assistance and funding [other than
assistance provided under subsections (h) and (i)] which will be
available in each of such fiscal years for supporting imple-
mentation of such practices and measures and the purposes for
which such assistance will be used in each of such fiscal years.

(F) the Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects for which the State will review individual assistance
applications or development projects for their effect on water
quality pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372 as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether
such assistance applications or development projects would be
consistent with the program prepared under this subsection; for
the purposes of this subparagraph, identification shall not
be limited to the assistance programs or development projects
subject to Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State's nonpoint source pollution management program.

3. Explanation

As required by the Act, States should develop Management Programs
to the maximum extent practicable on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
State NPS Management Programs should focus geographically on NPS
priority areas identified through a comparative evaluation of the
State's waters. Management strategies should comprehensively address
the NPS problems in the watersheds targeted for implementation,
regardless of landownership (Federal/State/local/private). In
addition, States should develop Statewide program approaches to
address various types of nonpoint sources.

The Act requires six principal categories of information to be
included in State NPS Management Programs and each category as well
as other items are discussed below:

Best Manazement Practices (BMPs) - State programs must identify the
BMPs which will be used to reduce pollution from each of the categor-
ies or subcategories of NPS pollution, taking into account the

-208-

impact of the proposed practices an ground-water quality.

States are required to consider the impact of best management
practices an ground water. This :is due to the intimate hydrologic
relationship that often exists between surface and ground water,
and the possibility that measures taken to reduce contaminants in
surface water runoff may increase transport of these contaminants
to ground water.

The range of detail regarding BliPs *in State submittals may vary
from lists of BliPs which are gen~erally considered appropriate for
the various categories and subcategories of NI'S pollution to detailed
watershed plans. However, grant applications which seek support
for specific demonstration watershed projects under sections 319
or 205(j)(5) should contain more specific information on the types
and amount of BliPs needed for particular projects (see section on
Demonstration Projects under Grant Application Requirements).
NPS Proxrams - States must identify the nonregulatory. and regulatory
programs including enforcement, technical assistance, financial
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration
projects and monitoring/evaluation to assist in the development and
implementation of BliPs. The lead and cooperating agencies for
carrying out these programs should be identified and their responsi-
bilities clearly identified.

Section 319(h)(7) states that Federal funds from this section
may be used for financial assistance to individuals only to the ex-
tent that such assistance is related to the costs of "demonstration *
projects." The Conference Report accompanying the Act (Report
99-1004) explains th e limitations regarding "demonstration projects:"

States may use Federal funds authorized by the bill for
financial assistance to individuals only insofar as the
assistance is related to costs of implementing demonstra-
tion projects. Federal-funds are not to be used as a
general subsidy or for general cost sharing to support
implementation of best management practices. However, a
State is not preclude4 from using or directing other
funds for cost sharing or other incentive programs if it
chooses. The term "demonstration projects" includes pro-
jects designed to educate individuals as to the use of
best management practices and to demonstrate their feasi-
bility and utility as well as research projects to estab-
lish the cost effectiveness of particular BlMPs.

Schedule - State programs will include a schedule containing annual
milestones for the four year program. Milestones built into the four
year program will provide an opportunity to gauge effectiveness of
programs and to make needed mid-course corrections. Annual work
programs included in grant applications must include commitments to
meet the four year Management Program.. Examples of milestones in-
clude: anticipated improvements in water quality, water use or achieve-
ment of water quality standards; numbers and types of BMiPs implemented;

-20c)-

reports completed; NPS-related laws passed; and NPS programs established.

Certification of Adequacy of State Laws - The State must certify
that existing State laws are adequate to carry out the proposed pro-
gram or the Management Program must contain a stated intent to seek
additional needed authority. If additional legal authority is needed,
the schedule for seeking such authority should be adequately expeditious
to allow implementation within the four-year Management Program.

Fundinu Sources - The Managemerit Program should identify sources of
Federal and other assistance and funding other than that provided
by sections 319(h) and (i) which will be used to carry out the
State's NPS Management Program in each of the four fiscal years.

Federal Consistencv - State Management Programs should identify any
individual Federal financial assistance programs or Federal devel-
opment projects to be reviewed by the State for their consistency
with its proposed State NPS Management Program. According to the
Congressional Record on January 14, 1987, this requirement is based
on Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983*, which

... replaces OMB Circular A-95 and establishes procedures by
which State authorities may comment upon applications for
Federal assistance and Federal development projects to assure
that the federally supported activities and projects are con-
sistent with State nesds and objectives. This bill assures
that the provisions of the Executive order, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, will be applicable to the State's implemen-
tation of this review process, with respect to its nonpoint
source management program, regardless of any subsequent revisions
of the Executive order. The bill also allows States to designate
any Federal assistance program or development project listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, rather
than just those programs and projects subject to the current
Executive Order 12372.' The purpose of this provision is to
allow the States to review any Federal program or project
that the State determines needs to be reviewed for consistency
with its nonpoint management program. This provision builds
upon established procedures for State review of Federal
activities. It will provide the States with an important tool
to assure that proposed Federal assistance and development
projects are implemented in a manner which the State deems
consistent with its nonpoint source pollution management program.

Executive Order 12372 titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" was issued July 14, 1982. This Executive Order was
subsequently amended on April 6, 1983 by Executive Order 12416 also
titled "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs." Thus, the
reference to the "Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983," includes the amendments added by Executive Order 12416.

-210-

The"Administrator is required to transmit to the Office of Management
and Budget and appropriate Federal agencies a list of the assistance
programs and development projects'which each State has identified
for review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Executive Order
12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983. Beginning no later than
60 days thereafter each Federal agency is required to amend applicable
regulations so that individual assistance applications and projects
for the identified programs and development projects are submitted
for State review. In addition, the appropriate agencies and depart-
ments of the Federal Government"are required to accomodate, according
to the requirements and definitions of the Executive Order, concerns
the State may express about consistency of such applications or
projects with the State's NPS Management Program.

(Note: More detailed information on how to carry out the Federal
consistency provisions is currently being developed.)

Public Notice and Ovnortunitv for Public Comment - States should
actively involve other groups with water quality and resource
interests in the development of State Management Programs. In
addition, the State shall provide a public notice on the availability
of the State's Management Program for public review and must provide
an opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to EPA. Also,
within ten days of receipt of a specific Management Program, the
appropriate EPA Regional Office will provide public notice that they
have received such Management Program.

4. Criteria for Averoval of State Manaaement Prowrams

Following are the criteria that EPA will use in evaluating a State's
Management Programi.

(A) Identification of BMPs [section 319(b)(2)(A)]

o Are appropriate NPS-BMPs identified for each of the
categories and subcategories of nonpoint sources identified
in the State's Assessment Report?

o Has the impact of these BKPs on ground-water quality
been considered?

(B) Identification of needed implementation programs
[section 319(b)(2)(B)]

o Are the implementation programs (i.e., education,
technical/financial assistance, enforcement, etc.) to be
used identified?

o Are the lead and cooperating agencies responsible for
the State's NPS programs identified and are their
responsibilities clearly identified?

o Are implementation programs developed on a watershed-by-
watershed basis, to the extent practicable (there is

-211-

recognition that Statewide program approaches are needed
to address certain NPS problems)?

o If the NPS programs include financial assistance to
individuals (cost-sharing), are the Federal 319(h) costs
related only to supporting the costs of demonstration
projects, as required by section 319(h)(7)?

o Have milestones been scheduled during the four year
program to allow for implementation, evaluation of program
effectiveness and any necessary mid-course corrections?
For example, have goals been established for individual
watersheds regarding how many BMPs will be implemented by
what date or what water quality improvements are expected,
or has a schedule been established for the development of
certain NPS regulations?

(D) Certification of the attorney general of adequate State
authority [section 319(b)(2)(D)]

o If a State's authorities are not adequate, is there a schedule
for obtaining adequate authority to support needed implementa-
tion within the timeframe of the four year section 319 program?

(E) 'Source.3 of Federal and other assistance and funding
[section 319(b)(2)(E)]

o Does the Management Program explain how State and local funds,
other related EPA programs [other than 319(h) and (i)], and
othtor Federal programs affecting NPS control will be integrated
and utilized as part of an overall State NPS Management Program
e.g., other EPA programs such as 314, 320, 117, etc. and other
Federal agency programs such as USDA's Conservation Reserve
Program?

(F) Consistency of Federal programs with State NPS requirements
[section 319(b)(2)(F)]

o Is the State's identification of Federal financial assistance
programs and Federal development projects to be reviewed
specific enough to allow EPA to identify the programs/projects
clearly to the appropriate Federal agency?

(G) Public notice and opportunity for public comment [section 319(b)(1)]

o Have other groups with water quality and resource interests
been actively involved in the process of developing the State
Management Program e.g., have fish and wildlife, recreational,
agricultural, forestry, drinking water and wetlands protection
agencies, etc., participated in developing the Management
Program?

-212-

Appendix 2

SOUTH CAROLINA WATERBODIES IMPACTED BY NPS POLLUTION

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I { [ I NPS [I {I DATA I MONITORED/ { S~DS. { ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED ] WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION 4ICATEGORYIJ PARAMETERS OF CONCERN I[ SOURCE J EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I [ [ { {{ FC [ DO [ TX I SS [ NT { pH I TB { BO I AN {{ I I { :
03040201 BIG SWAMP FLORENCE PD-168 I 11 If S N N {I I N DO {
03040201 BLACK CREEK DARLINGTON PD-021 111,41,4311 $ S N N II IIllIV ME I
03040201 BLACK CREEK DARLINGTON PD-025 { 11 {{ S N N {{ IIV ME {ALSO PT SOURCE
03040201 CATFISH CANAL MARLON PD-32! 111,41,43ll S S N S l{ IIV ME 1
03040201 CATFISH CANAL MARION PD-097 111,41,431l N N S II IIV ME DO I
03040201 CROOKED CREEK MARLBORO PD-107 111,41,43ll S N N If IIV ME I
03040201 JEFFRIES CREEK FLORENCE PD-256 ~
{ 11,58 II N N I{ IIIIIV ME {
03040201 JEFFRIES CREEK DARLINGTON PD-255 I 11 II N N II I M DO I
03040201 LAKE ROBINSON DARLINGTON PD-266 I 11 I{ N N {{ IIV ME {
03040201 LYNCHES LAKE FLORENCE PD-O86A 111,41,43ll N N S S II I M IALSO PT SOURCE
~
03040201 MIDDLE SWAMP FLORENCE PD-230 11 {{ N N S {I I M {
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER FLORENCE PD-076 11 {I $ S S N {I lIIIIV ME {
03040201 P~ DEE RIVER DARLINGTON PD-028 11,13 {] S S S N ][ I N I
03040201 PEE DEE RIVER MARLBORO PD-015 11,12 II N N II IIV ME l
i 03040201 PEE DEE RIVER MARLBORO PD-012 11,12 II S S S N II IIII ME I
~, 03040201 PEE DEE RIVER FLORENCE PD-236 11 If N S S {I IIV ME }:
03040201 PRESTWOOD LAKE DARLINGTON PD-268 41,43 [[ N N f{ I M pH }
i 03040201 SNAKE BRANCH DARLINGTON PD-2S8 41,43 I{ S S N S S {I I M t
03040201 SNAKE BRANCH DARLINGTON PD-137 41,43 II N It I M. I :
03040201 THOMPSON CREEK CHESTERFIELD 11 If U U II IllIV E' I
03040201 THREE CREEKS MARLBORO {11,21,31{{ U U {I III E }
03040202 BIG SWAMP FLORENCE PD-169 11 {[ S N N S S {I I N {ALSO PT SOURCE
03040202 LICK CREEK LANCASTER PD-329 11,14 {{ N [{ I M
03040202 LITTLE FORK CREEK CHESTERFIELD PD-215 11 II N II I M
03040202 LITTLE LYNCHES RIVER LANC~TER PD-006 11 {t N S S S N l{ I M
03040202 LITTLE RIVER HORRY MD-162 41,43 {{ S S N I{ IIII ME
03040202 LYNCHES LAKE FLORENCE PD-087 11 If N N S If IVI ME
D~pM
03040202 LYNCHES LAKE FLORENCE PD-08S 111,41,43{I N N S S {I I M
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER LEE 111,41,43ll U U U U U II III E
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER FLORENCE PD-041 11 {I S N II IIV ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KERSHAW PD-080 11 It S S S S N If I M
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER FLORENCE PD-281 I1 It S N It IIV ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIV~ CHESTERFIELD PD-113 11 It N N N If IIVV ME
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KERSHAW PD-009 11 II S N It I M
03040202 LYNCHES RIVER KERSHAR PD-066 11 {{ S {.N }1 IIII HE
03040202 S BR WILDCAT CREEK LANCASTER PD-180 14 {} N N {I I M
03040202 SPARROW SWAMP DARLINGYON PD-072 11 {{ N N S {{ IIIIIV ME DOpH
03040202 TODD BRANCH LANCASTER PD-005 41,43 {{ N N S {{ I M FC
03040202 W BR WILDCAT CREEK LANCASTER PD-I?9 14 {{ N N {{ I M
03040204 BEAVERDAM CREEK DILLON PD-310 11 {{ N N N S {{ I M DOpH
03040204 CHINNERS MILL BRANCH HORRY PD-177 11 {{ N l{ I M
03040204 LAKE SWAMP HORRY PD-176 11,18 II N N S S I{ IIV ME
03040204 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER MARION PD-189 11 I{ S S N S N {I IIV ME

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I { { [ NPS II I{ DATA I MONITORED/ { STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION ~ICATEGORYI{ PARAMETERS OF CONCERN l{ SOURCE I EVALUATED { VlO. I COMMENTS
I I I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AM II I I I
03040204 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER DILLON PD-069 11,21 II S II IIIIIVVI ME pH
03040204 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER MARION PD-053 11 II S {I IIIIIV ME
03040204 LITTLE PEE DEE RIVER DILLON PD-O29E 11 II II IIIIIV ME
03040204 MAIDEN DOWN SWAMP MARLON PD-190 11 I{ N II I M DO
03040204 McLAURENS MILL POND MARLBORO PD-17A 11 II N II I M
03040204 PANTHER CREEK MARLBORO PD-306 11 II N N II I M
03040205 BIRCH CREEK WILLIAMSBURG PD-213 11,18 II S S N II I M
03040205 BLACK MINGO CREEK GEORGETOWN PD-172 I1 II S S N II I M DO
03040205 BLACK RIVER LEE PD-186 111,41,43{{ S S U U N S U li IIII ME
03040205 GREEN SWAMP SUMTEN PD-039 {11,41,43{{ S S {{ I M l:
03040205 POCOTALIGO RIVER SUMTEN PD-091 t11,41,43il S S S N N II I M IALSO PT SOURCE
03040205 POCOTALIGO RIVER CLARENDON PD-115 { 11 {I N N S l{ I M DO {
03040205 POCOTALIGO RIVER SUMTEN PD-202 111,41,4311 N S N S N it I M DOpR {ALSO PT SOURCE
03040205 PUDDING SWAMP WILLIAMSBURG PD-203 { 11 {{ S N S {I IIV ME {
03040205 ROCKY BLUFF SWAMP SUMTEN PD-201 { 11 l{ S M N II I M {FCDOpHi
03040205 SCAPE ORE SWAMP LEE { 11,43 {{ U U U U U {{ IIIIV E
03040205 TURKEY CREEK SUMTEN PD-098 }11,41,43{{ N S N S {i I M FC i
'~03040206 CRABTREE CREEK HORNY MD-158 111,41,43ll N N S {t I M FCDO I
03040206 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HORNY MD-085 41,43 {{ S N N S {{ 1,11,7I ME I
03040206 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HORNY MD-088 41,43 {{ $ N {{ I M FC }
03040206 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HORNY MD-087 41,43 {{ S N S II I M FC {
03040206 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HORNY MD-127 41,43 }{ N S S S {I I M I
03040206 INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY HORNY MD-089 41,43 II S N S I{ I M I
03040206 KINGSTON LAKE HORNY MD-107 41,43 {1N N N S {I I M {FCDOpH{
03040206 WACCAMAW RIVER HORNY MD-136 {11,18,43{{ N S {{ I M
03040206 WACCAMAW RIVER HORRY MD-111 111,18,43{1 N N S II I M pH
03040206 WACCAMAW RIVER HORNY MD-110 {11,18,431{ N N S {{ IIIIVI ME
03040207 ATL SURF-CMB OUTFALLS HORRY 41,43 it 1{ 11I E 01 OUTFALLS
03040207 ATL SURF-NMB 27 AVE S HORNY 41,43 l{ {{ III E
03040207 ATL SURF-NMB 7 AVE S HORNY 41,43 {I {I III E
03040207 IATL SURF-NMB MAIN STREET HORNY 41,43 l{ {{ III E
03040207 {ATL SURF-SURFSIDE S AVE S{ HORNY 41,43 {{ i{ III E
03040207 IATL SURF-SURFSIDE 7 AVE N{ HORNY 41,43 {{ {{ III E
03040207 {CANE PATCH SWASH-ATL SURF{ HORNY 41,43 i{ i{ III E
03040207 { HOG INLET I HORNY 141,43,71{{ U {{ III E 3 CANALS
03040207 { INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY { HORNY MD-091 {11,41,43{{ S N S l{ I M FC
03040207 {LIT~E R INLET-DUNN SOUND{ HORNY I 90 {{ U {{ III E {SHELLFISH PROHB
03040207 MIDWAY INLET INTERIOR GEORGETOWN {41,43,65{{ U {{ III E {SHELLFISH PROHB
03040207 MURRELLS INLET GEORGETOWN {41,43,711l {{ III E { MARINAS
03040207 NORTH INLET GEORGETOWN {41,43,71{{ l{ III E {DEBIDUE CANALS
03040207 PATLEYS INLET INTERIOR GEORGETOWN {41,43,65l} U {{ III E {
03040207 SAMPIT RIVER GEORGETOWN {41,43,65l{ U U U {{ III E {ALSO PT SOURCE
03040207 SINGLETON SWASH HORNY 141,43,0011 l{ III E { GOLF RUNOFF

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

~~~~I ~I I I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION tICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pHI TB I BO I ANI I I I
030402071 TURKEY CREEK I GEORGETOWN I MD-076N I 11 II I I I I I I I I I I n I
03040207 1 WHITE POINT SWASH I HORRY I 41,43 ii I I I I I I I I Ii III I E I
030402071 WINYAH BAY I GEORGETOWN I I 11 I II I U I I I I II VII I E I
03040207 WITHERS SWASH-ATL SURF I HORRY 1 41,43 II I I I I I I I 11 IU I E
03050101 1 BEAVERDAM CREEK I YORK I CW-153 14 11 N I I I I N I I S I I,IV I NE I
03050101 1 CROWDERS CREEK I YORK I CW-023 11,14 II N I I S I I I I I I II I FC iALSO PT SOURCE
03050101 i LAKE WYLIE I YORK I 11,65 II U I I I U I I I I I II III,IV I E I
030501011 TOOLS FORK CREEK I YORK I CW-212 11 I N I I I I I I I I II I I N
03050103 1 BEAR CREEK I LANCASTER I CW-151 11,14 11 S I S I I I N I S I I I I I n
030501031 BEAR CREEK I LANCASTER ICW-131 141,43 11N IS I I IN I IS I I II I I n I 1
U30UU103 I CANE CREEK I LANCASTER I CW-185 114,58 11 S I S I I I N I IS I I II IIV I ,E I I
03050103 I CATAWBA RIVER I YORK I 65 11 U I I I I I IU I I II III I E I ALSO PT SOURCE
03050103 1 FISHING CREEK I YORK I CW-029 11,14 11 I I S I I S I I S I NII I,IV,VV I ,E I
03050103 1 FISHING CREEK I CHESTER I CW-008 111,14 11 I I I I N I I I I N II I,IV I NE I I
03050103 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR I CHESTER I CW-16F 111,14 11 S I I I I I I I I II I I N I I
030501031 GILLS CREEK I LANCASTER ICW-047 141,43 N II I IN IS I I I I I N
030501031 GRASSY RUN BRANCH I CHESTER ICW-088 I41,43 II N I I I I I I IS IS II I I N I
03050103 1 ROCKY CREEK I CHESTER I CW-002 111,14 11 I I I III I,IV I N,E I I
030501031 STEEL CREEK I YORK ICW-O11 14 11 N I I S I IN II I
030501031 STEEL CREEK I YORK ICV-009 14 11 I S I I IN I IS IS I II I I I I
03050103 1 TWELVE MILE CREEK I LANCASTER I CW-083 14 11 S IS I I IN I IN I I II I I N I
03050103 1U.T. TO CATAWBA RIVER I YORK ICW-221 141,43 IIN I I I IN I I I I II I I n I FC
030501031 WILDCAT CREEK I YORK ICW-006 141,43 11 N IN I I I I I I I II I I N I
03050104 1 KELLY CREEK I KERSHAW ICW-154 1 75 11 I I I I I I I } II I I n I I AB'D IND. PIT
03050104 1 LAKE WATEREE I FAIRFIELD I CV-208 111,14 11 IS I I I m IS S I IS Il I,VI I N,E I
03050104 1 LITTLE WATEREE CREEK I FAIRFIELD I CW-040 14 II I I N I I S I I II I I M I
03050104 1 WATEREE RIVER IKERSHAW,SUNTERI 111,14,3211 I U I U I I IU I I II III I E I
03050105 1 BROAD RIVER I CHEROKEE B-044 111,13,1411 N I I S I I N I I N IS IN II I I M I
03050105 1 BROAD RIVER I CHEROKEE B-043 111,13,1411 N I I I I N I I I I I I,IV I N,E I
03050105 1 BROAD RIVER I CHEROKEE I B-042 111,13,1411 N I N I I N I N II I,III,VI ,E I
03050105 1 BRUSHY CREEK I GREENVILLE I BE-009 I 41,43 11 N I I I I I I I I II I I I
03050105 1 BULLOCKS CREEK I YORK I B-159 1 11,14 11 N I I I I S I S II I,IV I NE I I
03050105 1 CHEROKEE CREEK I CHEROKEE I B-056 111,14,3211 S I I I,IV I NE I
03050105 IHEADWATERS OF LAKE BOWEN I SPARTANBURG B-302 111,13,3211 I I I I I IN I I II I,IV I ,E I
03050105 1 LAKE WELCHEL I CHEROKEE 111,14,4311 I U I I I I I II III I E 1
03050105 1 LAWSONS FORK CREEK I SPARTANBURG 111,32,4311 U I I I U I I I I I II III,IV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050105 1 LIMESTONE MILL CREEK I CHEROKEE 8-128 I 41,43 11 I I I I I I I I I i I I M I
03050105 1 LITTLE BUCK CREEK I SPARTANBURG B-259 I 14 II S II I I M I I
03050105 1 MIDDLE TYGER RIVER I GREENVILLE I 8-148 I 11 II N I IN I I N I IN I I N II I I N I
03050105 1 NORTH PACOLET RIVER I SPARTANBURG I 8-026 111,13,3211 N I I S I I N I N I I II IIV I ,E I
03050105 1 PACOLET RIVER I SPARTANBURG I BP-001 111,13,3211 S I I I I N I I S I I II I,IV I ME I I
03050105 I PACOLET RIVER I SPARTANBURG I B-028 111,13,3211 1 I I I N I I 11 I,IV I NE I
03050105 1 POTTER BRANCH I SPARTANBURG I B-191 111,13,1411 N I I I I N I I I I II I I N I I

A. Pb L ~YI~LI-~LI ~b~.rPL ~4~At- - I -oomm i, I, AwmL- a&.-

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

{ } { } ~~NPS {} {{ DATA { MONITORED/ { STDS. {ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION IICATEGORYI} PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE IEVALUATED I VIO. ICOMMENTS

I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~~II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AM IIIII:

03050105 SPlVEY CREEK SPARTANBURG B-103 I 11,14 11 I I I I I I I I II I M I
03050105 THICKETTY CREEK CHEROKEE B-062 111,14,3211 II I,IV M,EI
03050105 THICKETTY CREEK CHEROKEE B-133 111,14,3211 { I I,IV M,EI
03050105 TYGER RIVER SPARTANBURG B-008 I11 II I N I1 I,VI M,E IALSO PT SOURCE
03050106 BROAD R DIVERSION CANAL RICHLAND B-OHO I 41,43 I1 1 N N II I,III M,E
03050106 BROAD RIVER NEWBERRY B-047 111,14,1811 N N I I I M I
03050106 BROAD RIVER FAIRFIELD B-236 I 11,14 11 I INIS N N II I MI
03050106 BROAD RIVER UNION B-046 I 11,14 11N N N II I MI
03050106 CRANE CREEK RICHLAND B-316 I 41,43 11S {{ I I I I I M I
03050106 DRY FORK CREEK CHESTER B-074 I 41,43 11N N II I M l :
03050106 DRY FORK CREEK CHESTER B-073 I 41,43 IN 1 N II IN M I i
03050106 JACKSON CREEK FAIRFIELD 1 14,32,431 U II 11I I EI
03050106 LITTLE RIVER FAIRFIELD B-145 I 14,58 11 I I I IN I i I,IV M,E%
03050106 M ENG CREEK UNION B -06q i 41,43 ilNi I I I I I I I M I
03050106 ROSS BRANCH YORK B -086 I 41,43 1 N I II I N I INI I I
03050106 SANDY RIVER CHESTER B-075 111,14,581 N I I N I,IV M,E
03050106 SMITH BRANCH RICHLAND B-280 I 41,43 1I NI I NIN IN II I,V M 1,E FC I'
'03050106 WINNSBORO BRANCH FAIRFIELD B-123 I 41,43 11N N II I M FC I
03050107 ENOREE RIVER SPARtANBURG BE-018 111,13,1411 N II I M. IALSO PT SOURCE
03050107 ENOREE RIVER NEWBERRY B-054 111,13,14}1N I N N II I M '
03050107 FAIRFOREST CREEK SPARTANBURG B-020 114,32,4311 1 N II I,I V M ,E FC I
03050107 KELSEY CREEK SPARtANBURG B-235 I 41,43 11NI I I I I III II I MI
03050107 MITCHELL CREEK UNION B -199 I14 I1NI N II I M
03050107 SOUTH TYGER RIVER SPARTANBURG B-263 111,14,4311 N I{iI INI I I I I I,IV M,E IALSO PT SOURCE
O305010? SOUTH TYGER RIVER GREENVILLE B-317{ 14 1 I N N II I,IV M,E
03050107 TYGER RIVER SPARTANBURG B-162 111,14,3211 IN{i I 1,III,IV M,E
03050107 IU.T. TO FAIRFOREST CREEK SPARTANBURG B-242 141,43 1 N i NI I II I M f
03050108 BEARDS CREEK LAURENS B-231 1 1,14 11 IS { I I M
03050108 BRUSHY CREEK GREENVIILLE B E-035 41,43 11N I S {I ! M I
03050108 DUEBIN CREEK GREENVILLE B-og7 1 1,14 IIN N II I,IV M,E
03050108 ENOREE RIVER SPARTANBURG B-037 11,14 N1 { I IAI 1i ,1II,IV M ,E IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 ENOREE RIVER SPARTANBURG BE-024 1 1,14 11N N II I,IV M,E I ALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 ENOREE RIVER SPARTAHBURG B-041 111,14 11 I I N I N II I,V M ,E iALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 ENORRE RIVER GREENVILLE IBE-015 111,14,581 1 N I I I , IV M,E IALSO PT SOURCE
03050108 GILDER CREEK GREENVILLE BE-040 111,14,43l1 N S II I,IV N,E
03050108 HORSE PEN CREEK GREENVILLE BE-020 J11,13,14%1 N N I I B i ALSO PI SOURCE
03050108 MILL CREEK SPARTANBURG B-038 I 11,14 IN IN I N i NII I M
03~u0B 10 ROCKY CREEK GREENVILLE BE-007 I 41,43 11N I II I M
03050109 BROADMOUTH CREEK ANDERSON S-289 111,41,431 S I I I,IV M,E
03050109 BRUSHY CREEK ANDERSON S-067 I 11,14 N1RI I I II I M
03050109 BRUSHY CREEK ANDERSON S-084 I 11,14 1 N N I I I M
03050109 BUSH RIVER NEWBERRY S-042 {11,14,181 N N N II I,III,IV M,E { ALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 BUSH RIVER NEWBERRY S-102 111,14,181 N N II I,IV M,E IALSO PT SOURCE

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
~~I I[ I NPS II II DATA I MONITOREDI I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION #ICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BOIA I AN II
03050109 1 CAMPING CREEK I NEWBERRY I S-290 111,14,1811 N I I N I IN I I N I I N IM I I N
03050109 1 CLOUDS CREEK I SALUDA 1 111,13,1811 I I i U I I I U I I II III I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 1 CORONACA CREEK I GREENWOOD 1 114,41,4311 U I I I U I I I U I I II III I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050109 1 EASTSIDE CREEK I GREENVILLE I 132.41,4311 I I I U I I I U I I II III I E I
030501091 GEORGE'S CREEK I PICKENS I S-063 114,32 uN I I I IN I IN I I II I,IV I NE I
03050109 1 HARRIS BRANCH I SALUDA I 8-293 111,14,1811 N IN I I I I I I I II I I N I I
03050109 1 KINLEY CREEK I LEXINGTON 114,32,4311 I I I U I I I I I II III I E I
030501091 LAKE GREENWOOD I GREENWOOD 5 -131 I 11 II I N I IN IN IN I IN II IIII,IVVI I N.E I
03050109 ILAKE MURRAY HEAD WATERS I NEWBERRY I S-223 111,14,181 S IN IS I IS IS I IS IS II I,III,IV,VI I E I ,E
03050109 I LITTLE RIVER I LAURENS S -034 111,14,4311 I N I IN I S I I N II IIV,V I ME I
03050109 1 LITTLE RIVER I NEWBERRY S-099 I 11,14 11 I I I I I I I I Ii I,IV I NE I
03050109 I LITTLE SALUDA RIVER I SALUDA 1 111,14,1811 I I U I I I U I I II 1II,IV I E I
03050109 I LORICK BRANCH I LEXINGTON I S-151 I 41,43 11 N I N I I I N I I N I I II I I ME I
03050109 INIDDLE BRANCH HEADWATERS I PICKENS 132,43,9011 I I I U I I I U I I II I E
030501091 MINE CREEK I SALUDA I 111,14,2111 I U I I I I III,IV I E I I
03050109 1 NORTH CREEK I LAURENS S -135 1 11,14 IIS IN I I N I S I IN I 1,IV I NE I I
03050109 1 RABON CREEK I LAURENS S-096 111,14,3211 I I I IS I IN I I II I,IV I ME I I
03050109 1 RAWLS CREEK I LEXINGTON I S-287 I 41,43 11 N I I I IN II I,11 I NE I I
03050109 1 REEDY RIVER I GREENVILLE S-013 111,41,4311 N I I I I N I I N I I N II I,II,IV,VI I M.El
03050109 1 ROCK CREEK I GREENVILLE I 5-091 111,14,4311 N I I I I I II I 1,111 I ME I
030501091 ROCKY RIVER I ANDERSON ISV-031 1 41,43 11 S I IN I I I IS I N I I I N I
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I GREENWOOD I S-186 111,14 11 I IS I IN I IS I I N I I,IVVI I NE I
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I GREENVILLE I S-007 111,14,4311 I IS I I I I N I IN II I,IIIII,IV I NE I
030501091 SALUDA RIVER I LAURENS I S-125 1 11,14 11 I IN I IN I IN I IN ,III,IV,V I N.E I
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I PICKENS 1 S-250 114,32,4311 1 1 I l 1 N I I N I I,IV I ,E I
03050109 1 SALUDA RIVER I LEXINGTON I S-149 114,41,4311 I- I I I N I I I I II ,III I N.E I IALSO PT SOURCE
030501091 SCOTT CREEK I NEWBERRY I S-044 1 41,43 11 N I I I IN I IN I I II I I M I FC
03050109 1 U.T. TO ENOREE RIVER I GREENVILLE I BE-001 I 41,43 11 N I IN I I I I I I N II I I M I
03050109 1 WEST CREEK I SALUDA I S-051 111,14,1811 5 I I I I I I I II I I I
03050110 1 BROAD-SALUDA-CONGAREE I RICHLAND ICSB-O1L,RI 41,43 11 N I I S I I N I I S I I N II 1,111 I E I ,E
03050110 1 CEDAR CREEK I RICHLAND I C-069 I 14 11 S I I I I I I I I II I I N I
03050110 1 FOREST LAKE I RICHLAND I C-068 I 41,43 Ii I I I I I I S I I N II I I M I I
03050110 1 GILLS CREEK I RICHLAND I C-001 I 41,43 11 N I I I I N I I I I N 11 I,III,VI I ME I
030501101 H ILL CREEK I RICHLAND I C-021 I 90 11 I I I I IN I I I I I 1 I M I pH
03050110 1 RED BANK CREEK I LEXINGTON I C-067 111,13,5811 I I I I N IS I I II I,III,IV I ,E I
030501101 SAVANNAH BRANCH I LEXINGTON I C-061 141,43 11 I I I IN IN I I I II I I N I
03050111 1 HALFWAY SWAMP I CALHOUN I C-058 1 11,43 11 S I I I N I S I S I N I II I I M I I
03050111 I LAKE MARION I CLARENDON I ST-024 111,12,1311 I S I I I S I I I II I,II,III,IV I NE I I POT. TOXICS
03050111 1 TAW CAW CREEK I CLARENDON I ST-018 I 41,43 ii N IS I I I N I I IS I II I I N I FC,DO
03050112 1 SANTEE RIVER I BERKELEY I ST-001 I 11 II I I N I I S I I S I I N I ,VI I NE I
03050112 1 SOUTH SANTEE RIVER I GEORGETOWN I MD-639B I 11 II N I I I I I I I I II I I M I
03050201 1 COOPER RIVER I BERKELEY I 11,90 11 I I I U I I I I I II III I E I
03050201 I COOTER CREEK I CHARLESTON I MD-199 I 90 11 IN IS I I IN I I IN II I M I

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT

[ I [ [ NPS If If DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION #1CATEGORY11 PARAMETERS OF CONCERN [[ SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS

{ FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AN I{

03050201 1 EAGLE CREEK DORCHESTER ICSTL-099 { 41,43 11 N I I I I I I I I 111 M I 1
03050201 1 FOSTER CREEK CHARLESTON 143,63,6511 U IU IU I I I I I I EI E I 1
03050201 1 GOOSE CREEK BERKELEY I MD-114 1 41,43 11 S IN IS I IN I I I I N If I,VI I M ,E I DO
03050201 1 LAKE MOULTRIE BERKELEY 90 11 I U I I I I I II III E
03050201 1 NEWMARKET CREEK CHARLESTON 1 41,43 11 I I I I I I I I 11 III I E I I DRAINS JUNKYD
03050201 1 POPPERDAM CREEK CHARLESTON 1 132,41,4311 1 {i1 1 1 1 1 1 11 III I E
03050201 1 SHEM CREEK CHARLESTON I MD-071 1 41,43 11 S IS I I I I S I I I S :I I I
03050201 1 WANDO RIVER CHARLESTON 1 32,41,4311U IU IU I I I I I I I 1 I E
03050202 1 ABBAPOOLA CREEK CHARLESTON 111,13,6511 1 { { 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 III I E
03050202 1 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON I MD-052 1 41,43 If IS I S I S 11 I I M I ALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON I MD-049 1 41,43 11 S IS IS I I 8 I I S I I M 11 I I { IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 ASHLEY RIVER CHARLESTON I MD-034 1 41,43 11 IS I I I I S I I I N 11 1,11 I ME I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 ATL SURF-FOLLY BEACH CHARLESTON 65 il U I I I I I I I II I E I
03050202 1 BRICKYARD CREEK CHARLESTON 1 41,43 11 I I I I I I I I If III I E I I DRAINS IND PK
03050202 I CHANDLER CREEK DORCHESTER I 41,43,71il I I I I I I I I{ III IE
03050202 I CHARLESTON HARBOR CHARLESTON IMD-165 141,43 11 IS I I I IS I I IS 11I,II,III,VI I ME I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 CLARK SOUND CHARLESTON 80 11 II III E I :SPOIL RUNOFF
03050202 1 CONCH CREEK CHARLESTON 32,41,431 1 U II E I
03050202 1 COPAHEE SOUND CHARLESTON 132,41,4311 U II II E I I
03050202 1 ELLIOT CUT CHARLESTON I MD-025 1 41,43 11 I S I I MIS I I A I I 11 I I M_ IILSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 FOLLY RIVER CHARLESTON 113,43,6511 U IU IU I I I I I I EI E I 1
03050202 1 HAMLIN CREEK CHARLESTON 132,41,4311 U I I I I I I I I EI s I 1
03050202 1 HAMLIN SOUND CHARLESTON 1 32,41,4311 U I I I I I I I I 11 1 IE I 1
03050202 1 INLET CREEK CHARLESTON 1 32,41,4311 U I I I I I I I IEI E I 1
03050202 1 JAMES ISLAND CREEK CHARLESTON I MD-122 { 41,43 11 IS I I I I I I I I I MI 1
03050202 1 JEREMY CREEK CHARLESTON 141,43,6511 U IU I I I I I I I EI E I 1
03050202 1 KIAWAH RIVER CHARLESTON 111,13,4311 U IU IU I I I I I I 11 II,IV I E
03050202 1 SAWMILL BRANCH DORCHESTER 1 32,43,7111 1 { { 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 III I E
03050202 1 STONO RIVER CHARLESTON I MD-026 113,32,4311 1{ IS I I I I S I I S 1 I,II,III,IV I M,E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050202 1 SWINTON CREEK CHARLESTON 1 32,41,4311 U I I I I I I I I 11 11 I E
03050202 1 WAPPOO CUT CHARLESTON 1 41,43 11 I I I I I I I I {{ III I E
03050202 1 WASSAMASSAW SWAMP BERKELEY ICSTL-063 1 90 If I{ IN I I I I I6 I I,V ME DO
03050203 1 BULL SWAMP CREEK LEXINGTON E-034 1 11,32 11 N IN I I II I N I I I 11 11V I M,E IDO,pH
03050203 1 LIGHTWOOD KNOT CREEK LEXINGTON E-101 11 {{ S I S I I I I I I I IM I 1
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER ORANGEBURG E-007 111,41,4311 N I I I IN I I I I u 11 I,II,IV I M,E
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER AIKEN E-091 1 11,13 If N I I S I INI I I I N 1 I,IV,VI I M,E I FC
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER ORANGEBURG E-092 1 11,12 11 I S I I S I N I I I I,IV M,E
03050203 1 N FORK EDISTO RIVER ORANGEBURG E-099 1 11,12 11 I IS I IN I N I I I N 1 IIV I HE pH
03050204 1 FIRST BRANCH EDGEFIELD E-001 1 41,43 11 I I M IFCpH LIMITED DATA
03050204 1 GOODLAND CREEK ORANGEBURG E-036 11 II I N I S II IIV I M,E
03050204 1 S FORK EDISTO RIVER AIKEN E-00 111,13,5811 1 1 1 1 S I S I I N 11 I,IV I M,E
03050205 1 BOHICKET CREEK CHARLESTON I MD-195 113,32,4311 S I S I S I IS I I I I N 11 1,IV I M,E IFC,DO
03050205 1 CHURCH CREEK CHARLESTON 1 11,13,6511 U I I I I I I I1 11 I E

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSNENT
I I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION 1IICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
~~~I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pHI TB I BO I AN I
030502051 DAWHOO RIVER I CHARLESTON IMD-120 I 13 11 I S IS I S I IS I IN I I N I
03050205 1 EDISTO RIVER I DORCHESTER I E-014 1 11,13 11 I I I I N I I I I II I,III,VI M,E I
03050205 1 EDISTO RIVER I ORANGEBURG I E-013 111,13,1811 N I S I I I I I N I
03050205 1 EDISTO RIVER I DORCHESTER I E-01S 1 11,13 II I I I IN I I I I II I I n I
03050205 1 FICKLING CREEK I CHARLESTON I I 13 11 I U IU I I I I I I II II I E I
030502051 FISHING CREEK I CHARLESTON I I 65 11 U IU I I I I I I I II II E
03050205 1 LEADENWAH CREEK I CHARLESTON I I 13 11 I U IU I I I I I I II II E I
03050205 1 POLK SWAMP I DORCHESTER E-016 111,13,4311N I N I I IN I I NI M I ALSO PT. SOURCE
03050206 1 FOUR HOLE SWANP I ORANGEBURG I E-059 111,18,3211 I S I N I N II I,III,IV I IE I
03050206 1 GRANLING CREEK I ORANGEBURG I E-022 111,13,1811 5 I N I I I I I I I II I I F I F
03050206 1 PROVIDENCE SWAMP I ORANGEBURG I E-051 111,13,1811 N I N IN I IN I S I IN II I I N I DO I
03050207 1 LITTLE SALKEHATCHIE R I COLLETON I 11,21 11 I I I U I I I I I II III.IV I E I I
03050207 1 PAWLEY'S CREEK I GEORGETOWN 1 141,43,6511 I I I I I I I I II III I E I
03050207 1 SALKEHATCHIE RIVER I COLLETON ICSTL-006 1 11,13 I I I I IN I I I IN II I,IV NE I
03050207 1 SALKEHATCHIE RIVER I BARNWELL ICSTL-028 111,13,5811 I I I N I I I IN II I,IV I ME I
03050208 1 ASHEPOO RIVER I COLLETON 1 111,14,4311 1 IU IU I I I I I II III I E I :
03050208 1 BATTERY CREEK I BEAUFORT 141,43,6311 I I I I I I I I II III I E I I DUMP RUNOFF
03050208 1 BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-002 111,13,4311 N S I I I I II Ily I E I I
03050208 1 BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-001 111,41,4311 I N I I I I I I I II IIV NE I
03050208 1 BEAUFORT RIVER I BEAUFORT I NMD-004 111,13,4311 I N I I I I I I I II I I HE I IALSO PT SOURCE
03050208 1 BROAD CREEK I BEAUFORT I 41,43 11 U I I I I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 1 BROAD RIVER I BEAUFORT 111,13,9011 I I I U I I I I II IVVII I E I
03050208 i CALIBOGUE SOUND & TRIBS I BEAUFORT I 113,21,4311 U I U IU I U I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 1 COLLETON RIVER I BEAUFORT I 11,13 11 U I I I I I I I 1 IIIV I E I I
03050208 I COOSAWHATCHIE RIVER I JASPER ICSTL-107 111,58 11 I I S I IS I S I I I N II I,IV I E I
03050208 I COOSAWHATCHIE RIVER I HAMPTON ICSTL-109 I 11 II S I S I N I IN I S I I IS II IIV I NE I
03050208 1 IRELAND CREEK I COLLETON ICSTL-044 I 11 II S I S I I IN I N I I I II 111 I NE I DO,pH
03050208 1 JENKINS CREEK I BEAUFORT I 61 11 I I I I I I I II III I E I IAT HENRYS FARM
03050208 1 LK WARREN ON BLACK CK I HAMPTON I 11,13 II I I I U I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 1 LUCY POINT CREEK I BEAUFORT I 13 11 U I I I I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 1 NEW RIVER I BEAUFORT I ND-118 111,13,4311 S I I I I S I I I N II I,IV,V I NE I
03050208 1 OKATIE RIVER I BEAUFORT I 11,13 II U I I I I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 IOLD HOUSE CK-FRIPP INLET I BEAUFORT I 65,90 11 U I I I I I I I I II III I E I ISHELLFISH PROHB
03050208 I POCOTALIGO RIVER I BEAUFORT I MD-007 111,13,5811 I S IS I IN I N I I I,IV,V I M,E I
03050208 IPORT ROYAL SOUND & TRIBS I BEAUFORT 113,21,4311 U I U IU I U I I I I I II III I E I
03050208 I ST HELENA SOUND I BEAUFORT 1 111,13,9011 I I I U I I I I II IV,VII I E I
03050208 1 TRENCHARDS INLET I BEAUFORT I 1 13 11 I I I I I I I I II III I E I
030502081 WRIGHT RIVER I JASPER I I 80 11 I I U I I I I I I II III I E I I SPOIL RUNOFF
03060101 1 BROADWAY CREEK I ANDERSON I SV-136 111,14,1811 I I I S I I N I I II I I N I
03060101 I CONEROSS CREEK I OCONEE 11,14,3211 1 1 I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I
03060101 1 LAKE HARTWELL I OCONEE 1 111,32,4311 { I 1 U I I I I I II III,IV I E I IALSO PT SOURCE
03060101 1 LAKE KEOWEE I OCONEE I SV-312 I 14 11 I I I I I I I I N II IIV I M I
03060101 I LAKE KEOWEE I OCONEE I SV-311 1 14,32 11 I I I I I I I I N II IIIIIV I ME I

NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
I I I I NPS II II DATA I MONITORED/ I STDS. I ADDITIONAL
WATERSHED I WATERBODY I COUNTY ISTATION tICATEGORYII PARAMETERS OF CONCERN II SOURCE I EVALUATED I VIO. I COMMENTS
I I I I II FC I DO I TX I SS I NT I pH I TB I BO I AM II I :
03060101 I LITTLE RIVER I OCONEE I SV-203 111,21,3211 1 U I I U IN I I I I i I,III,IV I M,E I I
03060101 I SIX AND TWENTY CREEK I ANDERSON I SV-181 111,18,3211 N I I I I N I I S I I II I,IV I M,E I
03060101 I THOMPSON RIVER I OCONEE I 111,32,4311 1 1 1 U I I I U I I II III I E I I
03060101 1 TWELVE MILE CREEK I PICKENS I SV-282 I 11,14 II N I I I IN I I S I I II 1,IV I M I I
03060101 I TWELVE MILE CREEK I PICKENS I SV-015 1 11,14 I I I I I N I I S I I 11 I,III,IV I M,E I I
03060101 1 WHITEWATER RIVER I OCONEE I1 14,43 11 I I I U II I 1 IV I E
03060102 1 BATTLE CREEK I OCONEE I1 21,32 11 I I U I U I I 11 III I E I I
03060102 1 BEAVERDAM CREEK I OCONEE I 111,14 11 I I I U I U I I I I I III I E I
03060102 1 BRASSTOWN CREEK I OCONEE I 121,32 11 I I I U I I I U I I 11 III I E I I
03060102 I CHATTOOGA RIVER I OCONEE I 111,13,2111 i I I U I I I U I I 11 III,IV I E I I
03060102 1 CHAUGA RIVER I OCONEE I 121,32 11 I IU I I I U I I II III I E I I
03060102 I LAKE RUSSELL I ABBEVILLE I 111,14,3211 1 I I U I I I I I II III,IV I E I I
03060102 1 OPOSSUM CREEK I OCONEE I 121,32 11 I I I U I I U I I II III I E I I
03060102 I SAWNEY CREEK I ABBEVILLE I SV-052 1 14 If I S I I I I I I I ii I I M I I
03060103 1 CLARKS HILL RES I McCORMICK I 1 14 1 I I U I I IU I I II III I E I I
03060103 I LAKE SECCESSION I ABBEVILLE I SV-121 111,14,3211 1 S I S I S I II I I,III,IV I M,E I
o 03060103 I LAKE SECCESSION I ABBEVILLE I SV-122 1 11,14 11 I I I I I S I I I S 11 I,IV I M,E I I
03060103 I LEGION LAKE I ABBEVILLE I 111,43 11 I I U I I I I I 11 III I E I
03060103 I LITTLE RIVER I McCORMICK I I 14 11 I I I U I I I U I I 11 III I E I
03060103 I LONG CANE CREEK I McCORMICK I SV-318 111,14,3111 1 I S I IN I I S I I N II M, I ,E
03060103 I LOWER THREE RUNS CREEK I ALLENDALE I SV-175 111,13,1411 1 I I I N I I I I S II I I M I I
03060103 1 SUDLOW LAKE I AIKEN I 132,58 11 1 1 IU I I IU I I II 1 I,IV I E I I
03060106 I BRIDGE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-070 111,14,5811 1 I S I I S I S I I I N 1 I,IV I M,E I I
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK I AIKEN ISV-072 1 41,43 11 I I I IN IS I II I I M I
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK I AIKEN ISV-071 1 41,43 11 I S I IS I S I I IN 11 I I M I I
03060106 I HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-250 141,43,5811 1 I S I I S I S I I I N 1I I,1V I M,E I I
03060106 1 HORSE CREEK POND I AIKEN ISV-096 1 41,43 il I I I IN I I I IS II I I M I I
03060106 1 LITTLE HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-317 1 11,58 11 I I I IN I S I I I 11 I,IV I M,E I
03060106 I LITTLE HORSE CREEK I AIKEN I SV-073 I 11 11 I I I IN I S I S I 1,11 I M,E I I
03060106 1 SAND RIVER I AIKEN ISV-069 1 41,43 11 S I I I S I S I I I N II I M I I
03060106 I STEVENS CREEK I McCORMICK I I 14,58 11 I i I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I I
03060106 1 TURKEY CREEK McCORMICK I 114 11 I I U I IUI I II III I E I
03060107 I CUFFEYTOWN CREEK I McCORMICK I 1 14,58 11 I I I U I I I U I I II III,IV I E I I
03060107 I HARD LABOR CREEK I McCORMICK I 1 13,14 11 I I I U I I I U I I 11 III I E I I
03060107 I SAVANNAH RIVER I JASPER I 141,43,8011 1 1 U I I I I I I II III I E I SPOIL RUNOFF

LEGEND FOR TABLE

Column I - Watershed

The standard federal eight digit hydrologic unit was selected as the
watershed designation for the assessment.

Column 2 - Waterbody

The name of the body of water, i.e., stream, river, lake, wetland,
etc. that evidences real or potential adverse impacts due to NPS
contributions.

Column 3 - County

The South Carolina county or counties in which the problem waterbody
lies. Along with the watershed identifier, it defines the location
of the waterbody.

Column 4 - Station #

The DHEC surface water quality sampling station identification
number.

Column 5 - NPS Category

NPS Category represents the source of pollution affecting the
problem waterbody. Category number designations are taken directly
from EPA guidance:

11 - Agriculture: Non-irrigated crop production
12 - Agriculture: Irrigated crop production
13 - Agriculture: Specialty crop production
14 - Agriculture: Pastureland
18 - Agriculture: Animal holding/management
21 - Silviculture: Harvesting, reforestration, residue
management
31 - Construction: Highway/road/bridge
32 - Construction: Land development
41 - Urban Runoff: Storm sewers
43 - Urban Runoff: Surface runoff
58- Resource Extraction: Abandoned gravel, sand, and clay mines
65 - Land Disposal: Individual sewage treatment and disposal
systems
71 - Hydrologic/Habitatal Modification: Channelization
80 - Other
90 - Source Unknown

-221-

Column 6 - P~rameters of Concern

The specific water quality Indicators of NPS pollution. The
waterbodies listed have exhibited exceedences of specific guidelines
or standards of one or more of the parameters shown:

FC - Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
TX - Toxic materials such ag'heavy metals or pesticides
SS - Suspended Solids
NT - Nutrients (phosphorus and/or nitrogen)
pH
TB - Turbidity
BO - Biological Oxygen Demand (BODs)
AM - Ammonia

An S in a parameter column indicates scattered exceedences
of a particular parameter, N indicates numerous exceedences,
and U indicates undetermined.

Column 7 - Data Source

Several sources were utilized to identify NPS problem waterbodies
for purposes of the assessment:

I - DHEC's surface water quality sampling network of 543 stations.
This data was retrieved form the STORET network.

!I - Problem locations supplied by DHEC District Engineers.

III - Problem locations supplied by the interested public including
environmental groups and water based recreation groups, etc.,
such as USDA Soil Conservation Service Conservation, Soil
Conservation Districts, S. C. Coastal Council, S. C. Wildlife and
Marine Resources Department.

IV - Computer modelling results by S.C. Land Resources Conservation
Commission indicate high potential for NPS problems in the
agriculture, urban runoff, or surface mining categories.

V - S.C. Water Oualitv Assessment 1984-1985 [305(b) Report].

VI - Data contained in America's Clean Water. the State's Nonpoint
Source Assessment 1985 ADoendix produced by ASIWPCA.

VII - Data contained in the National Estuarine Inventory - National
Coastal Pollution Discharcie Inventory by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.

Column 8 - Monitored/Evaluated

This denotes whether a problem waterbody was selected based on
monitored or evaluated data.

-222-

Column 9 Standards Violations

The State of South Carolina has set water quality standards for
three of the parameters listed in the assessment; dissolved oxygen,
fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. This column denotes at which
waterbody one or more of these parameters had standards violations.
For purposes of this Assessment, measurements of the three parameters
were summed for the last two-year period of record. If 50 percent or
more of the measurements exceeded the criteria of the parameter for
the classification of the waterbody it was considered to be in
violation of State Water Quality Standards.

Column 10 - Additional Comments

Self-explanatory.

-223-

APPENDIX 3

PUBLIC NOTICE

State of South Carolina
Departmient of Health and Environmental Control
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803)734-5300

PUBLIC NOTICE NO.: 2 DATE: October 10, 1988

NOTICE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON
STATEWIDE NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

In compliance with Section 319(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1987, the
Department of Health and Environmental Control has prepared a Statewide
Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Program. This document addresses the overall
NPS management strategy, a waterbody priority ranking system, Best Management
Practices (BMPs), NPS programs (regulatory and non-regulatory), and funding
sources. NPS differs from point source pollution in that it does not emanate
from a discrete source such as an effluent discharge pipe. Examples of NPS
include runoff from a plowed field, construction site or parking lot, and
leachate from landfills or failing septic tanks.

The NPS Management Program is to be implemented over the next four years.
A waterbody priority ranking system is discussed, Best Management Practices to
control or abate NPS pollution are defined, and NPS programs, both regulatory
and non-regulatory, which will be used to implement the overall program are
identified. Funding sources for implementation of the program are also
identified.

This "draft" document is tentative and open to comment from the public.
Persons wishing to comment are invited to submit same in writing within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Notice to South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201, ATTN: NPS
Coordinator, Division of Water Quality and Shellfish Sanitation. All comments
received by November 9, 1988, will be considered in the formulation of the
"final" report. +_

Copies are available for public review at the 12 Department of Health and
Environmental Control Environmental Quality Control District Offices during
normal office hours. The locations of these offices are:

Appalachia I EQC Office Appalachia II EQC Office
220 McGee Road 605 North Main Street
Anderson, SC 29621 Greenville, SC 29601

Appalachia III EQC Office Catawba EQC Office
151 East Wood Street 1001 West Grace Street
Spartanburg, SC 29304 Lancaster, SC 29720

Central Midlands EQC Office Low Country EQC Office
Pearl Lightsey Building 149 Ribaut Square
State Park, SC 29147 Beaufort, SC 29902

-224-

Page Two
P/N-2
October 10, 1988

Lower Savannah EQC Office Pee Dee EQC Office
117 Marion Street, N.E. 3204 Industry Boulevard
Aiken, SC 29801 Florence, SC 29501

Trident EQC Office Upper Savannah EQC Office
1000 Air Park Road P-129 One Park Avenue
Charleston Hgths, SC 29418 Greenwood, SC 29646

Waccamaw EQC Office Wateree EQC Office
1705 Oak Street Pliza 105 North Magnolia Street
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Sumter, SC 29151

Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons who you know will
be interested in this matter.

-225-

APPENDIX 4 C Le At1L

United States Environmental Protection Agency DEC g Q8
Region IV
345 Courtland Street .
Atlanta, Georgia S C4i ...f..
Attention: Ms. Beverly Ethridge Wastewa-er Division
(404) 347-2126

NOTICE OF RECEIPT BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OF, AND
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA'S PROPOSED
NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Public Notice No: 88-NPS-01-SC
Public Notice Issuance Date: December 22, 1988
Public Comment Expiration Date: January 22, 1989

Pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is hereby notifying the public of its receipt of,
and requesting comments on, a proposed Nonpoint Source (NPS) Assessment
Report and NPS Management Program for the State of 5$,s-a. CarAona.

1. Background

NPS Assessment Reports identify navigable waters within the State
which, without further action to control NPS pollution, will not attain
or maintain water quality standards. State NPS Management Programs set
forth the States' four-year plans for addressing nonpoint sources of
pollution. These sources include discharges other than those through
confined and discrete conveyances (such as pipes or ditches), and all
agricultural stormwater discharges and irrigation return flows. Major
nonpoint sources may include, for example, agricultural runoff containing
pesticides and fertilizers, runoff from urban areas, and construction
projects.
..
State NPS Assessment Reports must include the following: (a) waters
within the State impacted by nonpoint sources; (b) the categories or types
of nonpoint sources which contribute pollutants to these State waters; (c)
the process used for identifying best management practices (BMPs) to
control NPS pollution; and (d) the State and local programs for
controlling nonpoint sources.

State NiPS Management Programs must include the following: (a) an
identification of the BMPs and measures which viii be undertaken to reduce
pollutant loadings; (b) an identification of the programs to achieve
implementation of the BMPs; (c) a schedule containing annual milestones
for program implementation; (d) a certification of the State attorney
general that the laws of the State provide adequate authority to implement.
the program; (e) sources of federal and other assistance and funding to
support implementation; and (f) an identification of federal financial
assistance programs and federal development projects the State will review
for consistency with its Management Program.

-226-

EPA will, within 180 days of its receipt of a proposed NPS Assessment
Report or Management Program, either approve or disapprove a NPS
Assessment Report or Management Prbgram or a portion of a NPS Management
Program. EPA will determine whether the criteria for program approval in
Section 319(d)(2), (A)-(D) have been met. In the event that the proposed
Program or portion of a Program is disapproved, the State must submit a
revised Program to EPA within three months, and EPA must either approve or
disapprove the Program or portion of a-Program within a subsequent three
month period. If EPA disapproves a-proposed Assessment Report, it will
allow the State an opportunity to revise the Report in accordance with EPA
comments. If an approvable revised Report is not submitted to EPA in a
timely fashion, EPA will, after public notice and opportunity for comment,
prepare an Assessment Report for that State.

2. Public Comments

Persons wishing to comment on the State of South Carolina proposed
NPS Assessment Report and NPS Management Program may do so in writing,
within 30 days of the date of this public notice. Comments must be
received within the 30 day period to be ensured consideration in the PEA
approval or disapproval decision. All comments should include the name,
address and telephone number of the commenter and a statement of the
relevant facts upon which it is based.

All written comments should be submitted to EPA at the above address
to the attention of Ms. Beverly Ethridge, Nonpoint Source Coordinator.

The State of South Carolina's proposed NPS Assessment Report and NPS
Management Program may be reviewed at the above address between 8:30 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies may be reviewed at the
address shown below or copies may be requested by writing:

South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
Environmental Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

by calling (803) 734-5228.

-227-